Chimps and Humans less than 70% of 1.5% DNA match or 98% match?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It isn't a false claim. It's just the way it is. But to answer the question: they were pretty close because they were doing statistical studies on what they _had_ sequenced. If you choose a good sample, you don't need to sequence very much to get pretty close with high confidence.

Maybe with marbles but not with computer code -- and not with DNA -- as it turns out.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I was quoting myself - statistics works for marbles... but not software. There are a great many base classes in software - all subclassing inherits from the base - if one merely samples the base class code and finds identical code - they have no basis at all to then make the wild claim that all subclasses will also be identical. I am simply stating the obvious.

Our current level of unraveling DNA would not know a base class from an interface.

For evolutionism "the less knowledge the more certainty that evolutionism must be true" -
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was quoting myself - statistics works for marbles... but not software. There are a great many base classes in software - all subclassing inherits from the base - if one merely samples the base class code and finds identical code - they have no basis at all to then make the wild claim that all subclasses will also be identical. I am simply stating the obvious.

Our current level of unraveling DNA would not know a base class from an interface.

For evolutionism "the less knowledge the more certainty that evolutionism must be true" -

Computer code has nothing to do with DNA. There are no base classes or interfaces. Also, what you say about software is only true in a few languages.

Our current level of unraveling DNA is pretty amazing. They teach courses on computation biology and bioinformatics.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was quoting myself - statistics works for marbles... but not software. There are a great many base classes in software - all subclassing inherits from the base - if one merely samples the base class code and finds identical code - they have no basis at all to then make the wild claim that all subclasses will also be identical. I am simply stating the obvious.

Our current level of unraveling DNA would not know a base class from an interface.
I know coding and I know DNA, but I don't know what this post means.

For evolutionism "the less knowledge the more certainty that evolutionism must be true" -
That is objectively false. The more knowledgeable one is about genetics, the more likely to accept evolution.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I was quoting myself - statistics works for marbles... but not software. There are a great many base classes in software - all subclassing inherits from the base - if one merely samples the base class code and finds identical code - they have no basis at all to then make the wild claim that all subclasses will also be identical. I am simply stating the obvious.

Our current level of unraveling DNA would not know a base class from an interface.

For evolutionism "the less knowledge the more certainty that evolutionism must be true" -

I know coding and I know DNA, but I don't know what this post means.

So then it leads me to question what it is that you mean by your first to assertions.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So then it leads me to question what it is that you mean by your first to assertions.
I meant that I both write software and work with DNA for a living. If what you wrote about DNA and software doesn't convey anything to me -- and it doesn't -- then you should probably try rephrasing your argument.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I meant that I both write software and work with DNA for a living. If what you wrote about DNA and software doesn't convey anything to me -- and it doesn't -- then you should probably try rephrasing your argument.

Do you "work with the human genome" project?

If you use OOD and OOP you can't possibly be missing the subclass point that matching on baseclass code says almost nothing about predicting that subclass A will be identical or almost so - to subclass-B no matter how deep the cyclomatic complexity or nesting away from the primary base class.

When doing similarities - how much is being "ignored"??

When vast sections are not even compared: Noncoding DNA -
over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,while only about 20% or less of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding DNA -

The great difference when a tiny slice is almost the same 99.7% the same. from the OP link.
the FOXP2 protein, which has been shown to be involved in language, has only 2 out of about 700 amino acids which are different between chimpanzees and humans.15 This means they are 99.7 percent identical. While this might seem like a trivial difference, consider exactly what those differences are. In the FOXP2 protein, humans have the amino acid asparagine instead of threonine at position 303 and then a serine that is in place of an asparagine at 325. Although apparently a minor alteration, the second change can make a significant difference in the way the protein functions and is regulated.16 Thus, a very high degree of sequence similarity can be irrelevant if the amino acid that is different plays a crucial role. Indeed, many genetic defects are the result of a single change in an amino acid.

For example, sickle cell anemia results from a valine replacing glutamic acid in the hemoglobin protein. It does not matter that every other amino acid is exactly the same.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you "work with the human genome" project?

If you use OOD and OOP you can't possibly be missing the subclass point that matching on baseclass code says almost nothing about predicting that subclass A will be identical or almost so - to subclass-B no matter how deep the cyclomatic complexity or nesting away from the primary base class.

When doing similarities - how much is being "ignored"??

When vast sections are not even compared: Noncoding DNA -
over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,while only about 20% or less of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding DNA -

The great difference when a tiny slice is almost the same 99.7% the same. from the OP link.

There are no classes in DNA. This is nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you "work with the human genome" project?
(What's up with your quotation marks? You're not quoting anything, and you're not using them as scare quotes. They just look random.)

I work with the human genome, and I worked on a project related to the human genome project (which is long over) and I was an author on the chimpanzee genome paper.

If you use OOD and OOP you can't possibly be missing the subclass point that matching on baseclass code says almost nothing about predicting that subclass A will be identical or almost so - to subclass-B no matter how deep the cyclomatic complexity or nesting away from the primary base class.
I don't do OOD now but I used to extensively. I understand what you're saying about programming, but have no idea why you think it has anything to do with DNA. DNA isn't a computer program, and it sure as heck isn't object oriented.

When doing similarities - how much is being "ignored"??

When vast sections are not even compared: Noncoding DNA -
over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,while only about 20% or less of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding DNA -

The great difference when a tiny slice is almost the same 99.7% the same. from the OP link.
Noncoding DNA is usually compared. We certainly included noncoding DNA when we compared the human and chimpanzee genomes, and I include noncoding DNA when comparing human genome to each other. The author of the OP link seemed to be quite confused about, well, about almost everything. I certainly wouldn't look to him for guidance about comparative genetics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Before reading the rest of this post ask yourself - "what have you been TOLD" in popular media about the degree of DNA match between chimps and humans??

More than 98% match?

More than 90% match?

Or 90% of 1.5% match?

Or less than 70% match?

  • Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome
  • Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee ... ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.
  • human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions Chimpanzee Genome
There are 35 million known single base pair differences and 5 million longer ones which are 95 million base pairs collectively. Just based on the direct comparisons the two genomes are no more then 96% the same. Only 29% of the protein coding genes are identical with 35,000 to 40,000 known differences which average one difference per gene per lineage.

What were you told to "believe" by the evolutionism-marketing program?

They will tell you it's 98% identical which has been conclusively proven to be false.



Of our 25,000 protein "coding genes" in the human genome - how many match up with chimps?

Wait! they did not have chimp mapped until 2005?? where did the 1964-2004 claims come from?? Well "less than" understanding -- making do with what they had.


in Christ,

Bob

Smaller samplings and more limited comparisons, 2005 was when two entire sequences were compared.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you "work with the human genome" project?

The guy you are replying to was a staff scientist on the Chimpanzee Genome project

If you use OOD and OOP you can't possibly be missing the subclass point that matching on baseclass code says almost nothing about predicting that subclass A will be identical or almost so - to subclass-B no matter how deep the cyclomatic complexity or nesting away from the primary base class.

What resource are you referring to here because your statement is garbled.

When doing similarities - how much is being "ignored"??

Whole genome comparisons means none are ignored, every single base pair is accounted for.

When vast sections are not even compared: Noncoding DNA -
over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,while only about 20% or less of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding DNA -

Again, I would ask your source for this.

The great difference when a tiny slice is almost the same 99.7% the same. from the OP link.

I think you would benefit from reading the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0