Chimp and human species look nothing alike

[MerlinJ]

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!?

One of the authors of the paper quoted in the news article explains it:

"Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves," said McDonald.

Basically, our differences are more about how it's organized (what's on/off).

 

[dad]

One of the authors of the paper quoted in the news article explains it:


Basically, our differences are more about how it's organized (what's on/off).

How what is organized? The junk dna? Or just the coding dna? Or both?


"
While it is true that the coding regions (parts of the genome that code for amino acids) of chimps and humans are virtually identical, the regions around those genes are much less similar. "

http://stochasticscientist.blogspot.ie/2011/11/junk-dna-separates-human-from-chimp.html

 

[MerlinJ]

How what is organized? The junk dna? Or just the coding dna? Or both?

All of it. They went looking for an explanation for how just 1.5% could account for the differences in appearance and behavior, and their conclusion was that it has to do with how our genes are expressed.

"
While it is true that the coding regions (parts of the genome that code for amino acids) of chimps and humans are virtually identical, the regions around those genes are much less similar. "

http://stochasticscientist.blogspot.ie/2011/11/junk-dna-separates-human-from-chimp.html

Yes, that's another news article about the same paper...

 

[dad]

All of it. They went looking for an explanation for how just 1.5% could account for the differences in appearance and behavior, and their conclusion was that it has to do with how our genes are expressed.
Yes, that's another news article about the same paper...

So they looked at the junk dna you say. You say they compared that to junk chimp dna. Is that right? (as well as the coding dna)

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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

Dare I suggest that you do some simple arithmetic? The whole genome is about 97-98% what was called 'junk DNA', and if about 4% of the non-coding DNA differs between humans and chimps, then you can work it out. That's where I got my 5-6% from. I think that's an over-estimate, as I wasn't sure what they meant by '4% of the non-coding DNA is', so I chose the way of calculating that gave the biggest answer. It might be a bit less than 4% difference.

'"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,.."

The entire genome of humans and chimps includes the so-called 'junk DNA'. The junk DNA is the vast majority of the genome. Hence, it is impossible for the junk DNA of chimps and humans to be so different that they are not even comparable. I googled your phrase, and only found it on creationist websites. I had at some of them but couldn't find any links to papers backing up their claims.

One difficulty in comparing chimp and human DNA is this. If you have a gene that has been moved, or perhaps a deletion, how you count difference. E.g. if we have the sequences:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT

Then, they are identical. If we hae a base substitution mutation, then we may get:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
AGCCTAGACTCACGGCAT

Clearly, the two sequences now only differ in one place. If we have a deletion mutation however, we might get:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
AGCTAGACTCAGGGCAT

If you then start at the left and count base by base, they appear to be very different. A=A, G=G, C=C, C<>T, T<>A, A<>G, and so on. But, we know that the only difference is the deletion of the second C. So, is it then similar? But, if this is a coding gene, then because it's three bases per amino acid, it may now code for a number of different amino acids, and the protein it codes for may be very different.

So, a bit like accountancy, it may be that you can use the measure that gives you the answer that you want.

In terms of measuring evolutionary differences and divergence, it's the number of mutations that is important. And hence the deletion example above should be seen as one base different. Some of these mutations may be whole genes moving around (including inactive genes in 'junk DNA'), so that makes it harder to work out the true genetic difference. It's not a simple counting exercise, it's a matter of working out the mutations that occurred from the differences between the two genomes. E.g. if we produce the mutation:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
GACTCAGGGCATAGCCTA

Then there has been a single change, but again the bases now count differently from the left.

If your intention is to measure them to be as different as possible to claim that chimps and humans are not closely related, e.g. if you are writing for 'Answers in Genesis', then counting base by base will give you the answer that you want. But, that would, I believe, be intellectual dishonesty and open you up to criticism.

"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

The current scientific understanding is that we are finding out that there is biological function in at least some junk DNA. The fact that some (but not all) junk DNA is conserved over very long time periods means that it must have some function important for the organism. (By conserved I mean that mutations in these regions of the junk DNA are selected against so that the mutation rate found is lower than would occur if mutations were meaningless.) http://www.news-medical.net/health/Functions-of-Junk-DNA.aspx There is research that suggsts what these functions might be. E.g. the link in the very first post of this thread.

 

[dad]

Dare I suggest that you do some simple arithmetic? The whole genome is about 97-98% what was called 'junk DNA', and if about 4% of the non-coding DNA differs between humans and chimps, then you can work it out. That's where I got my 5-6% from.



The entire genome of humans and chimps includes the so-called 'junk DNA'. The junk DNA is the vast majority of the genome. Hence, it is impossible for the junk DNA of chimps and humans to be so different that they are not even comparable. I googled your phrase, and only found it on creationist websites. I had at some of them but couldn't find any links to papers backing up their claims.

One difficulty in comparing chimp and human DNA is this. If you have a gene that has been moved, or perhaps a deletion, how you count difference. E.g. if we have the sequences:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT

Then, they are identical. If we hae a base substitution mutation, then we may get:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
AGCCTAGACTCACGGCAT

Clearly, the two sequences now only differ in one place. If we have a deletion mutation however, we might get:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
AGCTAGACTCAGGGCAT

If you then start at the left and count base by base, they appear to be very different. A=A, G=G, C=C, C<>T, T<>A, A<>G, and so on. But, we know that the only difference is the deletion of the second C. So, is it then similar? But, if this is a coding gene, then because it's three bases per amino acid, it may now code for a number of different amino acids, and the protein it codes for may be very different.

So, a bit like accountancy, it may be that you can use the measure that gives you the answer that you want.

In terms of measuring evolutionary differences and divergence, it's the number of mutations that is important. And hence the deletion example above should be seen as one base different. Some of these mutations may be whole genes moving around (including inactive genes in 'junk DNA'), so that makes it harder to work out the true genetic difference. It's not a simple counting exercise, it's a matter of working out the mutations that occurred from the differences between the two genomes. E.g. if we produce the mutation:

AGCCTAGACTCAGGGCAT
GACTCAGGGCATAGCCTA

Then there has been a single change, but again the bases now count differently from the left.

If your intention is to measure them to be as different as possible to claim that chimps and humans are not closely related, e.g. if you are writing for 'Answers in Genesis' then counting base by base will give you the answer that you want. But, that would, I believe, be intellectual dishonesty and open you up to criticism.



The current scientific understanding is that we are finding out that there is biological function in at least some junk DNA. The fact that some (but not all) junk DNA is conserved over very long time periods means that it must have some function important for the organism. (By conserved I mean that mutations in these regions of the junk DNA are selected against so that the mutation rate found is lower than would occur if mutations were meaningless.) http://www.news-medical.net/health/Functions-of-Junk-DNA.aspx There is research that suggsts what these functions might be. E.g. the link in the very first post of this thread.

How does that work then...you have junk dna that you have no clue what it does....but you claim it is the same as chimps?
Now when you say a bunch of letters...adgcdeccd or whatever, do any of these letters represent junk dna that you do not know what it does?

 

[MerlinJ]

So they looked at the junk dna you say. You say they compared that to junk chimp dna. Is that right? (as well as the coding dna)

What do you want me to say? I'd tell you to read them for yourself, but they're your articles, and you've already misunderstood both... work on your scientific literacy, maybe?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

How does that work then...you have junk dna that you have no clue what it does....but you claim it is the same as chimps?
Now when you say a bunch of letters...adgcdeccd or whatever, do any of these letters represent junk dna that you do not know what it does?

We can measure the differences in the genetic sequence irrespective of the differences in the function of different bits of DNA, or even if we don't know what the function of it is. I have the entire human DNA sequence on my hard disk, and it is just a very, very, much longer stream of letters. If we have chimp DNA, then we can compare the long lists of letters and work out how similar they are. Though, we do use our knowledge of DNA to find better estimates of how different we are by looking at how important different parts of the DNA are in terms of specifying our species.

I'm a bit concerned that you paraphrased my sequences as 'adgcdeccd' as this shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about DNA. I used the four letters GCAT as these are the code letters for the bases actually found in DNA, the sequence of which forms the genetic code. You might want to read up on DNA, and that should make my examples clearer. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna.htm

 

[dad]

What do you want me to say? I'd tell you to read them for yourself, but they're your articles, and you've already misunderstood both... work on your scientific literacy, maybe?

Most of your posts seem to be an attempt to set yourself up as an elite intellect, while trying to confuse and insult, rather than help all to learn something. This makes me wonder if you are actually confused.


You can clear that up by trying to simplify and expound your ideas here.

I am hearing vastly different things from creation sites and from you and your interpretation of what the articles I posted mean. Why not show you grasp the issues by telling us about what junk dna looks like and how it is compared to junk chimp dna? Next, tell us what the comparison means...since you do not know what junk dna even does!?

 

[dad]

We can measure the differences in the genetic sequence irrespective of the differences in the function of different bits of DNA, or even if we don't know what the function of it is. I have the entire human DNA sequence on my hard disk, and it is just a very, very, much longer stream of letters. If we have chimp DNA, then we can compare the long lists of letters and work out how similar they are. Though, we do use our knowledge of DNA to find better estimates of how different we are by looking at how important different parts of the DNA are in terms of specifying our species.

Good answer.

I'm a bit concerned that you paraphrased my sequences as 'adgcdeccd' as this shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about DNA.

I typed any letters...it wasn't a statement!


So I am starting to form an opinion on all this...

"Because of the overwhelming similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes (and the even greater similarity when examining only their protein-coding regions) it has long been hypothesized that changes in “where and when” genes are transcribed will be a major player in what makes our two species different (in contrast to the idea that we are different because of the relatively tiny changes in the coding regions of our genes)."
http://biologos.org/blog/becoming-human-new-insights-from-genome-wide-functional-genomics

It seems that the similarity in man and chimps is not so great when we look at the non coding dna.
Even then, there is a lot at work science doesn't understand in the where and when of transcribing. The similar letters do not tell the real or whole story.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Good answer.
I typed any letters...it wasn't a statement!


So I am starting to form an opinion on all this...

"Because of the overwhelming similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes (and the even greater similarity when examining only their protein-coding regions) it has long been hypothesized that changes in “where and when” genes are transcribed will be a major player in what makes our two species different (in contrast to the idea that we are different because of the relatively tiny changes in the coding regions of our genes)."
http://biologos.org/blog/becoming-human-new-insights-from-genome-wide-functional-genomics

It seems that the similarity in man and chimps is not so great when we look at the non coding dna.
Even then, there is a lot at work science doesn't understand in the where and when of transcribing. The similar letters do not tell the real or whole story.

The similarity is less than would be suggested by simple counts of coding DNA. But that raises the question of if we're so genetically similar, why don't we look almost identical so that it's hard to work out who is chimp and who is human? That's what I think the OP article was saying. Chimps don't look more like us than other apes, arguably, but genetically they are much closer. Chimps are closer to us than to other apes, but do they look it? Differences in regulation of genes can explain this bigger than expected but still relatively (to animals in general) small difference.

 

[MerlinJ]

Most of your posts seem to be an attempt to set yourself up as an elite intellect, while trying to confuse and insult, rather than help all to learn something. This makes me wonder if you are actually confused.

The problem here is you. The sources you've presented don't back up the claims you've made, and after I've already explained why they don't, you insist they do without elaborating. If you want to argue the science, fine, but don't make me do your work for you. I might as well argue with myself.

 

[The Barbarian]

To you, a chimp may look like a man.

To any objective observer it does. In the middle ages, Europeans classified it as a human.

In the junk genes, forget about it!

You've been misled about that. Simple DNA tests show that even the non-coding sections are very similar:
The chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans' closest living relatives. These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related, scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that's the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...ding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

In character, forget about it!

You're wrong about that, too. Chimps aren't the peaceful little guys people assume them to be. They steal from each other, make war on other troops, and generally behave like nations of humans. With friends and family, they are kind and helpful, but even there, they often behave like humans.

Here is one coincednce to consider...the serpent in the tree was Satan.

Sounds like another "just so" story from Dad. Show us that the serpent was in a tree.

Satan now tries to make a creature in a tree be where man came from rather than created.

Sounds like Satan put another foolish idea in your head.

 

[durangodawood]

It seems endlessly difficult to try to bend the whole world so it fits around a certain theology.

Instead, why not let the theology be fluid? Let it be something you are discovering along with the facts of the natural world, rather than an upfront set of fixed notions you have to accept or reject in entirety.

 

[dad]

The problem here is you. The sources you've presented don't back up the claims you've made, and after I've already explained why they don't, you insist they do without elaborating. If you want to argue the science, fine, but don't make me do your work for you. I might as well argue with myself.

I think others have cleared up the point I was unsure about, whether the full genome, including all the junk DNA was used in the chimp to human comparison. Apparently most say that it actually was used. It's like pulling teeth sometimes to get a straight answer here.

 

[dad]

It seems endlessly difficult to try to bend the whole world so it fits around a certain theology.

Instead, why not let the theology be fluid? Let it be something you are discovering along with the facts of the natural world, rather than an upfront set of fixed notions you have to accept or reject in entirety.

Belief in Christ including that He created all things is not fluid in any way. Unbelief is fluid. Once you go down the unbelief rabbit hole there in no stopping place to what you might believe.

 

[dad]

To any objective observer it does. In the middle ages, Europeans classified it as a human.

Irelevant.

You've been misled about that. Simple DNA tests show that even the non-coding sections are very similar:
The chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans' closest living relatives. These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related, scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that's the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?

Actually I was asking the question and looking at what creation sites said, and other sites, and posters on the forum. I can accept for now that you are right, as are other posters, that the junk DNA is also similar. Now that you have a clear position, though, I suggest you duck! I am taking aim at it as we speak. I wouldn't want to be you with your position!

You're wrong about that, too. Chimps aren't the peaceful little guys people assume them to be. They steal from each other, make war on other troops, and generally behave like nations of humans. With friends and family, they are kind and helpful, but even there, they often behave like humans.

I am supposed to like animals more if they are real stinkers?

Sounds like another "just so" story from Dad. Show us that the serpent was in a tree.

No. Take it or leave it...not like you have anything to say one way or another about it.

 

[dad]

The similarity is less than would be suggested by simple counts of coding DNA.

OK, that sounds reasonable and basically what I am getting from multiple sources.

But that raises the question of if we're so genetically similar, why don't we look almost identical so that it's hard to work out who is chimp and who is human? That's what I think the OP article was saying. Chimps don't look more like us than other apes, arguably, but genetically they are much closer. Chimps are closer to us than to other apes, but do they look it? Differences in regulation of genes can explain this bigger than expected but still relatively (to animals in general) small difference.

That mystery is indeed something science should be concerned about.

To recap then, what science has done is to take the whole genome, including the 91% junk DNA, and compare it. Let's look for a minute just at this junk DNA portion. Science doesn't even know what it does or what it is for basically for the most part. Mystery packets of DNA that is unknown as to what it really is all about.

Now, if that is most of the DNA in mankind, this unknown 91 plus percent then what we have is science comparing they know not what with what they know not what! Any similarity or difference is due, therefore to...they know not what!!!

I better not dare hear anyone try to use that to claim there was no creation and that mankind is not a special creation.

Chimp to man comparison...R.I.P.!!

 

[durangodawood]

Belief in Christ including that He created all things is not fluid in any way. Unbelief is fluid. Once you go down the unbelief rabbit hole there in no stopping place to what you might believe.

The sense of "created" that you're talking about seems very brittle in the face of overwhelming evidence from the natural world. Why stick with this clunky idea that "created" means everything was designed and built in one grand singular act? "Created" could have so many other different senses to it, one's that dont force you to retreat from reality in their defense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the claim that chimpanzees look nothing like humans:
To any objective observer it does. In the middle ages, Europeans classified it as a human.

Irelevant.

It demonstrates that you're completely wrong. Those people, prior to evolutionary theory, and prior to the invention of YE creationism, didn't just think chimps resembled humans. They thought they were humans.



You've been misled about that. Simple DNA tests show that even the non-coding sections are very similar:
The chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans' closest living relatives. These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related, scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that's the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?

Actually I was asking the question and looking at what creation sites said, and other sites, and posters on the forum. I can accept for now that you are right, as are other posters, that the junk DNA is also similar.

Scientists call it "non-coding DNA."

Now that you have a clear position, though, I suggest you duck! I am taking aim at it as we speak.

How frightening.

Barbarian chuckles
You're wrong about that, too. Chimps aren't the peaceful little guys people assume them to be. They steal from each other, make war on other troops, and generally behave like nations of humans. With friends and family, they are kind and helpful, but even there, they often behave like humans.

I am supposed to like animals more if they are real stinkers?

You could empathize. They behave pretty much like humans.

(Dad claims the serpent in Genesis was from a tree)

Barbarian chuckles:
Sounds like another "just so" story from Dad. Show us that the serpent was in a tree.

No.

So you looked it up quick and learned something. Great. Wouldn't it be good to read the Bible first, before you tell us about it? Learn from defeat. It's good for your character.