Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[Loudmouth]

Here is a 100% match up in design parts.

How was your comparison done? Explain it.

 

[tas8831]

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

Have you ever known creationists to remain internally consistent in their argumentation?

Plus - still waiting for pshun to tell us what the 2nd law of genetics is...

 

[tas8831]

We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc) they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…

We are bi-pedal and they are knuckle walkers,

We have pronounced chins they have small receded chins,

We have a big toe in line with our other toes and they have opposable or separated big toes, ours for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…

We have very different skeletal structures…

We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, they have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)

The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.

Chimp teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)

Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the chimps is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, chimps are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.

Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the chimps is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours,

We exhibit 3 main morphological types (Neanderthal Sapiens, Denisovan Sapiens, and Sapien sapiens) chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,

Chimp-kind is only found in Africa, while human-kind is found everywhere in the world,

Chimp intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence,


Humans live long compared to chimps,


Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,

We have a covering of fine hairs and theirs are thick, course, fur.


The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases taught by conditioning in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on.

Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary but also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me” to ask for an apple and “give me orange” to say they are tired now….they do not get confused or associate the difference…On the other hand, from a very young age, humans understand this. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple”…or at least exhibit confusion

We have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.

Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes vert abstract) while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.

Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that “chimps” are unable to infer the mental state of another, whether they are happy, sad, angry, interested in some goal, in love, jealous or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary). In addition, even trained “chimps” do not conversate with other individuals though as individuals they do demonstrate some basic emotions (anger, rage, happiness, grief, depression, etc.)

Just more to consider from a Homo Cognitarus

Great - is it your position that each of those is produced with some independent and specific number of mutations?

If so, what is the justification for that position?

 

[tas8831]

pshun2404 said: ↑

Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...

Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long

Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.

The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.

Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!

Had you considered the possibility that those 'same genes' were not sequenced to the same extent?

When I was in graduate school, we we comparing 2 introns from a gene across several species. We used the human gene - the entire coding region, plus introns, plus 3' and 5' flanking regions - as a reference. For some taxa, our genomic DNA samples were old and we had limited success in sequencing the introns. In others, we had no problems at all. The primers we used to generate PCR fragments were in exons because they were fairly well conserved, and so for some taxa we had not only the introns, but parts of exons as well. several taxa had extensive repetitions in their introns, making one, for instance, nearly 1kb larger than all of the others.
By your implicit logic, we should have concluded that these sequences were not from the SAME GENE, despite the fact that we have amplified fragments using identical primers (30+ years of reading on these subjects should be sufficient for your understanding of the above).

I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).

In fact, I am willing to bet in it.

What say you?

I note, pshun, that you never replied to this.

Despite your protestations, and your claims of a great grasp of the science, I find that the things a creationist deigns not to address is often more relevant and informative than what they will.

 

[tas8831]

Take a look at this as an example:

Human: AGTACGATGGC T A CA

Chimp: AGTACTATGGC T A CG

Here we have an actual segmented sequence of the human genome and its chimpanzee equivalent. This is noted, and then G,T and A,G differences are called “substitutions” but why? In other words one has been substituted for the other.

What is the genetic context? Was it only those two being compared?

If we were to look at an expanded sequence, and they prove to be identical in 95 out of 100 nucleotides, you will provide the same implied dismissal. Yet you will never say (on here, anyway) what interpretation you actually prefer and support it with rationale/evidence.

They say one or the other is a mutation, only if that is true then which one?

Would it matter?

If you were to look at a comparison of sequence from 2 humans, and they showed differences like those you show above - what would you conclude?

That they were independently created that way? I could easily pick apart that 'explanation.' Which is why, I suppose, creationists never seem to actually present a case FOR creation.

What was it you've written about those that accept evolution - ah yes - the brainwashed will just accept such "explanations".

When asked if they qould please show when it was not mutated so we can SEE which one is the actual mutation, they cannot show us one example! Instead they then say it happened in a Common Ancestor.

Same thing in humans? Or will there be special pleading?

So being told that and we also ask, “Okay fine, can you please show me a sample of their genome so I can compare the sequence”? So I can really see which one is the mutation and which one is not?” Again they cannot.

Actually, we can infer it from extant lineages providing we have more than just the two to compare.

Again, I am surprised that someone with 30 years of science experience does not understand this.

In fact, they cannot show us the Common Ancestor at all let, alone it’s genome, and here’s the thing, when pressured it turns out they have never seen it either! WHAT!!! So why do they believe it true as if it is true, and why teach this assumption to us as if it is an established fact, without actual demonstrable evidence that such a “substitution” actually occurred?

Because it is inferred, in the same way that one could infer your relationship to a person that you don;t even know you are related to, without knowing where, many generations back, your 'lineages' split.

All I see here is a willingness to dismiss that which goes against one's presuppositions.

We’re just supposed to believe it because they told us it is true? No...show us!

Just-so stories are in the realm of religion, not science.

You are supposed to accept that conclusion because there is evidence to support it. You spend a great deal of effort frantically trying to dismiss and find fault with that evidence, the methods, the people, etc. rather than provide counter evidence.

You may fool and convince people in your bible study, but look around - there are several active posters on this forum right now that actually have experience and knowledge in these areas that surpass yours.
You don't fool them.

To be confirmed to actually be substituted one would have to show they once were one thing, and now are another, and I have not seen this demonstrated in either the human or chimp genome (just that one differs from the other in these places) or in a common ancestor.

Interesting, seeing as how just a few days ago you had to ask for a link to the chimp genome paper. You a speed reader?

Now the burden is not on someone to show they are NOT substitutions (that is asking someone to prove a negative which is illogical) because they very well may be. But the claim is made that they ARE this and so the burden is theirs to demonstrate it (not just assume it based on a presupposed hypothesis or belief).

And when you simply ignore or dismiss the evidence?

There is a nice old paper called "Reexamination of the African hominoid trichotomy with additional sequences from the primate β-globin gene cluster". It may be hard to find a PDF, but do try. In these older (1992) phylogeny papers, the sequence data was usually printed as part of the paper - this paper has like 10 pages of sequence data from multiple taxa, nicely lined up and easy to see. In this context, you can clearly see the trends in substitution. well, that is, if you are not dead-set against substitutions occurring.

Here is another:

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Chimp: AGTCATACCAGTCTACC

So via computer programs they separate the chimp genome after AGTC and then call the human G an insertion, or the lack thereof in the Chimp a deletion, but what if the difference is the whole idea? What if the two respective genomes are exactly what they are supposed to be and nothing was inserted or deleted?

What if?

You think it was supposed to be that way, burden of proof is on YOU.
oops...

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTC TACC

That gap does not really exist! If they were always a normal part of each respective genome, just as they are, one in one order with their sequence, and the other in their order with a different sequence. Thus always what it is in each (making each creature what they are uniquely), then there is no need to automatically assume one is inserted and/or the other is deleted.

Yes, IF. Again, let's see your evidence.

One has to ASSUME that at one time the genomes were the same (in a Common Ancestor).

That assumption is actually premised on conclusions drawn from many other sources.

When you did ELISAs in your lab days, did you ASSUME that the means by which they were claimed to work was based in reality? Why did you rely on that ASSUMPTION? Did you re-run all of the experimental work employed in coming up with the ELISA system in the first each time you used it, or did you just ASSUME that it would work?

Now to confirm it one must produce an example of the original model for comparison or else the whole assumption remains in the realm of the theoretical and hypothetical. You CAN see that makes sense can't you?

Sure, it makes sense for a dedicated creationist to make such unrealistic and biased demands - and to reject the underlying justifications for the types of analyses employed and so on. it is an act of desperation cloaked in 'science.'

I mean in all cases of contract law any claims of insertions or deletions must be demonstrated to assure confirmation.

Ah. A totally inapt analogy. Followed by irrelevant and unnecessary verbiage. Surprising!

 

[SkyWriting]

How was your comparison done? Explain it.

Analysis of the two created beings shows that 100% of the building blocks
that form the features of the two beings include design elements capable
of forming the observed design features. This allows that have the same
designer during the construction.

Analysis of the final design might show a commonality that would
support the same designer theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Pretty good proof that people and bananas are siblings.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

You invented the closest relative ordering based on observable features and functions.
Given that final form and function are dictated by DNA, your original ordering
should match well with the genetic ordering you create.

DNA simply reflects the original ordering done by people with eyes. It adds little new
to the original ordering method.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

They share a common designer so have the same DNA "machines".
How is this a problem for Creationists?

 

[Tanj]

They share a common designer so have the same DNA "machines".
How is this a problem for Creationists?

Because the similarity is a nested hierarchy which reflects the morphology, and which by any intelligent understanding makes for truly dreadful design. Using just flight as an example:

Why design a winged bird that cannot fly?
Why do the flightless penguins have the same hollow bone structure that flying birds have?
Why do flying bats have solid bones?
Why is the bat wing bone structure more similar to the human hand than a bird wing?


All of these questions are well answered by evolution. ID has no answer at all.

 

[sfs]

All of these questions are well answered by evolution. ID has no answer at all.

They also have no answer for why the genetic differences between species look exactly like accumulated mutations.

 

[SkyWriting]

Because the similarity is a nested hierarchy which reflects the morphology, and which by any intelligent understanding makes for truly dreadful design. Using just flight as an example:
Why design a winged bird that cannot fly?
Why do the flightless penguins have the same hollow bone structure that flying birds have?
Why do flying bats have solid bones?
Why is the bat wing bone structure more similar to the human hand than a bird wing?
All of these questions are well answered by evolution. ID has no answer at all.

1 Environmental conditions change are on schedule.
2. 1.
3. It works.
4. It works.

 

[Tanj]

1 Environmental conditions change are on schedule.
2. 1.
3. It works.
4. It works.

These are very poor responses. What does "environmental conditions change on schedule" have to do with bats, that live in the same environment as birds, having different wing and bone structure?

Secondly, "it works" has 0 explanatory power. You might as well say goddidit and be done with. I didn't even mention that on a whole genome level bats are more closely related to humans mice and whales than birds.

And that's the thing. I can keep adding in extra data, and evolution still fits. ID just gets lost. Iders microscope in one one tiny detail. We try to account for all of the data.

Humans and bats have 3 ear bones, and we both give live birth and suckle our offspring. The more data you add, the sillier ID looks.

Further example: I work in data science. Alot of my first time users/clients tell me they use excel for their data management. That is something which both "works" and is an awful idea/design.

 

[Jimmy D]

These are very poor responses. What does "environmental conditions change on schedule" have to do with bats, that live in the same environment as birds, having different wing and bone structure?

Secondly, "it works" has 0 explanatory power. You might as well say goddidit and be done with. I didn't even mention that on a whole genome level bats are more closely related to humans mice and whales than birds.

And that's the thing. I can keep adding in extra data, and evolution still fits. ID just gets lost. Iders microscope in one one tiny detail. We try to account for all of the data.

Humans and bats have 3 ear bones, and we both give live birth and suckle our offspring. The more data you add, the sillier ID looks.

Further example: I work in data science. Alot of my first time users/clients tell me they use excel for their data management. That is something which both "works" and is an awful idea/design.

Great post, sadly it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[tas8831]

"...God's Holy Word which agrees with every discovery of mankind."

That sounds made-up. How did God's word agree with the discovery of Pluto?

False, since you have confused Humans (descendants of Adam) with the sons of God (prehistoric people).

"Sons" - who are these 'sons'? Specifically, who are they, and what is the evidence that they really were sons of God?

 

[tas8831]

and what "some parts" means?

Means to me that you originally intended it to mean something other than it really does, and are backpedaling because you were called out.

 

[tas8831]

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

It is a bad thing that the Republican Party has been glorifying ignorance for a few decades now.

That slimy worm is made up of.... Cells, yes?

We are also made up of cells, yes? Trillions of them.

With your vast knowledge of basic cellular biology, perhaps you can explain why we might share many genes with a slimy worm.

But I doubt it.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is a bad thing that the Republican Party has been glorifying ignorance for a few decades now.

That slimy worm is made up of.... Cells, yes?

We are also made up of cells, yes? Trillions of them.

With your vast knowledge of basic cellular biology, perhaps you can explain why we might share many genes with a slimy worm.

But I doubt it.

Genes organize living systems. The more systems in common, the more likely similar DNA.

 

[tas8831]

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

If DNA decides 'how you look', then tell us all about the DNA of sharks and whales. Tell us all about the DNA of seals and bears, or manatees and elephants.

Surely, with all of your learnin', you can?

 

[SkyWriting]

If DNA decides 'how you look', then tell us all about the DNA of sharks and whales. Tell us all about the DNA of seals and bears, or manatees and elephants.

Surely, with all of your learnin', you can?

What would you like to know?