Basic Math Challenge: Chimpanzee and Human DNA divergence

Is the Chimp/human DNA 98 to 99 or is the divergence 4% based on DNA comparisons?


  • Total voters
    4

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry Tanj I get the point but your analogy was bad. Humans to chimps would be like bass to sharks, or dolphins to whales...they are similar but this does not mean one came from the other or both came from the same source creature (though they might have).

Wow, I just saw this. Apart from the point made by essentialsaltes, that you are a priori grouping these creatures because you know some are fish and the others mammals, there's a rich irony in the fact that bass are more closely related to dolphins, whales and humans than they are to sharks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,138
36,472
Los Angeles Area
✟827,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
"Is it really a surprise that something that looks and acts a bit closer to humans has the most similar code to humans?"

So if you saw these creatures, I think you'd have to say you would expect their codes to be similar, yes?

GettyImages-520576010-5844638c5f9b5851e54b91b0.jpg


flying-squirrel-2.jpg

Just to nail it home. One of these creatures is a marsupial. And the other is a placental mammal. Humans are more closely related to one of these, than these two are to each other.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Wow, I just saw this. Apart from the point made by essentialsaltes, that you are a priori grouping these creatures because you know some are fish and the others mammals, there's a rich irony in the fact that bass are more closely related to dolphins, whales and humans than they are to sharks.

See that is the flaw of intelligently designed systems of classification, like taxonomy and others, they are very useful for sorting and making smaller information storage units, but they can lead to self deception. You actually believe what you just said don't you! Wow!

On the other matter, sorry not meaning to insult you, your analogy was poor...you are smart, but it was a bad analogy. Its okay, we all have done this on occasion.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
See that is the flaw of intelligently designed systems of classification, like taxonomy and others, they are very useful for sorting and making smaller information storage units, but they can lead to self deception. You actually believe what you just said don't you! Wow!

The evidence supports it. The fact bass are more closely related to humans than sharks does throw a hand grenade into your worldview though, so I can see why you would deny it.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, that's because it, along with ARHGAP11B, evolved long after the human lineage split with the chimpanzee lineage.

Can you show where or when that happened? Perhaps show the human genome without it after the split with Chimps? So we can see this as a later development...if not the conclusion may be smoke and mirrors.

It is a great narrative to attach so the fact can be made to fit the pre-supposed hypothesis, but is there some observable fact we can look at and make an objective comparison (otherwise one conjecture is no better than another). I offered a distinguishable difference that is proven to be true by science, now where is yours?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The evidence supports it. The fact bass are more closely related to humans than sharks does throw a hand grenade into your worldview though, so I can see why you would deny it.

Yeah but genetically sharks are more related to humans than to bass...so that muddies the point just a bit...maybe there are reasons for genetic similarities that have nothing to with "related" in a lineal sense (but are interpreted as such to support the CA)...also it is apparent the genetic SIMILARITY does not interpret into similarity of form or function (same genes in different creatures often do different things, and sometimes different genes produce the same result in each respective creature)... even SOME of the alleged "genes shared in common" when looked at closely are different in size and function (so not really the same gene after all)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Can you show where or when that happened? Perhaps show the human genome without it after the split with Chimps? So we can see this as a later development...if not the conclusion may be smoke and mirrors.

It is a great narrative to attach so the fact can be made to fit the pre-supposed hypothesis, but is there some observable fact we can look at and make an objective comparison (otherwise one conjecture is no better than another). I offered a distinguishable difference that is proven to be true by science, now where is yours?
1. I'll provide you a link in a few hours, and you'll forgive me if I trust the work and conclusions of actual scientists over Some Dude On The Internet.
2. Spare me the magic words like "presuppositions" (which doesn't even apply in this case).
3. The fact that you think science proves things or that there is such a thing as scientific proof is not a good sign.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that there is no unambiguous way to 'do the math'

Compare

abcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcde

and

abcdexyzabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcdeabcde

If you go position by position, the first 5 are the same and all the rest are different. They are hardly alike at all!

If you step back, and say the second one is exactly the same as the first, except that "xyz" has been inserted at one locus, then how many differences are there? 1? 3?

As we get more complicated with additional insertions and deletions, the two genomes will be of different lengths. How do you even calculate a percentage, when there are two different denominators?

As TO points out, there are still further measures that could be used. Do you compare only functional segments? Do you compare only finished proteins?

So, there are many different ways to measure the difference. None is obviously correct.

Now, as we turn to what TO says, they do not assert what the difference is.

So they cannot have gotten it wrong.

TO addresses the claim: "For years, evolutionists have hailed the chimpanzee as "our closest living relative" and have pointed out that the DNA is 98 to 99 percent identical between the two. Scientists now say the difference is 4 percent, double what they have been claiming for years."

TO does not claim that it is true that the DNA is 98 to 99 percent identical.
TO points out, as I have, that there is no one way to measure the difference.
The fact that two different measures give two different answers should not surprise us.
Therefore the creationist claim, as presented, is deceptive.
[/thread]
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah but genetically sharks are more related to humans than to bass...

That simply isn't true. Did you misread what Tanj wrote?

And I wonder how Creationists who claim that genetic similarity does not imply relatedness could, in good conscience serve on a jury in a case determined by genetics (forensic or paternity).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do not recall being faced with single-based substitutions as ever being a challenge I was asked to give an explanation for but why do we call them "substitutions" in the first place? 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 froom the other in these places).

And no the burden is not on someone to show they are NOT (that is asking someone to prove a negative which is illogical). If the claim is made that they ARE this then the burden is theirs to demonstrate it (not just assume it based on a presupposed hypothesis or belief).

I see them as "differences" because they are "different" in each respective genome. Now just because a story is attached to that actual data that explains them in terms of an undemomnstrated common ancestor that's all well and good, as long as we recognize it is only an explanation and therefore no better than any other undemonstrated explanation.

Everybody should watch this video (and this author does accept the idea of a common ancestor but questions the idea of similarity and difference as we have popularized it).

YouTube science is the best science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Pshun, is both threads you are losing me again. also reposting:

For the record I am withdrawing my shark/bass comment, I did some more reading and it appears there is some evidence that rather than being an early offshoot with a cartilage skeleton, and other creatures developing bones, that the cartilage actually arose from a boney ancestor, which would put sharks and bass more closely related.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Pshun, is both threads you are losing me again. also reposting:

For the record I am withdrawing my shark/bass comment, I did some more reading and it appears there is some evidence that rather than being an early offshoot with a cartilage skeleton, and other creatures developing bones, that the cartilage actually arose from a boney ancestor, which would put sharks and bass more closely related.
But, but, but placoderms...
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1. I'll provide you a link in a few hours, and you'll forgive me if I trust the work and conclusions of actual scientists over Some Dude On The Internet.
2. Spare me the magic words like "presuppositions" (which doesn't even apply in this case).
3. The fact that you think science proves things or that there is such a thing as scientific proof is not a good sign.

The fact that you can admit it does not gives me great hope for you...

I am saying it may not be true but it may be...or that it could not be true because it could....but what I am saying is declare the real data we actually have (minus the speculation of what it means) and also declare the "historical narrative" attached, but declare it as just that...a "belief" not a fact.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are you guys seriously not going to refute me on this because if I'm wrong it's all too easy.

Since you've started a thread about whether it's 2% or 4%, does this mean you've abandoned your prediction that it would be 70% after more research?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mathematics of Evolution, October 1, 1999, Fred Hoyle, chapter 15 (like long agnostic Astronomer and Mathematician)

The Probability of Evolution

The Probability of the "First Living Cell"

Every gene of the "first living cell" had to form totally by random mutations of amino acids or nucleotides. There were no prior living cells (by definition) from which to serve as a pattern for the ordering of its amino acids or nucleotides.

To understand what the totally random formation of nucleotides is like, let us talk about Shakespeare. Suppose we put Shakespeare's King Henry VIII play into a computer and then scrambled the letters up randomly (we will also scramble up the spaces between words). Then, suppose we isolated 900 of these randomly generated letters and spaces. This is what the scrambled King Henry VIII might look like (note: a period ('.') is really a space in this list):

.gibmmeg.signrryd.uet..mrhbhcro..efeul.feoe.ewe.li.befubl.ne

k.ekenlhinat.oaet.hwde.trmtrlev..t.eluttl.r.hfdsepilrsafcltt

tv.esewes.y.holgo.nlialywlggtrd.a..r.lhcm..juldagute.imtkckh

.ooat..hrviesl.maablhe....asohf.a.e.i.r.nwnnnooolasia.atordw

yhviondseabdme.ntonlmnfor.ya.livyyceae..m.ii.o..aoaactliahtr

satythhrcwnrro.re.rca.anlitdntdtmihleosseiveammouweesrrtafli

peeittehfrnre..teyl..eiso.bytrk.dhcaemoigeieip.ut.oeymnm.nyu

sipseoo...othcttyeh..hbuaecsysesrus.rs.yaa..ly.tttrte.yihwra

m.cet.dolwdeen..keiehi.bannu.irwa.le.teotli.snot...dmluc.adf

iiocehdgdt.r.wo.aamr.w.aioisehh.r.ek.gtiigreaies..c.pohpnots

.ncyl...reauidhtesa.itthenldts.ioak.euwbieat.ionerk.otiftyr.

o.h.gtfhtnom..sesai....dgawutedie.on.dnechtua..pdertntar.ete

.noriehamehooevsedaiafsooi.mw.otlhistdm.s.e..aeh.ll.dkesuaa.

h.eosrdgye.dtesbctsoernlnsoacs.tanoyurhh..nwnhe.tdpako.tkyaa

aceehfcgt.hnmireds.ensi.dyinrwn.ohh.whofe.e.wcra.srt.yoktean


The gene complexes of the "first living cell" did not have viable patterns of nucleotides to serve as a pattern, thus the above attempt to replicate Shakespeare, from scratch, is a visual example of what the DNA of the "first living cell" would have looked like if we could "read" DNA as easily as we could read Shakespeare.

In other words, the first attempt to create a DNA strand for the "first living cell" would have been total gibberish because there was no prior pattern or ordering from which to pull nucleotides.

What if we randomly modified pure gibberish? I hope you understand that if you take gibberish, and randomly mutate it with more gibberish, you will still have gibberish.

So what mechanism converted pure gibberish into a viable DNA strand for the "first living cell?" There was no such mechanism because there was no life on this earth prior to the "first living cell."

The important thing to note is that there is no intelligence in the above Shakespeare rearrangement of its letters.

Actually, the above chart was generated by random numbers, but the random numbers were "weighted" by the exact proportion of letters in Shakespeare's play. For example, a letter of the alphabet that appeared very rarely in the play would appear very rarely in a "weighted" or "biased" randomly generated listing.

You won't get a better grade in literature class by reading thousands of pages of randomly generated letters of the alphabet, even when they are "weighted" by the actual proportion of each letter in the actual play.

Likewise, when we randomly scramble nucleotides, we would not expect to have a sequence of nucleotides which would provide any "information" or "intelligence" which would be useful to the "first living cell."

A scrambled; or randomly put together sequence of nucleotides; would not be expected to make a viable gene complex any more than a scrambled King Henry VIII play would tell us much about who King Henry VIII was and what his part was in the play. The play was named after him so you can assume he was one of the main characters (I suppose most people would consider him a villain, but others might consider him to be a role model).

In addition to randomness, there was no "survival of the fittest" in creating the "first living cell," meaning there were no intermediate semi-live cells which would provide a clue as to what the nucleotide sequences should look like.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That simply isn't true. Did you misread what Tanj wrote?

And I wonder how Creationists who claim that genetic similarity does not imply relatedness could, in good conscience serve on a jury in a case determined by genetics (forensic or paternity).

Sorry pal but it simply IS true...Sharks are closer to humans than they are to bass.

And this 2nd paragraph nonsense has nothing to do with the subject matter...of course we can determine paternity (let me show you some evidence)...now in light of that delusion as to its applicability (where it failed) take the Y-Chromosome...we inherit this from our father...as far back in history (even 400,000 year old Neanderthals) we have only a HUMAN Y-chromosome...there is NO (none, zero, zilch) evidence of a formerly, or semi APE, or non-Ape generic mammalian Y-Chromosome in our genetic history.

Hence paternity is established (if you insist on that as an argument)...according to the real evidence, humans came from humans and not anything else (that is, if we only look at the observable facts, without attaching a made up story to explain so that it fits our preconceived idea).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
to USincognito ,

They are so different in size and numbers of genes it is ridiculous. They don’t even look like homologous chromosomes! Thanks to forensics and paternity capabilities we can see NO lineal connection whatsoever through the Dads between humans and any apelike common ancestor.

As well, there is at least a 27.2% difference in the mtDNA (mitochondrial) inherited from the moms and the distinction differs only slightly between modern humans and neanderthal (about 8.5%)...there is NO (zero, nada, none) apelike, semi-apelike, or generic mammalian mtDNA indicated in human women.

Now if you can point out a CA that could produce both variations I suppose it would suggest a real possibility, but as for now none has been found (do so and it will mean a Nobel Prize).

Yours truly

Homo-Cogito
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Since you've started a thread about whether it's 2% or 4%, does this mean you've abandoned your prediction that it would be 70% after more research?
I never predicted 70%, 70% is the number of genes that diverge by one amino acid on average in each lineage. I've never argued 70% although I think I started a thread on, Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Simillarity of 70%' AIG

I know major histocompatability locus sequences are about 87%, second only to olfactory genes and coming in at third are genes related to brain development and neural function. Immune system genes are no surprise, the KRISPER gene was a molecular DNA editing machine in bacteria. Olfactory genes hardly seem striking given they have a snout rather then a nose, as all apes do.

Brain related genes are another matter entirely. Human variation in those areas are overwhelmingly followed by disease, disorder and death.

I started posting here in 2003, by 2005 the Chimpazee Genome paper was out and all the research was saying 95%-96%. I've never argued or anticipated anything approaching 70% but will occasionally entertain the arguments of those who would
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0