Chimp and human species look nothing alike

[Loudmouth]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025122615.htm

Not seeing anything about chimp and human DNA differing by 50%. Care to quote the section you are referring to?

Don't cry to me about why science has the limits it has. It is what it is.

Your refusal to address the facts is not a limitation shared by science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Dogs have been coevolving with us for a very long time. They are obviously much more distant from us than chimps are.

I disagree.

Doesn't matter. Reality is not obliged to comply with your wishes.

The standards used to declare closeness or distance are bogus. They dwell in the area of superficial physical only traits of the present state.

You were misled about that, too. In fact, deep inside everyone of human and chimp cells, the relationship is written in DNA.

Look deeper.

Also in neurology Their brains are remarkably like ours, more so than any other animal on Earth.

Barbarian observes:
While chimps are genetically very close to human, behaviorally they are very wild.

Nothing like us then.

Except for anatomy, physiology, genetics, brain function, etc. remarkable things in them, that show human-like behavior.
Barbarian observes:
They are capable of inferring mental states in others, which few other animals can do.

So what?

They are more like humans than they are like other animals.

I used to be nervous of horses. They seemed to infer that pretty good.

No. Unlike horses, chimps can realize the other beings think. So they are, like us, capable of lying.

Barbarian observes:
They make tools, planning ahead for their use.

So what, ants make cities!

Horsefeathers. They make burrows. And other than humans and chimps, no other animals make tools anticipating future use.

They show loyalty to family,

Hey who doesn't??

Yes, "who" not "what." You're beginning to catch on.

Barbarian chuckles:
Chimps are no more monkeys than we are.

Technical terms aside, monkeys is a good general word for apes.

In the sense that "monkey" is a good general word for humans.

 

[Gottservant]

Interaction of mystery, over sustained relationships - creates (transitional revolvulutions ____ around lesser being-lesser-believed ____ ____ ____) (selah)

 

[dad]

I see that in animals. E.g. that example of the woman who had a heart attack (JoAnn Altsman) and her daughter's pet pig went off to get help. Here are 25 hero dogs. http://www.dogguide.net/25-hero-dogs.php Animals can demonstrate devotion, comfort owners during time of stress (Danielle Jacobs) etc. I see some depth of character and commendable traits in animals.



I don't think the similarities are superficial. If we dissect a chimp and a human side by side, I predict that the similarities between humans and chimps will be even more than if we just compare them superficially. Skeleton, muscles, cardiovascular system, organs.

As I said, name a bunch of chimps that show the character of dogs? In character, chimps are not close to man compared to other animals.
The bones may look similar in some ways to science. They specialize in death and dead bones, but dead bones do not make a man!

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
Dogs have been coevolving with us for a very long time. They are obviously much more distant from us than chimps are.



Doesn't matter. Reality is not obliged to comply with your wishes.



You were misled about that, too. In fact, deep inside everyone of human and chimp cells, the relationship is written in DNA.



Also in neurology Their brains are remarkably like ours, more so than any other animal on Earth.

Barbarian observes:
While chimps are genetically very close to human, behaviorally they are very wild.



Except for anatomy, physiology, genetics, brain function, etc. remarkable things in them, that show human-like behavior.
Barbarian observes:
They are capable of inferring mental states in others, which few other animals can do.


They are more like humans than they are like other animals.



No. Unlike horses, chimps can realize the other beings think. So they are, like us, capable of lying.

Barbarian observes:
They make tools, planning ahead for their use.


Horsefeathers. They make burrows. And other than humans and chimps, no other animals make tools anticipating future use.

They show loyalty to family,


Yes, "who" not "what." You're beginning to catch on.

Barbarian chuckles:
Chimps are no more monkeys than we are.



In the sense that "monkey" is a good general word for humans.

To you, a chimp may look like a man. In the junk genes, forget about it! In character, forget about it! Here is one coincednce to consider...the serpent in the tree was Satan. Satan now tries to make a creature in a tree be where man came from rather than created.

 

[dad]

Interaction of mystery, over sustained relationships - creates (transitional revolvulutions ____ around lesser being-lesser-believed ____ ____ ____) (selah)

Let us ponder this grasshopper.

 

[dad]

Not seeing anything about chimp and human DNA differing by 50%. Care to quote the section you are referring to?

.

Look at the title. Then look about 3 paragraphs down where it talks about the junk dna being about half the genes. That is 50%!

 

[MerlinJ]

Where does it say they differ by 50%?

The research shows that these genomic "gaps" between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species.

This says that the difference is mainly within that 50%, not that we're 50% different. In other words, most of that 50% "junk DNA" we share is the same.

 

[dad]

Where does it say they differ by 50%?



This says that the difference is mainly within that 50%, not that we're 50% different. In other words, most of that 50% "junk DNA" we share is the same.

OK, I glanced at that one quickly. However it gets worse for you...if this article is right..


Human genome is over 90% ‘junk’ DNA – study
"Less than 9.5 percent of human DNA is functional, according to Oxford University researchers. This overturns the mainstream theory that 80 percent of the human genome is of some biological importance."

http://www.rt.com/news/175844-human-genome-junk-dna/

That means that the similarity they claim for man and animals is only in that little 8 or 9% bit!!

If that now unused dna could more aptly be described as former state dna...in other words, it was once used but is not now used much in this state..you can forget all your DNA beliefs.

 

[MerlinJ]

OK, I glanced at that one quickly. However it gets worse for you...if this article is right..

Sure, let's just overlook your mistake and rush off to the next thing.

That means that the similarity they claim for man and animals is only in that little 8 or 9% bit!!

No, it means the "functional" bits are in that 8 or 9%. We still share it and most of everything else in common with chimpanzees.

If that now unused dna could more aptly be described as former state dna...in other words, it was once used but is not now used much in this state..you can forget all your DNA beliefs.

Forget them? If evolution is correct, we'd expect to see "junk DNA" left behind.

 

[Gottservant]

I would like to know, if the mystery of man ____ returns to itself (more or less ___ ___) ___ ___ ___ as anything other than game, story or song (in ___ ___ ___ ___ the ___ ___ ___ ___ end ___ ___ ___ ___-).

That being the case ___ ___ it would be irrelevant ___ that anything was other than (meaningful or truthful ___ the moreso ___ ___ as fictional, fanciful or illusory ___ ___ ___).

 

[dad]

Sure, let's just overlook your mistake and rush off to the next thing.

No, it means the "functional" bits are in that 8 or 9%. We still share it and most of everything else in common with chimpanzees.

I like to make mistakes...now we are talking not just half as I assumed from the other article but over 90%!!!!!

Forget functional!! That just means present state functioning. How much of that over 90% matches chimps??

Forget them? If evolution is correct, we'd expect to see "junk DNA" left behind.

Meaningless. That is just your belief based attempt at explaining unknown dna!

Looks like the 98% similarity to chimps claim really should read more like

'8% similarity'!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

As I said, name a bunch of chimps that show the character of dogs? In character, chimps are not close to man compared to other animals.
The bones may look similar in some ways to science. They specialize in death and dead bones, but dead bones do not make a man!

The original article linked to does discuss both visual and behavioural differences between chimps and humans. The visual similarities go well beyond bones, we've been talking about external appearance, and also the whole body including flesh and organs including the brain.

Clearly chimps have not developed advanced technological and philosophical societies as humans have, and show no sign that they will ever do so. The evidence is that even our close relatives the neanderthals didn't do this. However, there are similiarities between human and chimp behaviour, such as deliberately deceptive behaviour which is rare in animals, and also in social organisation. So, even in behaviour, we can only say that chimps are nothing like us if (e.g.) we're just considering the primates. If we open the context up larger, chimps start looking a lot more like us compared to other life. http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-social-organization.php

 

[dad]

The original article linked to does discuss both visual and behavioural differences between chimps and humans. The visual similarities go well beyond bones, we've been talking about external appearance, and also the whole body including flesh and organs including the brain.

Clearly chimps have not developed advanced technological and philosophical societies as humans have, and show no sign that they will ever do so. The evidence is that even our close relatives the neanderthals didn't do this. However, there are similiarities between human and chimp behaviour, such as deliberately deceptive behaviour which is rare in animals, and also in social organisation. So, even in behaviour, we can only say that chimps are nothing like us if (e.g.) we're just considering the primates. If we open the context up larger, chimps start looking a lot more like us compared to other life. http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-social-organization.php

I disagree. I think they are about as different as can be.

A question for you....how much of the junk dna in chimps and humans is the same?

 

[MerlinJ]

I like to make mistakes...now we are talking not just half as I assumed from the other article but over 90%!!!!!

Forget functional!! That just means present state functioning. How much of that over 90% matches chimps??

You assumed the percentages were about differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. As I've pointed out, that's not what's being discussed. The journal about which the first article writes (here) mentions 98.5% similarity between genomes. Neither the second article nor it's source journal mentions chimps--it discusses a different issue.

Meaningless. That is just your belief based attempt at explaining unknown dna!

Object all you like, but that is nonetheless what you'd expect from a step-by-step process like natural selection.

 

[dad]

You assumed the percentages were about differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. As I've pointed out, that's not what's being discussed. The journal about which the first article writes (here) mentions 98.5% similarity between genomes. Neither the second article nor it's source journal mentions chimps--it discusses a different issue.
Object all you like, but that is nonetheless what you'd expect from a step-by-step process like natural selection.

Hold on here. I know that they claim a 90 something % similarity. I did not assume they did not. The issue is how much of the dna are they looking at? It seems they may not even be looking at the 91% at all to get this similarity!?

 

[Gottservant]

An emergent structure ___ even from identical dna - by signature within the cadence specified, is (entirely constrained to the designation it was from ___ for ___ or (mostly constrained ____ within)).

(selah)

 

[dad]

An emergent structure ___ even from identical dna - by signature within the cadence specified, is (entirely constrained to the designation it was from ___ for ___ or (mostly constrained ____ within)).

So they did not use any junk dna in the comparison to human chilp dna. OK. Thanks.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I disagree. I think they are about as different as can be.

The behaviour of chimps and humans is as different as the difference in behaviour between humans and hermit crabs? I don't think so. Hence chimps and humans aren't as different as they can be, and our behaviour can't be said to be nothing alike.

A question for you....how much of the junk dna in chimps and humans is the same?

I do think this is a bit lazy of you. As others have asked you this and you turn around and ask me. I'll take this as faith in my ability to obtain facts and figures.

It appears to be that if all DNA is counted, that there is about a 5-6% difference in DNA between chimps and humans. Some of these differences are due to the movement or duplication of whole sequences in DNA with little or no consequence for the organism, and hence the 5-6% difference is an over-estimate of the functional genetic difference between us, which is typically said to be about 1.2%. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

 

[dad]

The behaviour of chimps and humans is as different as the difference in behaviour between humans and hermit crabs? I don't think so. Hence chimps and humans aren't as different as they can be, and our behaviour can't be said to be nothing alike.



I do think this is a bit lazy of you. As others have asked you this and you turn around and ask me. I'll take this as faith in my ability to obtain facts and figures.

It appears to be that if all DNA is counted, that there is about a 5-6% difference in DNA between chimps and humans. Some of these differences are due to the movement or duplication of whole sequences in DNA with little or no consequence for the organism, and hence the 5-6% difference is an over-estimate of the functional genetic difference between us, which is typically said to be about 1.2%. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Thanks for trying, but that link does not deal with junk dna. It mentions this, but does not include junk dna specifically.

'"A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes."

You seem to assume that junk dna was included in what they call the entire genome.

Googling I found this...although is seems biased...can you dispute the part I quote??

"The “junk DNA” of apes and humans are so different they are not even comparable,.."

"Darwinians claim that “junk DNA” is not active and therefore should not be included when comparing ape and human DNA."

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ape_vs_human.php