99% human/chimp genome similarity? NOT!

[sfs]

I think it's obvious that there is a percentage of difference between human and chimp DNA where there wouldn't be enough time to "evolve" the different characteristics. Where would you place that % difference? 95%? 90%? 85%? 80%? ...lower?

Depends on the mutational processes. If we confine ourselves to the mutational processes we observe, then we'd expect just about the divergence we also observe -- which hasn't changed since the chimpanzee genome was sequenced.

 

[-57]

Depends on the mutational processes. If we confine ourselves to the mutational processes we observe, then we'd expect just about the divergence we also observe -- which hasn't changed since the chimpanzee genome was sequenced.

You didn'y really answer the question....if several years from now science shows a 50% DNA difference....that would clearly shows there wouldn't be enough time. If that were to happen you would then be required to adjust...change....your mutation rate. Yes?

With that said, can you answer the question.....What is the lowest difference in DNA between chimp and human evolutionism could accept?

 

[sfs]

You didn'y really answer the question....if several years from now science shows a 50% DNA difference....that would clearly shows there wouldn't be enough time. If that were to happen you would then be required to adjust...change....your mutation rate. Yes?

I have no idea what we would do if we were living in that world.

With that said, can you answer the question.....What is the lowest difference in DNA between chimp and human evolutionism could accept?

"Evolutionism" isn't a thing. Do you mean, what is the lowest difference that would be consistent with common descent of humans and chimpanzees? I don't know. It's a counterfactual that doesn't seem worth spending a lot of time on. We know what the actual difference is, and it isn't anything like 50%.

 

[-57]

I have no idea what we would do if we were living in that world.


"Evolutionism" isn't a thing. Do you mean, what is the lowest difference that would be consistent with common descent of humans and chimpanzees? I don't know. It's a counterfactual that doesn't seem worth spending a lot of time on. We know what the actual difference is, and it isn't anything like 50%.

There will become a point where more and more junk DNA....isn't junk....and the difference between humans and chimps increases to the point you run out of time using evo-mutation rates to explain the differences. When that occur will you adjust your facts again? I suggest you spend time answering the question because that day will come...if it's not here already.

 

[sfs]

There will become a point where more and more junk DNA....isn't junk..

No, that really isn't going to happen. Are we playing make-believe here?

and the difference between humans and chimps increases to the point you run out of time using evo-mutation rates to explain the differences.

How on earth could that happen? We've looked at the bulk of the DNA. We know how different it is. Nothing at all has occurred to suggest that previous estimates were wrong. Why would you expect that to start changing now?

When that occur will you adjust your facts again?

On that day, the unicorns will get together with the leprechauns and explain the whole thing.

I suggest you spend time answering the question because that day will come...if it's not here already.

I suggest you offer comments based on facts, not fantasy.

 

[-57]

No, that really isn't going to happen. Are we playing make-believe here?

How on earth could that happen? We've looked at the bulk of the DNA. We know how different it is. Nothing at all has occurred to suggest that previous estimates were wrong. Why would you expect that to start changing now?

On that day, the unicorns will get together with the leprechauns and explain the whole thing.

I suggest you offer comments based on facts, not fantasy.

Nice try.

 

[sfs]

Nice try.

Failure to offer any support for previous hypothetical suggestions noted.

 

[-57]

Failure to offer any support for previous hypothetical suggestions noted.

You continue to fail....in telling me...at what percentage does it become obvious we don't have a common ancestor with chimps.

 

[sfs]

You continue to fail....in telling me...at what percentage does it become obvious we don't have a common ancestor with chimps.

I did tell you: I don't know. You still haven't given any reason to think this question has anything to do with reality.

 

[-57]

I did tell you: I don't know. You still haven't given any reason to think this question has anything to do with reality.

The reality is scientist use to tell us human and chimp DNA similarities were about 99% ...that number has lowered as we learn more about DNA. Considering evolutionism is impossible, someday there will to great a difference in DNA that evolutionism will have to concede we are not related to chimps.

 

[sfs]

The reality is scientist use to tell us human and chimp DNA similarities were about 99% ...that number has lowered as we learn more about DNA.

But that's not the reality. Did you not read this thread? The estimated difference between human and chimpanzee genome hasn't changed at all since the chimp genome was published. So what does your question have to do with reality, where human-chimpanzee divergence isn't changing?

 

[-57]

But that's not the reality. Did you not read this thread? The estimated difference between human and chimpanzee genome hasn't changed at all since the chimp genome was published. So what does your question have to do with reality, where human-chimpanzee divergence isn't changing?

During the last decade it was commonly accepted that humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, only differed by 1.24 % in our DNA sequences. This discovery shows that this figure is absolutely incorrect and, what is more, may be ten times higher. Nature magazine is to publish this important scientific discovery in a special issue on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. rest of article

 

[sfs]

During the last decade it was commonly accepted that humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, only differed by 1.24 % in our DNA sequences. This discovery shows that this figure is absolutely incorrect and, what is more, may be ten times higher. Nature magazine is to publish this important scientific discovery in a special issue on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. rest of article

That's not an article -- that's a press release. Press releases about scientific studies are often highly inaccurate, and this is one of the worst examples I've seen. Even the title of the actual research paper, "A burst of segmental duplications in the genome of the African great ape ancestor", might suggest that the press release isn't describing what it's actually about. If you read the paper itself, you will find that it says precisely nothing about the overall divergence between human and chimpanzee DNA and that it offers no evidence and no comments to suggest that they have found new differences.

What they do report is, "On the basis of our four-way primate genome analysis and leveraging array-CGH data from gorilla and bonobo (Pan paniscus), we classify only

10 Mb of duplication content as human specific (210 duplication intervals with an average length of 53.1 kb)." In other words, 0.3% of the human genome is unique to humans as a result of large-scale duplications. Much of this -- maybe all of it -- will have been identified in the chimp genome paper as part of the 1.5% of the human genome that's unique to our lineage, but that's not a question the authors were interested in. Anything they found that had been missed previously was likely at the level of rounding error.

 

[loveofourlord]

Here is a popular evolutionary myth I looked into a while back:

Since 2003, false claims by evolutionary biologists started cropping up in the popular media stating that the human genome and chimp genome are 99% identical, thus proving evolution. This falsely implied that a COMPLETE genome of both was compared. This is a false claim on so many levels:

1) Genome mapping is only concerned with the protein coding sequences, estimated at between 1-4% of the entire genome. The remainder of the genome, much of which is considered to be "junk DNA" by many in the field, has not been completely mapped to date.

2) What was actually compared between humans and chimps was ONLY the protein-coding sequences - which make up less than 4% of the total genome. The latest studies show it to be as low as 1% of the total genome.

3) The comparison studies used mathematical algorythms rather than a direct genome-to-genome comparison which is considered too laborious at this time of technology.

4) The algorythms have been constantly improved and tweaked since the initial studies to more accurately reflect a real comparison - by including indels for example. The 99% has slowly decreased in value. The 99% was initially downgraded to 98%, then 96%, then 85%, and the most current studies show 70% similarity. Do you see the trend?

5) The initial studies back in 2003 also claimed that the genome of humans and bananas had a 50% similarity. This credulously implied that we, as humans, were 50% banana! Undoubtedly, this 50% number is also too high. Nonetheless, evolutionary biologists with PhDs were quick to jump on the bandwagon and started telling the public that we were actually one-half of a banana! So much for academic honesty.

Nonetheless, the question remains: Why should humans have any genomic similarity with bananas and chimps, even small similarities? This is why:

1) If we have no genomic similarity with bananas, we cannot assimilate (digest and absorb) bananas. We must have at least SOME genomic similarity with the things we eat, otherwise we would starve.

2) All life on Earth is based on the same carbon/nitrogen/water-based system so we should expect some similarity. This should only make sense to any biologist.

3) Even the Director of the Human Genome project has admitted:
"...we were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute

4) Some sections of human/chimp DNA are similar and some sections are very very different. So it all depends on which section you are comparing:
"One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species' DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand.

4a) DNA sample sizes used for human/chimp DNA comparisons was very small in comparison to the total genome size:
"In the first place, the sample of 779 kilobase pairs is small, and the variation between the different BACs is large."

(Ref: Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

Note: the sample of 779 kilobase pairs is indeed small compared to the total genome which is estimated at 3 billion base pairs. In other words, out of the 3,000,000,000 base pairs which they could have compared, they only compared 779, 000 base pairs or 779, 000/3,000,000,000 = 0.00026 or 0.026%. And we call that a comparison?

This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

They use algorythems and such because depending on what criteria you use, you could get 0.00001% simular.

Thequickbrownfoxjumpedoverthelazydog and
thquickbrowwnfoxjumpdoverthelazydogthelazydog

How do you compare the two sequences? By evolution the first and second one are related, do you just line up the words and consider the two completly different, or compare what they do share, do you consider the copy of thelazydog at the end a huge difference, or what? Is that 1 difference or 10 differences.

 

[loveofourlord]

Below is PROOF that the entire genomes of chimps and humans were NOT compared as previously and falsely claimed. Only 88% of the chimp genome and 75% of the human genome was compared - and the rest of the two genomes did not align properly and were NOT comparable a.k.a 'dissimilar', 'different':

We must define the word "complete". To me, "complete" means comparing the "compete" human genome with the "complete" chimp genome. This was not done.

Nature (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a LARGELY COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF GENETIC DIFFERENCES that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor..."

Note: A COMPLETE catalogue of ALL differences? This is a lie. The comparison was done AFTER they removed significant differences between the two genomes - differences so significant that they could not be aligned side-by-side in the first place or where there was too much 'overlap'. This, in turn, guarantees a high degree of similarity - this is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

"Thus, by restricting our analysis to high-quality bases, the nucleotide-level accuracy of the WGS assembly is essentially equal to that of ‘finished’ sequence."
"“Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence”
"The combined alignments were chained and only best reciprocal alignments were retained for further analysis."

Note: they admit only using 'best-fit' sections of DNA for their analysis - aka cherry-picking the data to get the 'best' result, thus artificially increasing similarity between the two DNA sections. This, in turn, artificially increases overall similarity between chimps and humans.

Here is a brief explanation the article gives on how the chimp and human DNA sequences were 'screened' PRIOR to comparison (ref: Found under 'Supplemental Notes' of article):
"All alignments in the >90% and >60% categories were examined if the chimp scaffold spanned more than 1.5 times its counterpart in the human genome. When the offending supercontig only subsumed other supercontigs less than 1.5 kb, they were retained. For those that would completely overlap large contigs, the alignments were manually reviewed to determine if the alignment should be broken.
At this point scaffolds spanning a total of 2.85 Gb were anchored to the human genome sequence (excluding those in the random bins). All scaffolds that were completely overlapped by another scaffold based on the human position were then removed. Also removed were the smaller of two neighboring contigs when there was an overlap of 60% (based on human) between neighboring scaffolds. The total anchored sequence after these steps dropped to 2.74 Gb (2.41 Gb of actual contig length), or 88% of the total chimpanzee sequence."

Note: After artificially 'chopping and fitting' when attempting to align the chimp DNA and human DNA, only 2.41 Gb or 88% of the total chimp genome survived the process to be compared with the human genome. However, the human genome is approximately 3.1 to 3.2 Gb.

Assuming they were matching up the same number of Gb (2.41Gb) in each genome, then 2.41Gb / 3.2 Gb = .75 or roughly 75% of the human genome was used for comparison along with 88% of chimp genome.

Although the total Gb of each genome is slightly different in various studies, this shows that a COMPLETE comparison between the two genomes was not done. Unless we accept that 75% and 88% (human and chimp genome respectively) represent "completeness". Each of us will have to decide what we consider to be 'complete' for ourselves.

Think of it this way: If your boss says you will be 'completely' paid 75% of what you actually earn, will you be disappointed?

Bottom line: This heavily biased methodology brings us to the 99% similarity between humans and chimps. nice... It would be much more accurate to align both DNA side by side INCLUDING the 'gaps' and 'misalignments' to see the real difference.

Verse for the day: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3).
This verse tells us that we are about as inclined to search for God and a criminal is inclined to search for the nearest police department. In our natural state, nobody will seek God. If we ever find ourselves seeking God, it is because God is motivating us to do so. And when that happens, if we are wise, we will ride that tide as long as possible until we find God.

Last edited: Today at 7:29 PM

you don't understand what many of the differences are, there are chromosonal fusions, flips, replications and such wich means a direct point by point is impossible.

1234567890
1237654890 how do you compare those? it's only 1 change, that changes a section of the genome, these are the things they are trying to work out.

also they arn't going to compare sections wich can change at any moment wich is what a large section of the genome is. Junk DNA and so on, because there is no pressure to preserve them, and wouldn't even be worth comparing between humans. When we do a DNA test, we tend to focus on the sections of DNA wich don't change very much, as these are the ones that while can change, do at a steady rate. You have like 50 differences from your parents, most/all of wich won't show up in your coding sections

 

[loveofourlord]

As science gets more accurate concerning the differences between human and chimp DNA..and as more and more so-called junk DNA is discovered to have a function....scientist will realize there isn't enough time for the rare and few so-called beneficial random mutations to produce all of the required changes since the so-called human chimp split.

yeah, we have discoverd some junk DNA to have a function, but guess what, we also found alot of junk DNA to once have had a fuction and no longer does, AKA large chunks of our DNA is devoted to smells humans no longer use, or are copies or broken sets of old DNA, and stuff like that.

 

[-57]

yeah, we have discoverd some junk DNA to have a function, but guess what, we also found alot of junk DNA to once have had a fuction and no longer does, AKA large chunks of our DNA is devoted to smells humans no longer use, or are copies or broken sets of old DNA, and stuff like that.

Broken....de-evolution

 

[loveofourlord]

Broken....de-evolution

we no longer needed them,t he point is 4% of our DNA is devoted to that so yeah it is junk DNA.

 

[-57]

we no longer needed them,t he point is 4% of our DNA is devoted to that so yeah it is junk DNA.

Loss of information.....not gained information.

 

[loveofourlord]

Loss of information.....not gained information.

The information is still there, just changed.