Apes and humans have different designs

[mindlight]

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - Answers in Genesis

Apparently the DNA overlap is only about 70%. Clearly our own config produces very different results in terms of intelligence etc also. So arguments about a common ancestor rather a common designer seem to be less well founded. We are not comparing like for like cause not only do humans and chimps have a different number of chromosones each are individually differently configured. Talk of the evolutionary fusion of chromosones to explain why humans have a pair less than chimps (and used as a proof of evolution) are also mute because what we are really looking at is a different design in both cases and the differences extend to all chromosones. Thus the evolutionary explanation of these differences is also mute because the differences exist from the socalled source chromosones to the finished result also.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - Answers in Genesis[/url]

Apparently the DNA overlap is only about 70%. Clearly our own config produces very different results in terms of intelligence etc also. So arguments about a common ancestor rather a common designer seem to be less well founded. We are not comparing like for like cause not only do humans and chimps have a different number of chromosones each are individually differently configured. Talk of the evolutionary fusion of chromosones to explain why humans have a pair less than chimps (and used as a proof of evolution) are also mute because what we are really looking at is a different design in both cases and the differences extend to all chromosones. Thus the evolutionary explanation of these differences is also mute because the differences exist from the socalled source chromosones to the finished result also.

If you have a cogent argument, why won't any of you evolution-deniers address nested hierarchies in the ape and human genomes? Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies.

[I hear crickets coming.]

 

[TheBear]

What is Jeffrey P. Tomkins degreed in? ICR doesn't say.

 

[Belk]

Sure it does. Guess all those scientists missed that for all those years.

 

[Loudmouth]

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - Answers in Genesis

Apparently the DNA overlap is only about 70%. Clearly our own config produces very different results in terms of intelligence etc also. So arguments about a common ancestor rather a common designer seem to be less well founded. We are not comparing like for like cause not only do humans and chimps have a different number of chromosones each are individually differently configured. Talk of the evolutionary fusion of chromosones to explain why humans have a pair less than chimps (and used as a proof of evolution) are also mute because what we are really looking at is a different design in both cases and the differences extend to all chromosones. Thus the evolutionary explanation of these differences is also mute because the differences exist from the socalled source chromosones to the finished result also.

The methodology that he used isn't clear at all. Given the way that they talk about a previous study, it doesn't bode well. For example:

At the time of this report, the details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome-wide.
​

So what did this previous study do? It took random 300 bp fragments and compared them between the two species. If there was a single difference between those 300 bp fragments then the homology was reported as zero, not 99.67% as it should be reported. Given the fact that they completely cover up this shady methodology seems to indicate that they are doing the same here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently the DNA overlap is only about 70%. Clearly our own config produces very different results in terms of intelligence etc also. So arguments about a common ancestor rather a common designer seem to be less well founded.

How so?

First, the sequence that they were not able to align will not be 0% similar. They were just unable to determine where the chunks of DNA fit into the genome, so they left it out of the analysis. There is every expectation that the chunks they could not find a place for have the same similarity as the rest of the genome which is 95% counting indels.

Also, why are the differences between humans and chimps inconsistent with common ancestry?

Talk of the evolutionary fusion of chromosones to explain why humans have a pair less than chimps (and used as a proof of evolution) are also mute because what we are really looking at is a different design in both cases and the differences extend to all chromosones.

Where did you show this?

What would a real fusion look like, and how would it differ from what we see in the human genome?

Thus the evolutionary explanation of these differences is also mute because the differences exist from the socalled source chromosones to the finished result also.

This doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could explain it in a different way?

 

[StormanNorman]

The methodology that he used isn't clear at all. Given the way that they talk about a previous study, it doesn't bode well. For example:

At the time of this report, the details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome-wide.
​

So what did this previous study do? It took random 300 bp fragments and compared them between the two species. If there was a single difference between those 300 bp fragments then the homology was reported as zero, not 99.67% as it should be reported. Given the fact that they completely cover up this shady methodology seems to indicate that they are doing the same here.

Using a binomial best point estimate, if they did what you describe above, then the underlying similarity between genomes is approximately 99.8% which is pretty close to the 99.67%. Part of the small difference might be explained by computer inaccuracies when dealing with such large powers and numbers very close to one.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - Answers in Genesis[/url]

Apparently the DNA overlap is only about 70%. .

But the percentage doesn't matter nearly as much as the ARRANGEMENT of the DNA---which is why no creationist author deals with NESTED HIERARCHIES in the coding.

 

[sfs]

The methodology that he used isn't clear at all. Given the way that they talk about a previous study, it doesn't bode well. For example:

At the time of this report, the details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome-wide.
​

So what did this previous study do? It took random 300 bp fragments and compared them between the two species. If there was a single difference between those 300 bp fragments then the homology was reported as zero, not 99.67% as it should be reported. Given the fact that they completely cover up this shady methodology seems to indicate that they are doing the same here.

The thing is, anyone who knows enough to be able to carry out this analysis also should know enough that what they're doing is highly deceptive. I really don't understand how their minds work.

 

[mindlight]

If you have a cogent argument, why won't any of you evolution-deniers address nested hierarchies in the ape and human genomes? Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies.

[I hear crickets coming.]

Systems to classify large and complex amounts of information have a value. It's when people falsify or exaggerate similairities to fit them into a sweeping theory of everything that honest people need to start questioning them. Very simply the shared patterns by which associations are drawn reveal a common designer to all creatures rather than a common ancestor and progression from one state to another.

 

[Belk]

Systems to classify large and complex amounts of information have a value. It's when people falsify or exaggerate similairities to fit them into a sweeping theory of everything that honest people need to start questioning them. Very simply the shared patterns by which associations are drawn reveal a common designer to all creatures rather than a common ancestor and progression from one state to another.

Define the selection criteria by which we can differentiate between design and non design.

 

[mindlight]

What is Jeffrey P. Tomkins degreed in? ICR doesn't say.

I do not really care, if what he is saying is true. Your peer review guidelines are designed to exclude people who do not accept the naturalistic assumptions of many modern scientists and your hierarchies of titles do not interest me either.

 

[Hetta]

Jeffrey Tomkins - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[mindlight]

The methodology that he used isn't clear at all. Given the way that they talk about a previous study, it doesn't bode well. For example:

At the time of this report, the details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome-wide.
​

So what did this previous study do? It took random 300 bp fragments and compared them between the two species. If there was a single difference between those 300 bp fragments then the homology was reported as zero, not 99.67% as it should be reported. Given the fact that they completely cover up this shady methodology seems to indicate that they are doing the same here.

ProgettoCosmo - An automatic Comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes

I do not think you understand the significance of the difference between 100% and 99.67%. That might only be a couple of letters to you but it can mean the code for this particular part of the DNA results in a significantly different result. As with computer programming (and really DNA is the most advanced code in the universe yet discovered) the differences make all the difference. (Complex specified information to use the jargon).

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies.

Ontological reductionism.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not really care, if what he is saying is true.

The real question is what is he saying to begin with?

Let's take the previous study that I spoke about in a previous post. What they did was take 300 base pairs from the human genome and found the best homology they could in the chimp genome. If 299 out of those 300 base pairs were the same do you know what they reported as the % similarity? Zero. Why? Because the two sequences were different.

Now, they didn't hide this fact, but they certainly didn't emphasize it. They hid the true nature of the comparisons deep in their methodology section, and never really mentioned it after that. What happened? Creationists like yourself read the article and had the exact reaction that they were hoping for. They made others think that they did the same comparison as the authors of the chimp genome paper when they did nothing of the kind. Instead, they used a methodology that was rigged to give them the numbers they wanted.

Your peer review guidelines are designed to exclude people who do not accept the naturalistic assumptions of many modern scientists . . .

No, it excludes pseudoscience which is what creationism is.

. . . and your hierarchies of titles do not interest me either.

Then explaining the facts of biology do not interest you which is why creationism is pseudoscience.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not think you understand the significance of the difference between 100% and 99.67%.

Yes, I do. It is one base difference in a stretch of 300 bp.

Let's use an example, and you tell me what should be reported as the % similarity:

seq A: AATATTACGCGGATTAGC
seq B: AATATTACGTGGATTAGC

I see 17/18 bases shared for a % similarity of 94.4%. What do you say?

That might only be a couple of letters to you but it can mean the code for this particular part of the DNA results in a significantly different result.

Doesn't change the fact that 299 out of 300 bp being the same is 99.67% similarity, not 0%.

What you are now arguing is the a change in just one base can have profound changes in the species. I don't think anyone is going to argue with you. This is evidence in support of evolution.

 

[StormanNorman]

I do not really care, if what he is saying is true. Your peer review guidelines are designed to exclude people who do not accept the naturalistic assumptions of many modern scientists and your hierarchies of titles do not interest me either.

That's just an excuse for not submitting these papers for rigorous peer review. Science has always welcomed dissenting views .... as long as they can be backed by solid science.

 

[sfs]

I do not think you understand the significance of the difference between 100% and 99.67%.

Are you sure you do? If we were to compare your genome to mine, we would see that we are about 99.8% the same. Does this mean we belong to different species?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Originally Posted by ThouShaltNotPoe
Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies.

Ontological reductionism.

Quit changing the subject. Explain how COMMON DESIGN can make sense of nested hierarchies.

[I will admit that picking an arbitrary technical term is enough to confuse most creationist readers. But nobody else is fooled.]