Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[pitabread]

so you dont think that a car is more similar to a van then to a truck in many traits?

I think it entirely depends on which traits and which specific vehicles you are comparing. For instance, I can easily find examples of cars with more powerful engines and bigger wheel rims than a lot of vans or trucks.

i dont think that anyone ever check the entire parts of a truck compare with a car or a van. but we can clearly see that a car is more similar to a van then to a truck.

If nobody has done the comparison then how can you make that conclusion?

See here is the thing about science and phylogenetic reconstruction: it's based on real data. If you dive into the literature, you can find real examples of how phylogenies are created and a whole host of examples. And with those phylogenies you can find the underlying criteria (typically DNA) on which they are derived and even the algorithms used to generate those trees.

In fact, you can even download free programs to do phylogenetic reconstruction yourself. I've done this myself and it's rather interesting some of the results you can get.

If you really were serious about your claims and testing what one could construct from non-living objects, you'd be able to do just that. But with what you've presented so far, it's clear you haven't.

Either support your claims with something based on real data, something reproducible, and something quantifiable. Otherwise it's meaningless.

 

[xianghua]

I think it entirely depends on which traits and which specific vehicles you are comparing. For instance, I can easily find examples of cars with more powerful engines and bigger wheel rims than a lot of vans or trucks.

true. but in general do you agree that a tipical car is more similar to a van then to a truck? i think its very clear.

If you really were serious about your claims and testing what one could construct from non-living objects, you'd be able to do just that. But with what you've presented so far, it's clear you haven't.

i think that even scientists already did it:

Modeling with Nonliving Objects to Enhance Understanding of Phylogenetic Tree Construction

 

[pitabread]

true. but in general do you agree that a tipical car is more similar to a van then to a truck? i think its very clear.

No, I don't agree. You saying "i think its[sic] very clear", doesn't mean anything.

Show me the data.

i think that even scientists already did it:

Modeling with Nonliving Objects to Enhance Understanding of Phylogenetic Tree Construction

Uh, that's just an example of it being used a teaching tool for biology students. It's not an actual study into phylogenetic reconstruction of non-living objects.

 

[xianghua]

No, I don't agree.

so a tipical car is more similar to a truck then to a van?. and what about an airplane? do you think that a car is more similar to a jet fighter then to a van?

Uh, that's just an example of it being used a teaching tool for biology students. It's not an actual study into phylogenetic reconstruction of non-living objects.

they actually catalogue them by shared similarity (plastics toys, furry toys). i dont see any problem.

 

[pitabread]

so a tipical car is more similar to a truck then to a van?. and what about an airplane? do you think that a car is more similar to a jet fighter then to a van?

I think your continual questions are getting silly. It's obvious you have nothing to support your underlying premise, so I think we're done now.

they actually catalogue them by shared similarity (plastics toys, furry toys). i dont see any problem.

Of course you don't.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

This isn't about a different method of measurement, that's nonsense. This is about how many base pairs diverge and you obviously can't see that, or just plain won't.

I've given references that discuss the different methods of measurement. Hence, I don't think it's reasonable for you to just arm-wave it away as nonsense. I've only mentioned two such methods, but there are many many more methods of

It's always in base pairs because that is what the genome is made of, there are no alternative measurements.

Except that because we get movement of genes, repetition, etc., it is not that simple.

Consider the two 'genomes' using English words and letters.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
he quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

If you do a letter by letter comparison, then you'll find that there is 0% similarity as no letter in the first example matches the letter in the same position in the second example. However, it's clear that the two sentences are very similar, and we can find that similarity by aligning the two sentences and then matching.

Consider the two poem verses, written into single lines.

I think that I shall never see A poem lovely as a tree. A tree whose hungry mouth is prest Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A poem lovely as a tree. Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast; prest I think that I shall never see A tree whose hungry mouth is

Again, there is clear and strong similarity between the two lines of text, but a simple minded comparison of the sequences from start to end will result in a very low matching.

You can't just say that it's a base by base comparison, unless you say what method is used to choose the bases that will be compared. That's what defines simple digital methods of genome similarity comparison. And in reality, it's even more complicated than that. See, e.g., Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case

Nonsense, all the scientific literature measures in base pairs. What Darwinians want to do is to ignore the 90 million base pairs which are supposed to be the result of indels. Now you want to pretend to be siding with science which betrays a complete lack of understand of genomics and science.

Wrong. The alignment (which is what results in the 98% similarity) is simply deciding what sequences to compare to other sequences and then produce a measure of similarity. So, it's still a matter of comparing base pairs, it's just a question of which. E.g. if we align either of my examples above so that matching regions match matching regions, then we calculate the similar based on letter to letter matches (base pair to base pair in real DNA). Hence, your objection is invalid.

Have a look at actual papers like this one: Rapid evolution of animal mitochondrial DNA

No actually we don't.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a bland unsupported statement can simply dismiss the knowledge we have of the last common ancestor between humans and chimps. From the DNA, fossil evidence of the lineages, etc. As a start (and it goes much further than can be covered in a forum post) it will likely have the vast majority of common features between humans and chimps. Can you form an argument against that, rather than just dismissing it without explanation?

Yea so...

It supported what I said, so therefore there is consequence. There are living things for which there is strong evidence that in their evolutionary history they have lost large parts of their genomes.

Molecular clocks are notoriously unreliable and mutations are not cumulative. With billions of people on this planet no two diverge by more the 1/10th of 1%.

Even different populations of the same species typically vary very little. Again, you've given a fact, but have not said what consequence you take from that fact. How does the genetic difference of Homo sapiens compare to other species of similar age? What does that mean.

You say that 'molecular clocks are notoriously unreliable'. They have known limits of accuracy, which is why (e.g.) we say that the last common ancestor of Chimps and Humans lived between 25-30 million years ago, and that's probably a 95% confidence interval. Note however that the genomes of humans and apes are large, and many independent measurements of the same thing leads to a more accurate measure of that thing. e.g. if we don't look at just one gene, but many genes, to calculate the time that has passed. See the discussions of 'Modern Molecular Clocks' here. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10878640_The_Modern_Molecular_Clock

Inaccuracy of molecular clocks (even after being addressed by measuring multiple parts of the genome) would only reduce the accuracy for (e.g.) the time that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived. It wouldn't mean that the last common ancestor doesn't exist.

You also say that 'mutations are not cumulative'. That's a strong claim, so do you have any evidence for that? There is plenty of evidence in the science that preserved mutations (particularly neutral ones) are cumulative, e.g. they 'build up' as per: Molecular clocks

There is only one species of humans, unlike chimpanzees and gorillas. Homo is a genus, there is never been a speciation event in human history. You have a tough time seeing the obvious.

I said that there had been no daughter species from Homo sapiens. I did point out that there has been minor independent evolution in populations of Homo sapiens, and possibly some subspecies in the past. However, I asked you what conclusion you make from this observation. As there's no particular consequence that I can see. Can you please explain.

I'd say the ten thousand genome project is decisive. You have a nerve to condescend to creationists when the most basic scientific principles elude you.

You seem to have switched to personal attacks. Which I can't see any justification of because I checked what I had said against 'the science' and it appears that I'm right and you're wrong. So, I feel that not only is this a personal attack, but that it's unjustified and hypocritical.

Why do you stoop to personal attacks rather than calmly discussing the topic of debate?

 

[mark kennedy]

I've given references that discuss the different methods of measurement. Hence, I don't think it's reasonable for you to just arm-wave it away as nonsense. I've only mentioned two such methods, but there are many many more methods of

No you haven't, genomes are measured in base pairs and this is exactly what happens every single thread. I get this self absorbed evolutionist condescending to me, arguing incessantly for something that is obviously false.

Except that because we get movement of genes, repetition, etc., it is not that simple.

Consider the two 'genomes' using English words and letters.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
he quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

If you do a letter by letter comparison, then you'll find that there is 0% similarity as no letter in the first example matches the letter in the same position in the second example. However, it's clear that the two sentences are very similar, and we can find that similarity by aligning the two sentences and then matching.

Consider the two poem verses, written into single lines.

I think that I shall never see A poem lovely as a tree. A tree whose hungry mouth is prest Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A poem lovely as a tree. Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast; prest I think that I shall never see A tree whose hungry mouth is

Again, there is clear and strong similarity between the two lines of text, but a simple minded comparison of the sequences from start to end will result in a very low matching.

You can't just say that it's a base by base comparison, unless you say what method is used to choose the bases that will be compared. That's what defines simple digital methods of genome similarity comparison. And in reality, it's even more complicated than that. See, e.g., Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case

Which is comparable to an amino acid substitution, they come in triplet codons

Molecular Structure of Amino Acids

What would happen if 3 out of 4 words had the spelling changed in your book, because that is what would have had to happen to the respective genomes.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with, 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage. (Nature 2005)​

That literally means that almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes have diverged by two amino acids, one per lineage. We are simply not as similar as we have been led to believe.

As far as going into more depth with genomic comparisons forget it, you have to get the basics first. If your going to ignore the obvious I'm not wasting time on the obscure.

Wrong. The alignment (which is what results in the 98% similarity) is simply deciding what sequences to compare to other sequences and then produce a measure of similarity. So, it's still a matter of comparing base pairs, it's just a question of which. E.g. if we align either of my examples above so that matching regions match matching regions, then we calculate the similar based on letter to letter matches (base pair to base pair in real DNA). Hence, your objection is invalid.

Have a look at actual papers like this one: Rapid evolution of animal mitochondrial DNA

The align except for single base substitutions which are 35 million base pairs. The are another 90 million base pairs which are actually gaps in the respective genomes. That, mind you doesn't take into account for another 65 million base pair that result from chromosomal rearrangements. As far as my point being invalid all I've shown you are the obvious facts, you on the other hand are now going to deny the obvious in circles.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a bland unsupported statement can simply dismiss the knowledge we have of the last common ancestor between humans and chimps. From the DNA, fossil evidence of the lineages, etc. As a start (and it goes much further than can be covered in a forum post) it will likely have the vast majority of common features between humans and chimps. Can you form an argument against that, rather than just dismissing it without explanation?

Yea, common ancestry is a hoax, set up and propagated to replace the now defunct Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.'

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)​

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of human kinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014​

Even different populations of the same species typically vary very little. Again, you've given a fact, but have not said what consequence you take from that fact. How does the genetic difference of Homo sapiens compare to other species of similar age? What does that mean.

You can't comprehend that genomes are measured in base pairs, now you want to bring up other comparisons. I'm not wasting my time on that.

You say that 'molecular clocks are notoriously unreliable'. They have known limits of accuracy, which is why (e.g.) we say that the last common ancestor of Chimps and Humans lived between 25-30 million years ago, and that's probably a 95% confidence interval. Note however that the genomes of humans and apes are large, and many independent measurements of the same thing leads to a more accurate measure of that thing. e.g. if we don't look at just one gene, but many genes, to calculate the time that has passed. See the discussions of 'Modern Molecular Clocks' here. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10878640_The_Modern_Molecular_Clock

I'm not interested in source material you didn't read.

Inaccuracy of molecular clocks (even after being addressed by measuring multiple parts of the genome) would only reduce the accuracy for (e.g.) the time that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived. It wouldn't mean that the last common ancestor doesn't exist.

You also say that 'mutations are not cumulative'. That's a strong claim, so do you have any evidence for that? There is plenty of evidence in the science that preserved mutations (particularly neutral ones) are cumulative, e.g. they 'build up' as per: Molecular clocks

There is no such thing as a molecular clock, those are estimates based on assumptions. You have two research groups estimate the age of a sequence based on molecular clocks you will get to different estimates. What's not an estimate is the actual sequence of a living system.

I said that there had been no daughter species from Homo sapiens. I did point out that there has been minor independent evolution in populations of Homo sapiens, and possibly some subspecies in the past. However, I asked you what conclusion you make from this observation. As there's no particular consequence that I can see. Can you please explain.

Explain what, humans do not speciate. We are the rare exception to the African Great Apes and the most highly evolved. Despite being in the same environment as our primate cousins in Africa they were subject to none of the selective pressures that propelled the human race to the top of the food chain. It's a myth.

You seem to have switched to personal attacks. Which I can't see any justification of because I checked what I had said against 'the science' and it appears that I'm right and you're wrong. So, I feel that not only is this a personal attack, but that it's unjustified and hypocritical.

No, you have started dismissing obvious facts which is sending the thread spiraling into the abyss of fallacious circular logic. It's nothing personal, it's typical.

Why do you stoop to personal attacks rather than calmly discussing the topic of debate?

I am calm and we are on topic. You wanted to challenge a YEC to see if any of us have a basic understanding of the scientific issues involved. What has resulted is you have demonstrated that you can't acknowledge the most basic facts. That's nothing personal and we are very much on topic. My challenge to you is to honestly acknowledge that genomes are measured in base pairs. Being right isn't as simple as being a Darwinian, you have to do the background reading which is a waste of time if you don't understand the basics. You expect to condescend to me when I've been searching the scientific literature for over ten years. Because no Creationist is capable of basic comprehension and the first time out the gate everything is a slam dunk for you.

Now, if you seriously want to explore comparative genomics and it's relation to origins theology I'm your guy. We used to have a number of well read posters but they dispersed after the culture wars were over. I'm about the only one left, just a word of advice, learn the basics before pontificating about the minutia.

 

[pitabread]

Yea, common ancestry is a hoax, set up and propagated to replace the now defunct Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax.

Oh brother, here we go again...

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh brother, here we go again...

What exactly were you expecting because obvious facts indicate exactly that, it's a myth.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No you haven't, genomes are measured in base pairs and this is exactly what happens every single thread. I get this self absorbed evolutionist condescending to me, arguing incessantly for something that is obviously false.

I'm pointing out to you that it's not just a matter of it 'being measured in base pairs'. The difference between methods of calculating genome similarity is due to factors such as which base pairs are compared. If you feel that I am condescending to you, then it would help if you actually read what I said and responded in a way that suggests that you understand this, have at least looked at my references providing additional information, etc.

Which is comparable to an amino acid substitution, they come in triplet codons

Molecular Structure of Amino Acids

What would happen if 3 out of 4 words had the spelling changed in your book, because that is what would have had to happen to the respective genomes.

The words that I gave were just an example. If you had read the references I linked to you would have seen that this is well known to biologists and accounted for in the methods of calculating DNA similarity, such as the 'gold standard' technique that has humans and chimps being 98% similar. It's because they are considering the underlying biology, not just blindly measuring letters, that they get the 98% accuracy and that this is considered more accurate than the 96% or 94% similarity measures.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with, 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage. (Nature 2005)​

That literally means that almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes have diverged by two amino acids, one per lineage. We are simply not as similar as we have been led to believe.

Yes, proteins are different between chimpanzees and humans. No-one has hidden this. E.g. papers including some I linked to before mention this. Here's another one, even: Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome

What this shows is that despite the considerable genetic similarity between humans and chimps, there is a lot of difference in gene expression and proteins. What that shows is not that chimps aren't as closely related to humans as the genes show, but that even though we are geologically recently diverged cousins, that doesn't mean that we haven't had time to evolve significantly compared to chimps. I.e. how closely related we are to chimps and how different (phenotypically) we are from chimps are quite different things.

As far as going into more depth with genomic comparisons forget it, you have to get the basics first. If your going to ignore the obvious I'm not wasting time on the obscure.

It might prevent wasting time if you actually responded to my point that it's important what base pairs are compared, instead of just repeating 'genomes are measured in base pairs' which is an incomplete description of genome comparison that matches multiple methods giving different results.

The align except for single base substitutions which are 35 million base pairs. The are another 90 million base pairs which are actually gaps in the respective genomes. That, mind you doesn't take into account for another 65 million base pair that result from chromosomal rearrangements. As far as my point being invalid all I've shown you are the obvious facts, you on the other hand are now going to deny the obvious in circles.

Yes, there are different ways of measuring genetic similarity, and they result in different numbers. However, the different numbers do not change the distance between us and chimps, just express the same degree of relatedness with a different number. The 98% similarity uses the 'gold standard' method of calculating relatedness used by biologists, though they make it clear that there are different methods of calculating relatedness. E.g. the page from the Smithsonian that I linked to in a previous post.

Bizarre sidetrack to Piltdown man deleted as it is not relevant to the discussion.

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014​

Not true. Here is a report of chimpanzee fossils. There are few chimpanzee fossils, but not none.
First chimp fossil unearthed : Nature News

For each of the species you mention above, the scientific consensus is that these are on the human lineage, not chimpanzee or other ape. The links above that aren't to 'AnswersInGenesis' do mention the chimp-like features of Australopithecus, but this fits in with the current theory that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans were similar to chimps. There is no evidence above that the fossils have been mis-attributed to the human line.

You can't comprehend that genomes are measured in base pairs, now you want to bring up other comparisons. I'm not wasting my time on that.

I can comprehend that genomes are measured in base pairs. I also understand that the method of choosing which base pairs to compare is an important part in the comparison process, and will distinguish different methods of doing the comparison.

I'm not interested in source material you didn't read.

I did read that paper on Molecular clocks, and if you read it you'll see that I summarised the information in my post.

There is no such thing as a molecular clock, those are estimates based on assumptions. You have two research groups estimate the age of a sequence based on molecular clocks you will get to different estimates. What's not an estimate is the actual sequence of a living system.

There are molecular clocks. And, if you actually read on them you'll see that there are methods to improve the accuracy of the measurements obtained from them. Yes, if you measure the time difference for last common ancestor using different parts of the genome, you'll get different answers. That's why sophisticated methods are used to improve accuracy, such as in the reference I gave you.

Explain what, humans do not speciate. We are the rare exception to the African Great Apes and the most highly evolved. Despite being in the same environment as our primate cousins in Africa they were subject to none of the selective pressures that propelled the human race to the top of the food chain. It's a myth.

Lots of species do not speciate. Bonobos have not speciated. Eastern gorillas have not speciated. Hence, we are not an exception to the African Great Apes. If you wish to say that we are the most highly evolved, then you have to say by what measure. Clearly in terms of intelligence, we are the 'most evolved', but there is not a single objective measure of 'most evolved'.

No, you have started dismissing obvious facts which is sending the thread spiraling into the abyss of fallacious circular logic. It's nothing personal, it's typical.

I am calm and we are on topic. You wanted to challenge a YEC to see if any of us have a basic understanding of the scientific issues involved. What has resulted is you have demonstrated that you can't acknowledge the most basic facts.

Except, I can. I have not only said that genome differences are measured in terms of base pairs, I have pointed out that part of a similarity measure to calculate that similarity of base pairs is to choose which base pairs will be compared.

That's nothing personal and we are very much on topic. My challenge to you is to honestly acknowledge that genomes are measured in base pairs.

I have done so at least ten times, but pointed out that you are describing comparison of genomes in an incomplete and inoperational fashion. It's not just comparing genomes in base pairs, but the method by which this number is calculated. Such as: which base pairs will be compared.

Being right isn't as simple as being a Darwinian, you have to do the background reading which is a waste of time if you don't understand the basics. You expect to condescend to me when I've been searching the scientific literature for over ten years. Because no Creationist is capable of basic comprehension and the first time out the gate everything is a slam dunk for you.

I do not feel that I am condescending to you. You have described the methods of comparing genomes incompletely, and I am pointing this out to you. In a discussion, it is not condescending to point out an error. In this case an error of omission.

Now, if you seriously want to explore comparative genomics and it's relation to origins theology I'm your guy. We used to have a number of well read posters but they dispersed after the culture wars were over. I'm about the only one left, just a word of advice, learn the basics before pontificating about the minutia.

Given that we don't seem to get beyond you stating that 'genome similarity is measured in base pairs' and me pointing out that is incomplete unless you define a strategy for choosing the base pairs to compare so that measure is possible, I don't think you've demonstrated that '[you're] [my] guy.' You're saying that I need to 'learn the basics', but when I look at papers such as: Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case, I'm confident that I understand what they are doing. In particular for that paper, look at the 'gold standard' method of DDH, and the importance of alignment of DNA. The alignment is important, as it is the 'decide which base pairs to compare' that you are missing from your description of how genome distance is calculated.

If you wish to discuss the different measures of human/chimp genome similarity that result in 94, 96, or 98% similarity, you simply have to move beyond 'genome similarity is measured in base pairs'. All of those methods that produce those numbers (and many more) measure genome similarity in base pairs, but they do so in different ways. It's not as simple as you describe it here. I understand that.

Hence, I don't think I see any evidence that you know the basics any better than me, and hence your advice appears misplaced.

 

[AV1611VET]

Life will go on.

Who is that in your profile pic?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Who is that in your profile pic?

Wallace.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wallace.

Alfred Russell Wallace?

The man who independently came up with:

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Alfred Russell Wallace?

The man who independently came up with:

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

He died and went to aitch.

 

[jacks]

This is a great thread I'm learning all about how cars are related to trucks and other vehicles, as well as how poems are the same (yet different) when you change a word. Now I've got to look up "aitch" and see it's first usage was in 1580, the same year "Lee Shore" was used. I assume in 1579 they had to yell out whole sentences to warn the crew. "Look out, we getting close to those rocks that are on the side opposite the wind and we all know what a problem that can be!" And some claim we haven't evolved!

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a great thread I'm learning all about how cars are related to trucks and other vehicles, as well as how poems are the same (yet different) when you change a word. Now I've got to look up "aitch" and see it's first usage was in 1580, the same year "Lee Shore" was used. I assume in 1579 they had to yell out whole sentences to warn the crew. "Look out, we getting close to those rocks that are on the side opposite the wind and we all know what a problem that can be!" And some claim we haven't evolved!

By "aitch," I mean the letter H.

As in either Heaven or Hell.

I don't know where Wallace went when he died, so I just say "aitch."

 

[jacks]

By "aitch," I mean the letter H.

As in either Heaven or Hell.

I don't know where Wallace went when he died, so I just say "aitch."

Oh, so it's not the sort of aitch the only lasts seven years...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, so it's not the sort of aitch the only lasts seven years...

LOL ... that's "itch," bro!

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm pointing out to you that it's not just a matter of it 'being measured in base pairs'. The difference between methods of calculating genome similarity is due to factors such as which base pairs are compared. If you feel that I am condescending to you, then it would help if you actually read what I said and responded in a way that suggests that you understand this, have at least looked at my references providing additional information, etc.

Yes, the percentage based on comparisons of base pair alike a different is exactly what this is all about. I don't care what you think or how you feel, when you start insisting on something we both know is wrong I'm going to call you on. There is no path to further informaction because you failed at the most basic first step. Even the OP drips with condescending taunts then you choose to argue the patently false.

The words that I gave were just an example. If you had read the references I linked to you would have seen that this is well known to biologists and accounted for in the methods of calculating DNA similarity, such as the 'gold standard' technique that has humans and chimps being 98% similar. It's because they are considering the underlying biology, not just blindly measuring letters, that they get the 98% accuracy and that this is considered more accurate than the 96% or 94% similarity measures.

There is no gold standard, the only way you get 98% is to pretend the indels don't exist. Now there's a reason Darwinians do this, it's because if the admit to them they have to explain how they got there without killing off the species.

Yes, proteins are different between chimpanzees and humans. No-one has hidden this. E.g. papers including some I linked to before mention this. Here's another one, even: Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome

Estimates vary, the protein products shows gross structural divergence. 71% diverge by one code in each genome. The problem with that is the most common effect from a mutation in the reading frame is a frameshift resulting in a truncated protein. In short disease, disorder and death.

What this shows is that despite the considerable genetic similarity between humans and chimps, there is a lot of difference in gene expression and proteins. What that shows is not that chimps aren't as closely related to humans as the genes show, but that even though we are geologically recently diverged cousins, that doesn't mean that we haven't had time to evolve significantly compared to chimps. I.e. how closely related we are to chimps and how different (phenotypically) we are from chimps are quite different things.

Gene expression can't account for a three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. That's one of two thing Darwinians ignore, indels and the size and complexity of the human brain.

It might prevent wasting time if you actually responded to my point that it's important what base pairs are compared, instead of just repeating 'genomes are measured in base pairs' which is an incomplete description of genome comparison that matches multiple methods giving different results.

As many times as you post the error I will respond with the correction

Yes, there are different ways of measuring genetic similarity, and they result in different numbers. However, the different numbers do not change the distance between us and chimps, just express the same degree of relatedness with a different number. The 98% similarity uses the 'gold standard' method of calculating relatedness used by biologists, though they make it clear that there are different methods of calculating relatedness. E.g. the page from the Smithsonian that I linked to in a previous post.

Bizarre sidetrack to Piltdown man deleted as it is not relevant to the discussion.



Not true. Here is a report of chimpanzee fossils. There are few chimpanzee fossils, but not none.
First chimp fossil unearthed : Nature News

For each of the species you mention above, the scientific consensus is that these are on the human lineage, not chimpanzee or other ape. The links above that aren't to 'AnswersInGenesis' do mention the chimp-like features of Australopithecus, but this fits in with the current theory that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans were similar to chimps. There is no evidence above that the fossils have been mis-attributed to the human line.



I can comprehend that genomes are measured in base pairs. I also understand that the method of choosing which base pairs to compare is an important part in the comparison process, and will distinguish different methods of doing the comparison.



I did read that paper on Molecular clocks, and if you read it you'll see that I summarised the information in my post.



There are molecular clocks. And, if you actually read on them you'll see that there are methods to improve the accuracy of the measurements obtained from them. Yes, if you measure the time difference for last common ancestor using different parts of the genome, you'll get different answers. That's why sophisticated methods are used to improve accuracy, such as in the reference I gave you.



Lots of species do not speciate. Bonobos have not speciated. Eastern gorillas have not speciated. Hence, we are not an exception to the African Great Apes. If you wish to say that we are the most highly evolved, then you have to say by what measure. Clearly in terms of intelligence, we are the 'most evolved', but there is not a single objective measure of 'most evolved'.





Except, I can. I have not only said that genome differences are measured in terms of base pairs, I have pointed out that part of a similarity measure to calculate that similarity of base pairs is to choose which base pairs will be compared.



I have done so at least ten times, but pointed out that you are describing comparison of genomes in an incomplete and inoperational fashion. It's not just comparing genomes in base pairs, but the method by which this number is calculated. Such as: which base pairs will be compared.



I do not feel that I am condescending to you. You have described the methods of comparing genomes incompletely, and I am pointing this out to you. In a discussion, it is not condescending to point out an error. In this case an error of omission.



Given that we don't seem to get beyond you stating that 'genome similarity is measured in base pairs' and me pointing out that is incomplete unless you define a strategy for choosing the base pairs to compare so that measure is possible, I don't think you've demonstrated that '[you're] [my] guy.' You're saying that I need to 'learn the basics', but when I look at papers such as: Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case, I'm confident that I understand what they are doing. In particular for that paper, look at the 'gold standard' method of DDH, and the importance of alignment of DNA. The alignment is important, as it is the 'decide which base pairs to compare' that you are missing from your description of how genome distance is calculated.

If you wish to discuss the different measures of human/chimp genome similarity that result in 94, 96, or 98% similarity, you simply have to move beyond 'genome similarity is measured in base pairs'. All of those methods that produce those numbers (and many more) measure genome similarity in base pairs, but they do so in different ways. It's not as simple as you describe it here. I understand that.

Hence, I don't think I see any evidence that you know the basics any better than me, and hence your advice appears misplaced.[/QUOTE]

Now you dismissing fossils, wow.