Why Evolution is True (3)

[Loudmouth]

yeah, please keep exposing the lies. When you are done, let me know.

I will address all of them.

Address the ones already given.

First, how anyone can honestly use an ungapped analysis to try and refute a gapped analysis. I would love to hear that one.

 

[Loudmouth]

duplicate.

however here are some more info:

not to mention the early studies only tested approximately 1% of the genome and pulled figures from that small amount. Later studies show 90-95% and one study shows as low as 70%.

All lies.

Now whats the big deal with a few percentage points off? Well...
Daniel Chriswell, molecular biologist at the Institute for Creation Research, explains:
"“If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor.

We already know that they differ by 35 million substitutions and 5 million indels, not 300 million differences. Please try to keep up.

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5 million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane's calculations." (7)

Haldane's calculations were wrong, and have been known to be wrong for a long time.

above quote from:

Genetic Brethren? Considering Homology - Creation Conversations

Yes, more liars. Why do you keep going back to creationists when every single one of them turns out to be liars? What does it say about your beliefs when you have to peddle lies to prop them up?

 

[Loudmouth]

so how can you prove this assertion of you don't have the percentage of common homologous genes between chimp and human?

We already know the base to base comparison.

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."

For genes . . .

"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."

So 29% of the proteins are 100% identical at the amino acid level, and only about 5 mutations in each gene (~2,000 bases per gene).

you say it's 95-99% but this is what you need to prove, and you haven't. In fact you beg the question as to the validity of this view.

Has been proven.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Until you deal with the chimp genome paper instead of ignoring it, there is little I can do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Genome projects supporting human/chimp common ancestry typically refuse to accept the differences in the gene sequencing:

Why would the theory of evolution have a problem for species changing over time? That is exactly what the theory says we should see. Finding the differences beteween humans and other apes is very important, and not ignored at all.

For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent,

Still continuing with the same lies. Why?

above quote and graphic from “I don’t have faith enough to be an Atheist” – by frank turek and norman geisler

As usualy, they are lying creationists.

Pots, pans, and utensils do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

IT IS THE PATTERN OF SIMILARITIES THAT EVIDENCE EVOLUTION.

How many times do we need to repeat this?

As you can see above, similiarities in genetic structure typically can mean that the designer allowed us to consume food within a certain food chain structure and resultingly designed various organisms with similar genetic structure to digest food easier.

Why would this require A NESTED HIERARCHY!!!

we are less similiar to chimp *(given the study belows accuracy) than cats are to dogs (81.9% shared homologous genes)

Given their propensity to lie at every turn, why should anyone even exert an ounce of energy to check their claims?

so if you can prove that cats evolved from dogs . . .

It's like everything we say goes right over your head.

Evolution 101: Trees Not Ladders

72% is alot different than say 96-99% similiarity.

Yes, which should clue you in on their lying right away, and yet you repeat it.

 

[46AND2]

so how can you prove this assertion of you don't have the percentage of common homologous genes between chimp and human?

you say it's 95-99% but this is what you need to prove, and you haven't. In fact you beg the question as to the validity of this view.

If you submit a scientific paper (peer review or other) we may examine it to see if it truly is homologous in content. Until then I will assume it unverified.

Loudmouth already posted EXACTLY what you are looking for, an hour and a half prior to your post to which I am now responding.

 

[createdtoworship]

We already know the base to base comparison.

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."

For genes . . .

"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."

So 29% of the proteins are 100% identical at the amino acid level, and only about 5 mutations in each gene (~2,000 bases per gene).



Has been proven.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Until you deal with the chimp genome paper instead of ignoring it, there is little I can do.

I assume you posted a peer review. well my invitation goes out. read mine and I will read yours. I have more than a couple peer reviews but I wont add to your plate responsible scientific papers till you digest whats been given regarding avian design.. let me know what you think of it after reading it in its entirety. until then you will have to prove your points in another way.

 

[Loudmouth]

For kicks and all . . .

People may want to check out Homologene:
Home - HomoloGene - NCBI

It's a nice little tool that will compare the same gene across multiple species, exactly the type of thing gradyll is asking for. Just to start things off, we can check out the page for LDHA found here:

HomoloGene - NCBI

If you go down the left hand side, you will reach and option called "Show Pairwise Alignment Scores". That's the one you want. It will produce a matrix of sort, comparing one species to the rest of the species. Although F. catus is not on the list because the genome was only recently sequenced and annotated. However, some old friends are on the list P. troglodytes, C. lupus, B. taurus, and the species so great they had to name it twice, Gallus gallus.

For the LDHA comparison, I get the human to chimp at 99.5% identity for DNA sequence and the human to dog (closest to cat) at 93.2%. It is also interesting to look at the genetic equidistance. For example, human to chicken is 79.6% and dog to chicken is 80.4%, nearly the same as would be expected given that humans and dogs share the same common ancestor with chickens.

 

[createdtoworship]

Loudmouth already posted EXACTLY what you are looking for, an hour and a half prior to your post to which I am now responding.

again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.

 

[Loudmouth]

I assume you posted a peer review. well my invitation goes out.

I directly quoted from the peer review paper instead of quoting lying creationists on creationist cites. Keep that in mind as well.

read mine and I will read yours.

I did read yours. You quote lying creationists, and I showed why that is. Why do you keep citing the lying creationists? Go to the actual peer reviewed papers and pull your material from them.

I have more than a couple peer reviews but I wont add to your plate responsible scientific papers till you digest whats been given regarding avian design.. let me know what you think of it after reading it in its entirety. until then you will have to prove your points in another way.

Avian design? Are you already ignoring all of the creationist lies you posted about the chimp and human genomes?

 

[Loudmouth]

again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.

You haven't given any scientific papers. Creationist websites are not peer reviewed papers. Your misunderstanding of tables in peer review papers is not science either.

 

[createdtoworship]

For kicks and all . . .

People may want to check out Homologene:
Home - HomoloGene - NCBI

It's a nice little tool that will compare the same gene across multiple species, exactly the type of thing gradyll is asking for. Just to start things off, we can check out the page for LDHA found here:

HomoloGene - NCBI

If you go down the left hand side, you will reach and option called "Show Pairwise Alignment Scores". That's the one you want. It will produce a matrix of sort, comparing one species to the rest of the species. Although F. catus is not on the list because the genome was only recently sequenced and annotated. However, some old friends are on the list P. troglodytes, C. lupus, B. taurus, and the species so great they had to name it twice, Gallus gallus.

For the LDHA comparison, I get the human to chimp at 99.5% identity for DNA sequence and the human to dog (closest to cat) at 93.2%. It is also interesting to look at the genetic equidistance. For example, human to chicken is 79.6% and dog to chicken is 80.4%, nearly the same as would be expected given that humans and dogs share the same common ancestor with chickens.

I saw that link while browsing. thanks for the input. but not sure that we evolved from cats. I think the data supports a common designed foodchain more than universalcommon ancestry. for instance I dont meow when I am hungry.

 

[Loudmouth]

I saw that link while browsing. thanks for the input. but not sure that we evolved from cats.

No one is claiming that we did evolve from cats. Can you be related to your cousins without your cousins being your ancestors? You share a common ancestor with your cousins that were not your cousins, don't you. The same for cats and humans. We are cousins, and our common ancestor was neither a cat nor a human, but it was a mammal like both of us.

I think the data supports a common designed foodchain more than universalcommon ancestry. for instance I dont meow when I am hungary.

Why does this require a nested hierarchy?

 

[createdtoworship]

You haven't given any scientific papers. Creationist websites are not peer reviewed papers. Your misunderstanding of tables in peer review papers is not science either.

I have shown you twice the peer review. just do a search on the thread for feathers and it will pop up. its from wit.org ibelieve. I am starting to believe that your lies are intentional. as they become very prominent in your posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have shown you twice the peer review. just do a search on the thread for feathers and it will pop up. its from wit.org ibelieve. I am starting to believe that your lies are intentional. as they become very prominent in your posts.

My lies? You are the one trying to falsely claim that the cat genome is more like the human genome than the chimp genome. That's the biggest lie there is.

Also, this paper contains the same failed argument as all other ID arguments
http://journals.witpress.com/pdfs/abstracts/D&NE040201a.pdf

They claim that evolution can't produce complex specified information, and yet never support that claim. This is followed by an argument from ignorance:

"There is no known recorded example of this developing experimentally where the precursor information or machinery is not already present in embryonic form."

Sorry, but ID isn't proven by not knowing of an evolutionary pathway right here and right now.

 

[createdtoworship]

nested heirarchies rely on phylogeny data which itself is in question. it is circular reasoning to prove nested heirarchy (evolution biased) with phylogenies (which too beg the question regarding macro evolution). as subduction zone metions. you have to prove your data using un biased sources. its not when one thing proves yor point that its true its when everything proves it.

 

[Loudmouth]

nested heirarchies rely on phylogeny deta which itself is in question.

How is it in question?

it is circular reasoning to prove nested heirarchy (evolution biased) with phylogenies (which too beg the question regarding macro evolution).

It is proven that life does fall into phylogenies while it is super easy to show that non-life, like the pots and pans from your ealier post, do not fall into phylogenies.

It isn't circular reasoning. For example, there is no reason why humans and dogs should be equidistant from chickens for the LDHA gene for your meaningless food chain. Evolution explains this perfectly.

you have to prove your data using un biased sources. its not when one thing proves yor point that its true its when everything proves it.

I have cited peer reviewed sources at every turn. I have even linked you to the raw data so you can see for yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

My lies? You are the one trying to falsely claim that the cat genome is more like the human genome than the chimp genome. That's the biggest lie there is.

Also, this paper contains the same failed argument as all other ID arguments
http://journals.witpress.com/pdfs/abstracts/D&NE040201a.pdf

They claim that evolution can't produce complex specified information, and yet never support that claim. This is followed by an argument from ignorance:

"There is no known recorded example of this developing experimentally where the precursor information or machinery is not already present in embryonic form."

Sorry, but ID isn't proven by not knowing of an evolutionary pathway right here and right now.

that was prior to being corrected. until then no one had the ability to find chimp homologous comparisons. which reminds me I need to check. I am glad that my motivators worked. namely the cat comparison. soooo now what do you do with your dishonesty. have you fessed up yet?

 

[Loudmouth]

gradyll,

Do you understand that this table in no way indicates that humans and cats share more DNA than humans and chimps?

Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

That is not a base to base comparison of the genomes. That is more of a testament to the completeness and accuracy of the databases for both the human and chimp genomes.

 

[Loudmouth]

that was prior to being corrected. until then no one had the ability to find chimp homologous comparisons.

There were limited chimp sequences dating back to the 1980's.

soooo now what do you do with your dishonesty. have you fessed up yet?

Fessed up to what?

 

[createdtoworship]

There were limited chimp sequences dating back to the 1980's.



Fessed up to what?

I take that back about being corrected, the database has singular gene comparison, not all homologous genes similiar to other species. For instance the resources I had showed what percentage of all homologous genes that were similiar to cats and rats, cats and dogs, cats and humans etc.

how would your engine show such results. Because what I was comparing was the 95% approx chimp to human studies that were in question not indicating usage of sequencing of genes, in which it is lowered to 70% in some cases. This would be lower than say the above Cat and dog comparisions at 81%. You see my point? You would have to prove a human chimp comparison of all homologous genes simulataneously. Which even your engine at homolog doesn't do, as far as my knowledge of it is concerned.