Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[sfs]

A pity that this thread died.

Having seen the results of reviving the thread, I cannot agree with this sentiment.

 

[pitabread]

Why CAN'T we allow all the data (for and against) shape the theory, not the other way around?

That is exactly what has happened. However, the data has shaped the theory into something that contradicts certain people's deeply held religious worldviews. That's the only reason biological evolution is so controversial for certain folks.

 

[kereena]

I hear people who think we came from apes! I say you mean Neandertals...... look it up they are humans and there skeliton seems the same has ape! But there not! That way they 100% humans. And the more you read the facts the more you can see we did not start from ape! I use this when I talk to everlusion believers and then give them a creation magazine I buy has i keep them to pass out.

 

[juvenissun]

How ridiculous.

But I am not at all surprised that creationists take the musings of children above the accumulated knowledge of science.

It is all they can muster in support of their ancient middle eastern tales.

By the way - when I took my kid to the zoo for the first time, she looked at a chimp and said 'they look like us.' She was 5. I guess some kids are smarter than others.

Yes, your girl does look like that chimp.

 

[USincognito]

I hear people who think we came from apes! I say you mean Neandertals...... look it up they are humans and there skeliton seems the same has ape! But there not! That way they 100% humans.

No, just no.
1. Humans are apes in that we are members of family Hominidae.
2. We did not evolve from Neanderthals.
3. No, they were not human nor did their skeletons seem "the same as ape" except for the fact that they were Hominids too.
4. They were not 100% human. We have sequenced their genome and we know for a fact that they were not.

And the more you read the facts the more you can see we did not start from ape! I use this when I talk to everlusion believers and then give them a creation magazine I buy has i keep them to pass out.

In evolution descendant populations never stop being what their ancestors were. Since we are Hominids, that means we "came from" Hominids. And not to be harsh, but it appears, to me at least, that you're in over your head on this subject.

 

[mark kennedy]

We have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas of the anatomy and physiology are analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees”, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721)

De novo genes arise, the paper cites a couple of examples of antifreeze genes, it reminds me of the protein coding gene co-evolution in various populations of cods living in the arctic. What is interesting here is they are identifying protein coding genes that are species specific namely; '634 human-specific genes, 780 chimpanzee-specific genes' (PloS, 2015). Now we know this happens in nature but on this scale all natural science is capable of doing here is genomic comparisons. These are fully developed, fully functional open reading frames (Open Reading Frames) of considerable length.

The median length of the longest ORF of each de novo gene was 52 amino acids....we identified 2,714 genes which were specific of human, chimpanzee, or their hominoid ancestor. This is more than one order of magnitude greater than the number of human or primate-specific genes reported in previous studies. (Origins of De Novo Genes in Human and Chimpanzee, PLoS 2015)​

Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only particular lineages of creature or sometimes only in a specific species or variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to have no evolutionary history. Despite that we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996). Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that species or to varieties within a species.

It's interesting to note that Neuroblastoma genes are involved in neural tumors and brain cancer:

Neuroblastoma is the most common cancer in babies and the third most common cancer in children after leukemia and brain cancer. About 1 in every 7,000 children is affected at some point in time. About 90% of cases occur in children less than 5 years old and it is rare in adults. Of cancer deaths in children about 15% are due to neuroblastoma. (Neuroblastoma, Wikipedia)​

Changes in brain related genes would appear to be uniformly deleterious and obviously very dangerous to newborns. This is similar to comparisons of human specific brain related genes:

Here, we discovered 60 genes that originated de novo on the human lineage, with 59 of them being fixed in the human population. This number of genes implies a rate of de novo generation of ,9.83–11.8 genes per million years, a rate much higher than previously proposed rates (De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes, PLoS 2011)​

What is never addressed in these research projects is that the average cranial capacity for our mythical ancestors was consistent with chimpanzees. The from 3 mya to 2 mya the only transitionals go from gracial, or a smooth skull to developing this interesting feature, gorilla-like sagittal crests on the cranium. Then about 2 mya the hominids appear on the scene and in a few hundred thousand years they have cranial capacities approaching the range of modern humans. My point being, what they don't have is millions of years.

What I thought was interesting is that it's higher then gene duplication. Seems like it would be the other way around:

Despite this high rate, when the rate is expressed in terms of per gene, ,0.00033– 0.00039 per gene per million years, it is still a lower rate than the rate of new gene origin by gene duplication (PloS 2011)
​

This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function, but the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/chimp difference scenario is staggering.

Any thoughts?

Yea, the evolution of the human brain from that of apes had to be a giant leap and that doesn't even include the many other genes that would have either had to be completely overhauled or arisen de novo. Orphan or de novo simply means a unique, brand new gene from some presently unknown molecular mechanism.

they have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1). Then there's my favorite.

In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins.

By the way, that's for turning me on to the paper, that's definitely going into my archives.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Seriously, pshun, you don't think your purpose on this thread to argue against evolution isn't completely clear? Why try to hide it? In fact, until this post, I didn't think you would want to hide that fact.

Why would you choose coming in so late to misrepresent me? I said I was "not debating creationism", and that is not the same thing as arguing against "evolutionism". In fact I am not arguing against evolution at all but rather against the "evolutionism" that sneaks through. My point is, make all the data available and then let the thinker decide for themselves.

I believe in evolution, I see it every day, and in so many ways, but that does not mean I accept every premise made by every evolutionist (again that's quite different)...I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water. The OP asks how similar are we? I am presenting data concerning our differences...all of which is true. We are also very similar in many ways, that not equaling one came from the other, nor that both came from a common ancestor. Those conclusions are inducted from having already accepted the hypothesis (which I also did for decades)...

I believe we need to accent our differences as much as our similarities...does such objectivity pose a problem?

If I might butt in here, what you are arguing against, actually just raising questions about, is Darwinism. There's no serious argument that evolution doesn't happen, things adapt over time, sometimes dramatically in a short space of time. Don't let the random criticisms throw you, some of the posters don't know how to argue for evolution, all they are doing on here is insulting creationists. I know people who have come on here for years and literally learned nothing about genetics or comparative genomics. Actual creationists are pretty scarce these days and I haven't seen a serious Intelligent Design argument in quite some time.

Don't let the drama discourage you, Creationists like myself and Darwinians like those found here will go at it in circles endlessly. What I found over the years is you can always learn something from the amazing research being done these days, no matter what your world view or religious persuasion might be.

Tell me something if you have the time. Does the paper suggest possible processes or mechanisms for these brand new genes. I only did a quick once over and I suspect you have spent some time reading it in more depth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pshun2404]

So you are implying that you have knowledge of genetics, yet you declare that evolution does not happen because fossil bats 'look like' modern bats.

Hilarious.

Ever read Dunning and Kruger's paper?

Nathan why did you make up that slanderous interpretation of what I posted. I did not say "evolution does not happen". I said that in this organism (not all) there is no factual basis to assume a gradual transmutation from one organism into an entirely different one. Clearly a strong argument can be made for this case in the history of some organisms, but in bats (like with triops cancriformis and others) there actually is not even provisional evidences we can infer this from

 

[pitabread]

If I might butt in here, what you are arguing against, actually just raising questions about, is Darwinism

Keeping in mind that mark subscribes to his own personal definition of 'Darwinism' that would be more appropriately catagorized as metaphysical naturalism.

. I know people who have come on here for years and literally learned nothing about genetics or comparative genomics.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[mark kennedy]

Keeping in mind that mark subscribes to his own personal definition of 'Darwinism' that would be more appropriately catagorized as metaphysical naturalism.

Thought that went without saying.

Pot, meet kettle.

Did you read the paper? Did you comment on anything substantive? Do you ever?

 

[mark kennedy]

Nathan why did you make up that slanderous interpretation of what I posted. I did not say "evolution does not happen". I said that in this organism (not all) there is no factual basis to assume a gradual transmutation from one organism into an entirely different one. Clearly a strong argument can be made for this case in the history of some organisms, but in bats (like with triops cancriformis and others) there actually is not even provisional evidences we can infer this from

You have to understand, we are not talking about evolution, if we were we would be talking about the change of alleles in populations over time. We are talking about universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. They pretend it's about evidence but they don't care about evidence. They just make these 'slanderous interpretations' of anyone who doesn't make the requisite naturalistic assumptions, or just gets curious enough to question them.

 

[pshun2404]

You have to understand, we are not talking about evolution, if we were we would be talking about the change of alleles in populations over time. We are talking about universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. They pretend it's about evidence but they don't care about evidence. They just make these 'slanderous interpretations' of anyone who doesn't make the requisite naturalistic assumptions, or just gets curious enough to question them.

Thank you Mark I guess I was not clear. I thought we were still in the general idea of similarities and differences between chimps and humans. If some are saying there is a common ancestor between chimps and humans (one creature from which both stemmed off) then let them produce actual evidence for and from this alleged creature. In fact, let them produce an example of the creature. None of the alleged candidates I have ever seen produced meet the criteria of containing valid evidence for that.

Even among the scientists themselves there is a lot of COULD BE's and MIGHGT BE's but as you know "could be" or "might be" does not equal IS!

All Y-chromosomal studies done (the Y-Chromosome ALWAYS AND ONLY are inherited from the host father of the offspring) only demonstrate the host father of a human IS also human, no matter how far back we go the results are always the same (even from Neanderthals and Denisovans)...the host father was forever a human...there are no midlans and no non or semi human Y-Chromosomes in the geneological histories we can examine (not one).

As for the UNIVERSAL ancestor of all living things they claim, there is also not one iota of actual evidence. In fact because of this many adhere to other obscure theories such as "self-Replicating RNA on the backs of crysals" and even "panspermiating aliens", neither of which LIKEWISE has any actual evidentiary reference or examples in nature or in the Lab. Ventor and Woese actually postulate the possibility (based on how they see inference from the scarce evidence) that there may have been as many as five or more original life forms (by this they mean original single cell sources which BECAME multicellular and transformed into Eukaryotes and so on).

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you Mark I guess I was not clear. I thought we were still in the general idea of similarities and differences between chimps and humans. If some are saying there is a common ancestor between chimps and humans (one creature from which both stemmed off) then let them produce actual evidence for and from this alleged creature. In fact, let them produce an example of the creature. None of the alleged candidates I have ever seen produced meet the criteria of containing valid evidence for that.

My concern is that we now are beginning to know what the genetic divergence between chimpanzees and humans. We are learning what would have been required for the human brain to have evolved from primitive apes, and it is considerable. I'm not saying it's impossible, what I'm saying is that this divergence represent a burden of proof that Darwinians will not take seriously. I'm fine with someone who honestly admits they don't know how, maybe we will figure it out over time, that's fine. It's ignoring the fact that it exists that I can't accept.

Even among the scientists themselves there is a lot of COULD BE's and MIGHGT BE's but as you know "could be" or "might be" does not equal IS!

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (Charles Carter, Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH? Biol Direct. 2012)

The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life except for all the others (Biol Direct. 2012)
​

They don't have an explanation, the have a presupposition and I for one, remain highly skeptical of universal common descent for the reason. The divergence in the male specific Y chromosome is curious:

Surprisingly, however, 30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. (Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature 2010)​

All Y-chromosomal studies done (the Y-Chromosome ALWAYS AND ONLY are inherited from the host father of the offspring) only demonstrate the host father of a human IS also human, no matter how far back we go the results are always the same (even from Neanderthals and Denisovans)...the host father was forever a human...there are no midlans and no non or semi human Y-Chromosomes in the geneological histories we can examine (not one).

That much is true, we can see this in the fossil record. The Neanderthals show a migration pattern from the Middle East to Spain, suggesting a migration pattern. What's more, Neanderthals had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own.

As for the UNIVERSAL ancestor of all living things they claim, there is also not one iota of actual evidence. In fact because of this many adhere to other obscure theories such as "self-Replicating RNA on the backs of crysals" and even "panspermiating aliens", neither of which LIKEWISE has any actual evidentiary reference or examples in nature or in the Lab. Ventor and Woese actually postulate the possibility (based on how they see inference from the scarce evidence) that there may have been as many as five or more original life forms (by this they mean original single cell sources which BECAME multicellular and transformed into Eukaryotes and so on).

Charles Darwin suggested that if there was a single organ that couldn't be accounted for by slow, slight accumulative changes over time his theory would completely fall apart. I would suggest there isn't any empirical proof that any of them, right down to cellular organelles has the slightest empirical proof of a molecular mechanism capable of producing them.

 

[pitabread]

Thought that went without saying.

It doesn't. "Darwinism" has no strictly defined meaning and seems to vary heavily based on context.

Typically, though, if a biologist is referring to Darwinism they aren't referring to methodological naturalism going all the way back to the beginning of time and including the Big Bang (a concept which post-dates Darwin by about a half century).

Did you read the paper? Did you comment on anything substantive? Do you ever?

I just think there's irony in someone who continually lauds comparative genomics yet rejects the science on which certain comparative genomics methodologies are based.

 

[mark kennedy]

It doesn't. "Darwinism" has no strictly defined meaning and seems to vary heavily based on context.

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

That one works for me. The neodarwinism of the Modern Synthesis is the same thing.

Typically, though, if a biologist is referring to Darwinism they aren't referring to methodological naturalism going all the way back to the beginning of time and including the Big Bang (a concept which post-dates Darwin by about a half century).

No, it's just a reference to a philosophy of natural history that always does.

I just think there's irony in someone who continually lauds comparative genomics yet rejects the science on which certain comparative genomics methodologies are based.

I don't know who or what you are referring to here but I've never done that, not once. I reject neither science nor the methodologies of genomics, I appeal to them as a matter of course. That is in spite of the fact that I reject the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

 

[pitabread]

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
That one works for me. The neodarwinism of the Modern Synthesis is the same thing.

But again, that's not really what biologists refer to when they use the term "Darwinism". It's usually just meant to refer to Darwin's idea of evolution via natural selection.

I don't know who or what you are referring to here but I've never done that, not once. I reject neither science nor the methodologies of genomics, I appeal to them as a matter of course. That is in spite of the fact that I reject the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

Do you accept modern phylogenetics as a science? Do you accept that phylogenetic trees represent common ancestry of species? And do you accept that those phylogenetic trees are valid?

 

[mark kennedy]

But again, that's not really what biologists refer to when they use the term "Darwinism". It's usually just meant to refer to Darwin's idea of evolution via natural selection.

I see no difference between Darwinian natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

Do you accept modern phylogenetics as a science? Do you accept that phylogenetic trees represent common ancestry of species? And do you accept that those phylogenetic trees are valid?

It's not a science, it's a way of organizing information nothing more.

 

[pitabread]

I see no difference between Darwinian natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

Well... I suppose that explains a lot.

It's not a science, it's a way of organizing information nothing more.

You're dodging the questions I asked.

Do you accept modern phylogenetics as valid? Do you accept phylogenetic trees are valid representations of shared ancestry of species?

 

[mark kennedy]

Well... I suppose that explains a lot.

You're dodging the questions I asked.

Do you accept modern phylogenetics as valid? Do you accept phylogenetic trees are valid representations of shared ancestry of species?

I accept that connections are usually made in straight forward inductive ways. Let me inform you were I draw the line if you haven't gotten that. The three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Organize zoology as you see fit but don't pass that off as proof of universal common descent, it simply reflects that world view.

 

[pitabread]

I accept that connections are usually made in straight forward inductive ways. Let me inform you were I draw the line if you haven't gotten that. The three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Organize zoology as you see fit but don't pass that off as proof of universal common descent, it simply reflects that world view.

I'm not trying to pass anything off as proof of anything. I'm simply asking if you accept phylogenetic trees as valid. It's a basic yes or no question.

You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid giving a straight answer.

Maybe we should start with a more basic one: do you know what phylogenetic trees represent? Do you know what the data they can contain?