Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ontological reductionism.Quit changing the subject.
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.
What is Jeffrey P. Tomkins degreed in? ICR doesn't say.
DNA is NOT a code. it never has been. it doesn't even qualify as blueprint. It is NOTHING like a computer code. If you understood some Chemistry and how DNA works (in a rough sense) you would know this.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).
Ontological reductionism.
If you don't know what that is, please don't be so naieve as to think I'm going to accept a false accusation.
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?
Define the selection criteria by which we can differentiate between design and non design.
There is no proof of linkage and indeed the complexity of the code argues against that.
DNA is NOT a code. it never has been. it doesn't even qualify as blueprint. It is NOTHING like a computer code. If you understood some Chemistry and how DNA works (in a rough sense) you would know this.
From what I can tell, here are some of the problems with the study. I surely have something wrong, so I am hoping that sfs can point out my mistakes.
First, large indels are going to be counted differently in the two comparisons. Tomkins uses a very simple blastn search. What this will do is include indels in a straight comparison. What he does is use the top search result from a blastn search and use that for his statistics. A blastn search will not return aligned sequence, it will simply return the best match. Therefore, if an indel contains novel sequence then it may match, by chance, with a random sequence elsewhere in the the other genome. This is reported as a match when it shouldn't be since you are not comparing aligned or orthologous sequences.
Also, Tomkins makes the assumption that DNA kept out of the alignment does not have homology to the other species. This is false. What keeps these chunks of DNA out of the assembly is that they simply don't know where in the genome it goes because there is not enough overlap with other contigs. To use an analogy, it is like finding the same shaped jigsaw piece in two different jigsaw puzzles, but you don't have any other pieces in the current puzzle to attach it to so you aren't sure if they belong at the same place in the overall picture.
A design produces a working model whereas nondesign does not. Malfunctions and impairments degrade design, evolution generally loads it with things it cannot support or takes away from its core functionality and concept. But looking at DNA we are faced with a complexity we did not conceive , may never master and which we understand only superficially. That goes as much for the experts in this area as the beginners. I think this is the main difference between someone who believes in a common ancestor and someone who believes in a common creator. The one trusts the master workman and other pretends to be him and imposes his theories on a complexity that is always more than they describe and suggests he knows how it works. It is humility versus pride, reality versus deception.
This study is saying that 100% matches could not be found in 30% of the DNA examined when comparing chimps and people.
In other words the code is for a completely different config that nonetheless functions and produces a workable human in the one case and animal in the other.
There is no proof of linkage and indeed the complexity of the code argues against that.
Change one of these code sequences and the chimp or man starts to die or does not develop properly.
The better explanation is a supreme designer who knwos how to code better than any programmer I have ever met.
To some extent I agree with this- that we do not know enough about where the pieces are meant to go in order to make meaningful analyses and come up with meaningful statistics. This should result in a degree of humility in approaching studies of this kind. I see more of that humility in the creationist camp than I have encountered here where people often seem blinded by a wierd kind of deceived academic pride.
Check this out.
Lactose intolerance and the evolution of the human digestion
Oh, and I think you mean "moot," not "mute."
Welcome to CF.
It is the information, the way that it is organised and the complexity of that organisation that leads me to compare it to advanced computer programming.
As with such programming every line matters and each piece of information is important to the end result.
Indeed to achieve a certain result there needs to be a certain irreducible complexity to the information structures, processes and functions and specific complex information makes all the difference to the ability to develop normally, reproduce, freedom from disease etc.
If you see just the biology you miss the creators hand and the real depth and purpose of what is stored in DNA.
So arguments about a common ancestor rather a common designer seem to be less well founded.
<snipped to preserve sanity>
I just swam a mile and then had a pint of milk despite being an adult and it tasted very good. While it interesting to know that a specific gene contains or permits this ability in me and also to know how humans contrast or compare with chimps in this respect I am not sure what points come from this that in any way bear on the main points of this discussion. There is a flexibility in our design that allows for these individual variations and overlaps and there may also be reasons for some people being in a sense impaired and lacking certain capacities like the pleasure of a pint of milk after exercise.
Thanks for correcting my spelling was that worthy of a Razz?
Computer code also does not rely on the computer sometimes failing to execute instructions properly, as DNA does in some cases ("stop codon readthrough").Perhaps you could explain this more. I see a lot of dissimilarity between DNA and computer code, so I am intrigued why your view is so different than mine.
For example, computer code does not chemically react with itself to form three dimensional structures that stop machine code. DNA does. DNA forms stem-loop structures that stops the physical advancement of RNA transcriptases.
I think the fraction is somewhere in the range of 9% to 20% functional.From studies done thus far, only 20% of the sequence in the human genome matters. The rest can can apparently be mutated without affecting function.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?