Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[USincognito]

to undergo impossible transformations or be built from the ground up. This doesn't happen in reality, so they are left with diversions.

You've been making this claim for 10 years now, yet you still have not:
- Given a reason why it's impossible other than your personal incredulity.
- Contracted the authors of that paper to inform them their discovery destroyed human evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

You've been making this claim for 10 years now, yet you still have not:
- Given a reason why it's impossible other than your personal incredulity.
- Contracted the authors of that paper to inform them their discovery destroyed human evolution.

Ok I'm not the one who is arguing from ignorance and I'm basing everything on what they published. I said it's impossible, because it is, and with no effective cause you can't argue otherwise which is why you are limited to ad hominem remarks and literally, nothing else.

 

[USincognito]

but i never said that chimp genome is closer to the chicken one.

Yeah. So What? Nothing in my post #266 implied that you did, so I have no idea why you think this response is germane to my comments there.

 

[USincognito]

I said it's impossible, because it is,

Well, if Mark Kennedy has spoken then clearly the issue is settled!

you are limited to ad hominem remarks and literally, nothing else.

 

[tas8831]

i never said that the chimp genome is colser to the chicken then to human.

"some parts in the chimp genome is actually closer to chicken genome then to human."


Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

 

[tas8831]

They know that, it's a distraction from the burden of proof.

and yet he wrote:


"some parts in the chimp genome is actually closer to chicken genome then to human."

The HAR1f regulatory gene is different by two nucleotides as compared between the chimpanzee and chicken representing over 300 million years of natural history. Then two million years ago it takes on 18 substitutions in a highly conserved brain related developmental gene. It is one of a long list of highly conserved genes that would have either had to undergo impossible transformations or be built from the ground up. This doesn't happen in reality, so they are left with diversions.

Mere assertions.

 

[Aman777]

and yet he wrote:

"some parts in the chimp genome is actually closer to chicken genome then to human."

Mere assertions.

God's Truth in Genesis shows that Humans were made some 10 Billion years BEFORE the FIRST life appeared in the water on planet Earth 3.8 Billion years ago. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Humans to have descended from the common ancestor of Apes, who lived only Millions of years ago. The ToE is FALSE. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

And this has to do with the topic how? Have you bothered to read the posts?

Yes I have and in fact this was in direct response to the statement regarding the scarcity of chimp fossils. have you bothered to read the posts?

Is this just another attempt to derail the thread? What's next false accusations and name calling?

Whats next well poisoning and projection?

There are a few chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? Show us...(photos of the fossils will do but no artistic contrivances please)....also no ancestor of the gaps arguments if you can avoid them, just show us this actually led to a Chimpanzee....

My goodness - decades of scientific reading and study and yet the best you are capable of appears to be 'copied' standard YEC internet troll 'gotcha' questions?

I will ask you a question that I asked Mark that he has not yet answered - is it your opinion that there is a one-to-one relationship between mutation and phenotypic change?

I will clarify with an anecdote - years ago, on the old ARN forum, a creationist was asking the same sorts of questions you are here. I asked for clarification (the discussion at that time was on the evolution of the hand). He stated that he wanted to see the mutations that made the digits get longer and longer over time. I asked for more clarification. he said if the digits were one length in one generation, then the next generation they should have gotten a millimeter longer, the next generation, another millimeter longer due to another mutation, and so on.

That is what I am asking - do you think that mutations affect phenotype in this way?

 

[tas8831]

That's actually an interesting thought and I've tried. Whole genome sequences are not that easy to come by. I've always wanted to see comparisons of arctic wild like, especially bears and wolves. Still no luck and it's been a while since I seriously researched this stuff.



I really don't have that many arguments, mostly my approach is state the facts and draw a few obvious conclusions. For instance Paranthropos is clearly a transitional but outside our line, right where our ancestors should be. The Homo habilis stone age ape man is contrived and the same rationale would never be applied to anthropology.

As far as direct comparisons to the human genome to the chimpanzee genome the idels are massive. Highly conserved brain related genes would have had to accept major overhauls are be built from scratch. The most basic concept behind the inductive approach to science is one of cause and effect relationships. When it comes to brain related genes mutations are a wrong answer, that much I'm 100% sure of.

Thanks for the reply, but I was really hoping you would address this (my fault for not emphasizing it):

Are you of the opinion that there must be some sort of an ideal molecular-to-morphological ratio?

Also, you claim repeatedly that the amount of substitution accumulation in the gene in question is "impossible" given the previous rate of accumulation. Other than the assertion, I have not seen any explanation as to why (unless I missed it somewhere).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Some examples of genetic brain disorders include

Leukodystrophies
Phenylketonuria
Tay-Sachs disease
Wilson disease (Medline Plus)

Phenylketonuria: not caused by a mutation relating to brain growth or function, but rather, cell metabolism. Basically, people with this condition can't properly get a certain protein broken down, so if they don't control their diets, it can lead to brain damage due to the buildup of the protein in brain cells.
Leukodystrophies: A group of disorders related to the development of the mylin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells. That is, they don't properly develop them, or their bodies begin to break them down. This covers over a dozen exceedingly rare genetic diseases. Most of them are not barriers to reproduction, so their diseases are fairly irrelevant to evolution.
Tay-Sachs disease: Another metabolic disorder, but sadly, this one cannot be controlled via diet restrictions. Inherited recessively, so even when two carriers of the mutation have children, only about 25% of their kids will have the condition. Thus, this does not serve as a barrier to reproduction, and is irrelevant to evolution.
Wilson disease: Another metabolic disease, but this one generally hits the liver more than the brain, and can be controlled through diet restrictions. Not a barrier to reproduction.

-_- seriously, I never stated that detrimental mutations related to brain genes don't exist, but you could have at least looked into these conditions more to realize that 3 out of the 4 things you listed aren't caused by mutations on genes related to brain development. The brain tends to be hit hard by metabolic disorders due to how much energy it uses. And the 1 you did list which is related to brain development directly is actually a collection of many rare disorders that all relate to a specific part of neurons, the most severe of which are recessive genes (meaning the gene itself doesn't prevent reproduction) or hit after a person has already reached reproductive age in the case of the dominant gene ones. So, they aren't a barrier to reproduction, and that's all that matters as far as evolution is concerned.

It doesn't matter how much a mutation messes you up as long as you can reproduce successfully.

​

What your argument lacks is an accounting of the cost and benefit of brain related genes because all I've ever seen result from these mutations in brain related genes is disease, disorder and death.

That's not true, you've seen plenty of people with variation in their ability to learn and think critically. We just don't focus on the specific genes responsible because the disease causing ones take priority. Joe next door could have such terrible spatial reasoning that he can hardly tell his right from his left, but Jerry down the way has such good spatial reasoning that he can serve as an effective map for the entire country he lives in. Both of these would be caused by mutations, all variation is mutation.

Your problem may be from the result of approaching this as if the first human had no mutations, and every single gene they had was the ideal, but this is not the case in evolution. There is no ideal, no standard of "perfect for the environment" an organism can reach. We are all just making due with the genes we are stuck with, and those who can't end up dying.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. The idiotic idea that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. Since Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 and Apes on planet Earth appeared on the 5th Day Gen 1:21, do you think 5 is after 3? Of course it is. Your half truth is soundly refuted by God's Holy Word which agrees with every discovery of mankind.

That's not an assumption. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
1. The idiotic idea that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. Since Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 and Apes on planet Earth appeared on the 5th Day Gen 1:21, do you think 5 is after 3? Of course it is. Your half truth is soundly refuted by God's Holy Word which agrees with every discovery of mankind.

That's not an assumption. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.

False, since you have confused Humans (descendants of Adam) with the sons of God (prehistoric people). Your conclusion is wrong since it knows nothing of our true beginnings, which happened on another world. 2 Peter 3:7

Humans were made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 and EVERY other living creature that moves was NOT made until the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Your incomplete idea that Humans (His kind) were made AFTER other creatures (Their kind) is totally wrong. Do you have ANY idea of the difference between His and Their kinds? IF not, then you cannot understand Genesis.

 

[xianghua]

"some parts in the chimp genome is actually closer to chicken genome then to human."

and what "some parts" means?

 

[Loudmouth]

False, since you have confused Humans (descendants of Adam) with the sons of God (prehistoric people). Your conclusion is wrong since it knows nothing of our true beginnings, which happened on another world. 2 Peter 3:7

That would be an assumption you are making, not I.

Humans were made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 and EVERY other living creature that moves was NOT made until the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Your incomplete idea that Humans (His kind) were made AFTER other creatures (Their kind) is totally wrong. Do you have ANY idea of the difference between His and Their kinds? IF not, then you cannot understand Genesis.

Those are all claims without evidence, otherwise called assumptions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Phenylketonuria: not caused by a mutation relating to brain growth or function, but rather, cell metabolism. Basically, people with this condition can't properly get a certain protein broken down, so if they don't control their diets, it can lead to brain damage due to the buildup of the protein in brain cells.

Mutations in the PAH gene cause phenylketonuria. The PAH gene provides instructions for making an enzyme called phenylalanine hydroxylase. This enzyme converts the amino acid phenylalanine to other important compounds in the body. If gene mutations reduce the activity of phenylalanine hydroxylase, phenylalanine from the diet is not processed effectively. As a result, this amino acid can build up to toxic levels in the blood and other tissues. Because nerve cells in the brain are particularly sensitive to phenylalanine levels, excessive amounts of this substance can cause brain damage. (Phenylketonuria, National Library of Medicine)​

Leukodystrophies: A group of disorders related to the development of the mylin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells. That is, they don't properly develop them, or their bodies begin to break them down. This covers over a dozen exceedingly rare genetic diseases. Most of them are not barriers to reproduction, so their diseases are fairly irrelevant to evolution.

Very few mutations are significant on an evolutionary scale:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations)
​

The point is that mutations in brain related genes cause disease and disorder, not adaptive evolution.

Tay-Sachs disease: Another metabolic disorder, but sadly, this one cannot be controlled via diet restrictions. Inherited recessively, so even when two carriers of the mutation have children, only about 25% of their kids will have the condition. Thus, this does not serve as a barrier to reproduction, and is irrelevant to evolution.

Mutations in the HEXA gene cause Tay-Sachs disease. The HEXA gene provides instructions for making part of an enzyme called beta-hexosaminidase A, which plays a critical role in the brain and spinal cord. This enzyme is located in lysosomes, which are structures in cells that break down toxic substances and act as recycling centers. Within lysosomes, beta-hexosaminidase A helps break down a fatty substance called GM2 ganglioside. (Tay-Sachs disease, National Library of Medicine)​

Wilson disease: Another metabolic disease, but this one generally hits the liver more than the brain, and can be controlled through diet restrictions. Not a barrier to reproduction.

Wilson disease is caused by mutations in the ATP7B gene. This gene provides instructions for making a protein called copper-transporting ATPase 2, which plays a role in the transport of copper from the liver to other parts of the body. Copper is necessary for many cellular functions, but it is toxic when present in excessive amounts. The copper-transporting ATPase 2 protein is particularly important for the elimination of excess copper from the body. Mutations in the ATP7B gene prevent the transport protein from functioning properly. With a shortage of functional protein, excess copper is not removed from the body. As a result, copper accumulates to toxic levels that can damage tissues and organs, particularly the liver and brain. (Wilson disease, National Library of Medicine)​

-_- seriously, I never stated that detrimental mutations related to brain genes don't exist, but you could have at least looked into these conditions more to realize that 3 out of the 4 things you listed aren't caused by mutations on genes related to brain development. The brain tends to be hit hard by metabolic disorders due to how much energy it uses. And the 1 you did list which is related to brain development directly is actually a collection of many rare disorders that all relate to a specific part of neurons, the most severe of which are recessive genes (meaning the gene itself doesn't prevent reproduction) or hit after a person has already reached reproductive age in the case of the dominant gene ones. So, they aren't a barrier to reproduction, and that's all that matters as far as evolution is concerned.

The issue is the adaptive evolution of brain related genes and mutations are the worst cause imaginable. Whether or not they directly effect reproduction is irrelevant to the fact that mutations in brain related genes result in disease, disorder and death.

It doesn't matter how much a mutation messes you up as long as you can reproduce successfully.

It matters if you are arguing that the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes is the result of mutations. It's also even more significant when you realize there are no less then 60 de novo genes that would have had to be built from the ground up.

That's not true, you've seen plenty of people with variation in their ability to learn and think critically. We just don't focus on the specific genes responsible because the disease causing ones take priority. Joe next door could have such terrible spatial reasoning that he can hardly tell his right from his left, but Jerry down the way has such good spatial reasoning that he can serve as an effective map for the entire country he lives in. Both of these would be caused by mutations, all variation is mutation.

That's not how a genetic mutation is defined:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Kimbal Biology Pages, Mutations)​

Your problem may be from the result of approaching this as if the first human had no mutations, and every single gene they had was the ideal, but this is not the case in evolution. There is no ideal, no standard of "perfect for the environment" an organism can reach. We are all just making due with the genes we are stuck with, and those who can't end up dying.

Your problem is you want to equivocate a genetic mutation with any variation whatsoever. When a population begins to dwindle in numbers because they are hunted to near extinction a bottle neck happens and the gene pool shrinks. When there is a large gene pool there is more possibilities for adaptive traits. Assuming accelerated adaptive evolution following the Flood it only makes sense that there would be much larger gene pools. Over time as adaptive evolution takes hold the gene pools shrinks to maintain adaptive traits. The GULO gene is supposed to produce vitamin C but our GULO gene is broken so we have to get vitamin C from our food.

In order for a brain related gene to adapt on an evolutionary scale it must be changed with beneficial effect and be inheritable, then fixed. The only brain related gene variation you will find resulting in an effect strong enough for selection to act will be disease, disorder and death. That's not a formula for adaptive evolution, it's a formula for extinction.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks for the reply, but I was really hoping you would address this (my fault for not emphasizing it):

Are you of the opinion that there must be some sort of an ideal molecular-to-morphological ratio?

Also, you claim repeatedly that the amount of substitution accumulation in the gene in question is "impossible" given the previous rate of accumulation. Other than the assertion, I have not seen any explanation as to why (unless I missed it somewhere).

My argument here is that mutations are not a viable cause. There is an arctic cod that developed an antifreeze gene, a protein coding gene that was developed at least 4 times. It's composed of simple repeats and is different in at least four populations of arctic cods and exists in none of the warm water cods. On the other hand Polar Bears and Grizzles can still interbreed, that's a pretty strong indicator they have a close common ancestor.

I'm saying mutations are not an explanation at all. What you are looking for is the molecular mechanism capable of producing these adaptive traits and if you simply assume genetic mutations your going down a blind alley in the dark with a stranger, your going to get mugged.

 

[Tanj]

My argument here is that mutations are not a viable cause.

You are wrong Mark, handful of cherry picked deleterious mutations notwithstanding.

For a really cool example of rapid mutation based (though in this case it's a transposon rather than substitution) gain of function, have a look at DDT resistance in fruit flies, or indeed the genetics of pesticide resistance in general.

 

[Aman777]

↑
Aman:>>False, since you have confused Humans (descendants of Adam) with the sons of God (prehistoric people). Your conclusion is wrong since it knows nothing of our true beginnings, which happened on another world. 2 Peter 3:7

*** That would be an assumption you are making, not I.

1. Humans (descendants of Adam) began some 14 Billion years ago on another small world/heaven/biosphere. We are a Special Creation made by the Hands of Lord God/Jesus, from the dust, Gen 2:4-7 long BEFORE any other creature, even before the plants, herbs and trees which GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12
2. On the 5th Day, some 10 Billion years, in man's time, after Adam was formed, God the TRINITY created and brought forth from water, "every living creature that moveth". Gen 1:21
3. Humans are HIS kind and all other creatures are THEIR kind, The Trinity's kind.

Unless you know the difference between His (Jesus) kinds and Their (Trinity's kinds), you are left confused in the darkness of your own mind. God Bless you

 

[Loudmouth]

Very few mutations are significant on an evolutionary scale:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations)
​

The point is that mutations in brain related genes cause disease and disorder, not adaptive evolution.

What about the differences between human brain genes and the homologous genes in other species? Are at least some of those differences beneficial?

The issue is the adaptive evolution of brain related genes and mutations are the worst cause imaginable.

Then how do you explain the differences between the human brain and the chimp brain? What causes those differences if it is not differences in the DNA sequence of the human and chimp genomes?

Your problem is you want to equivocate a genetic mutation with any variation whatsoever. When a population begins to dwindle in numbers because they are hunted to near extinction a bottle neck happens and the gene pool shrinks. When there is a large gene pool there is more possibilities for adaptive traits. Assuming accelerated adaptive evolution following the Flood it only makes sense that there would be much larger gene pools. Over time as adaptive evolution takes hold the gene pools shrinks to maintain adaptive traits. The GULO gene is supposed to produce vitamin C but our GULO gene is broken so we have to get vitamin C from our food.

What drives accelerated adaptation in small populations is the fact that new beneficial mutations can quickly reach fixation.

In order for a brain related gene to adapt on an evolutionary scale it must be changed with beneficial effect and be inheritable, then fixed. The only brain related gene variation you will find resulting in an effect strong enough for selection to act will be disease, disorder and death. That's not a formula for adaptive evolution, it's a formula for extinction.

Then what causes human brains to be different?

 

[Loudmouth]

My argument here is that mutations are not a viable cause.

If differences in the DNA sequence of species' genomes is not a viable explanation for why there are physical differences between the species, then what in the world causes them to have physical differences?