Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[tas8831]

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?


Whats next well poisoning and projection?



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?

bumping for pshun.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are talking about those mutations that do have an effect and they are always deleterious.

Then how are humans able to survive with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome, including mutations in brain related genes?

There you go again, attributing genetic variation to mutations.

What's the difference?

Are you saying that if God changes a base it won't be deleterious, but if a natural mutation occurs at the same base and produces the same change that it will be deleterious?

 

[tas8831]

No! Include and emphasize both...

"Now in truth, the human HAR1 demonstrates a difference with Chimps of 18 base pairs (and this is a gene so this makes it very different in form and function). YET...because the Chimps have one form of the gene and Humans have another they count this as a similarity when doing their tallying (to persuade you).

But in reality (not hypothesis driven) this 18 base pair difference is quite significant! (but shhh! you're not supposed to think about the actual data) "


Yup. Such emphasis.

a 15% difference in sequence of an organized section can have any number of of effects (many possibly unknown)...and I am not saying they all are bad (I am not in that camp). Also even 85% similarity does not indicate one is mutation of the other and scientists know this

Which scientists "know" that identical (or nearly so) "genes" can pop up in unrelated organisms?

Names please - and their work that demonstrates this. JUST the names and citations will do - no unnecessarily lengthy expositions on tangential minutiae.

so they conclude with an ancestor of the gaps argument that the mutation responsible for producing these two distinct outcomes occurred in a common ancestor (which the brainwashed automatically accept)

Actually, the 'brainwashed' appear to automatically accept that there is a massive, world-wide conspiracy involving possibly hundreds of thousands (millions?) of educated professionals and hundreds of thousands of scientific articles using gigabytes of data to relegate their favorite deity to the background.


And do you really think that 'the brainwashed' believe that "the mutation responsible for producing these two distinct outcomes occurred in a common ancestor"?

A claimed 3-decade study of science, and some still rely on strawmen.

but no one has been able to produce one example upon which to base this conclusion. Anyone can pick a proverbial rabbit out of the hat and choose a creature that does not have this variation from an earlier time and say this eventually BECAME these others but that is a blind leap of foundationaless faith in the preconceived conclusion.

Again, 30 years of claimed 'study' of science and that is what you come up with?

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.​

Yeah... just 'foundationless faith' in... tested methods and applications.

To demonstrate such a mutation occurred one must show a before and after in the same line of organisms (the same problem exists for many alleged indels...no demonstrative cases if insertion or deletion just assumption to explain their distinct presence).

Must they do this?

You mean the entire field of comparative genomics is stocked with just a bunch of brainwashed conspiracists?

 

[Loudmouth]

No! Include and emphasize both...a 15% difference in sequence of an organized section can have any number of of effects (many possibly unknown)...and I am not saying they all are bad (I am not in that camp). Also even 85% similarity does not indicate one is mutation of the other and scientists know this so they conclude with an ancestor of the gaps argument that the mutation responsible for producing these two distinct outcomes occurred in a common ancestor (which the brainwashed automatically accept) but no one has been able to produce one example upon which to base this conclusion. Anyone can pick a proverbial rabbit out of the hat and choose a creature that does not have this variation from an earlier time and say this eventually BECAME these others but that is a blind leap of foundationaless faith in the preconceived conclusion.

To demonstrate such a mutation occurred one must show a before and after in the same line of organisms (the same problem exists for many alleged indels...no demonstrative cases if insertion or deletion just assumption to explain their distinct presence).

Do we have to observe a criminal producing a fingerprint at the crime scene in order to use fingerprint evidence in court? Of course not, and the same logic applies to mutations.

 

[pshun2404]

Do we have to observe a criminal producing a fingerprint at the crime scene in order to use fingerprint evidence in court? Of course not, and the same logic applies to mutations.

Not at all the same. In a court case using finger prints we have two samples (the one taken and the person who owns them) and if they had been mutated or damaged it would be apparent. So in the case I presented (sickle cell) we see the normal gene (present in the greater population, and then we see the mutated gene (a single base pair difference) in those with Sickle cell. Thus the same logic demands IF we could we see the HAR1A without the alleged mutations added, and then see the changed mutated version (to compare) THEN we could say it is a mutation (not just a difference).

To show a mutation one has to be able to demonstrate it was different at some earlier time in the same line of organisms. We would not take an orangutan fingerprint and compare it to a human fingerprint and then assume the human fingerprint a mutation (we COULD call it that but there is no evidence the assertion would be true).

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all the same. In a court case using finger prints we have two samples (the one taken and the person who owns them) and if they had been mutated or damaged it would be apparent.

We can observe mutations in the present, so the same logic applies.

So in the case I presented (sickle cell) we see the normal gene (present in the greater population, and then we see the mutated gene (a single base pair difference) in those with Sickle cell.

To meet your own requirements, wouldn't you have to go back in time and watch the mutation occur?

To show a mutation one has to be able to demonstrate it was different at some earlier time in the same line of organisms.

That's what one does with phylogenies and consensus sequences. For example, if the orangutan, gorilla, and human base is the same at a specific position and the chimp base is different then we can know that the mutation occurred in the chimp lineage. This can be done for HAR1A as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Chimps and humans still share about 95% of their genome.

Not very often,
in my circles.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not very often, in my circles.

Unless your circle is a circle of geneticists and molecular biologists, their opinions really don't matter.

 

[SkyWriting]

Chimps and humans still share about 95% of their genome.

You fail to mention that it means very little how much DNA is shared
since it is a building block.

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

 

[SkyWriting]

Unless your circle is a circle of geneticists and molecular biologists, their opinions really don't matter.

They have sex with chimps? I'll watch for them on the streets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You fail to mention that it means very little how much DNA is shared
since it is a building block.

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

There is more than one way to measure "similarity". By different methods humans have 98% and perhaps even 99% similarity to chimps. I am betting that the method used was one of the latter ones. And it seems that you keep ignoring the fact that not only humans have a nested hierarchy of relationship, where we have the closest similarity to our closest relatives, but all other organisms have the same. In other words lions are more closely related to tigers than they are to cheetahs than they are to dogs than they are to dogs, than they are to snakes than they are to fishes etc.. With each step getting a larger and larger difference. A relationship that creationists have not been able to explain.

 

[SkyWriting]

Unless your circle is a circle of geneticists and molecular biologists, their opinions really don't matter.

By different methods humans have 98% and perhaps even 99% similarity to chimps.

Here is a 100% match up in design parts.

 

[SkyWriting]

And it seems that you keep ignoring the fact that not only humans have a nested hierarchy of relationship, where we have the closest similarity to our closest relatives,

And that would be because DNA decides how you look. Make your case
for your relationship with this worm instead.

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

 

[SkyWriting]

There is more than one way to measure "similarity". By different methods humans have 98% and perhaps even 99% similarity to chimps. I am betting that the method used was one of the latter ones. And it seems that you keep ignoring the fact that not only humans have a nested hierarchy of relationship, where we have the closest similarity to our closest relatives, but all other organisms have the same. In other words lions are more closely related to tigers than they are to cheetahs than they are to dogs than they are to dogs, than they are to snakes than they are to fishes etc.. With each step getting a larger and larger difference. A relationship that creationists have not been able to explain.

Um. Becasue you are defining "Closest relative" based on the DNA results, that's why.
Likely that's why they just shake their head.

 

[SkyWriting]

Chimps and humans still share about 95% of their genome.

There are a large number of genes which are the same between humans and bananas.
Make your argument with bananas.

25% of our DNA is the same as rice. Make your argument with rice.

 

[Aman777]

Where else would it come from? Magic?

Amen. Godless men dreamed up the phony ToE because it would take Magic to change Apes into Humans (descendants of Adam). They don't know that Humans arrived in the Ark 11k years ago, but you do. God Bless you

 

[Loudmouth]

They have sex with chimps? I'll watch for them on the streets.

Huh?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are a large number of genes which are the same between humans and bananas.

By what measure are you defining "the same"? If the banana and human gene are 40% similar at the DNA sequence level, is that "the same"?

Also, humans share a common ancestor with bananas that was neither a human nor a banana. We would expect to see shared DNA between the banana and human genome.

 

[Loudmouth]

Um. Becasue you are defining "Closest relative" based on the DNA results, that's why.

Shouldn't our closest relative share the most DNA with us?

 

[Loudmouth]

And that would be because DNA decides how you look. Make your case
for your relationship with this worm instead.

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

We share a common ancestor with worms, so we would expect to find homologous genes in the worm and human genome. How is this a problem for the theory of evolution?