• 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.

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
That's really impressive. He knows what he's talking about, and says it clearly. Now if he could just manage to get Mark Kennedy to understand it . . .
At least now you have a nice, concise argument that you can cite. One that comes from a devout YEC, no less.
 
Upvote 0

matthewgar

Newbie
Jun 18, 2010
699
25
powell river BC. Canada.
✟23,465.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Others
Keeping in mind that I don't really know much about this field, it shouldn't matter how close our genome is to apes in particular because don't we share 99% of genes with mice as well (or something like that?)

Well genes, but are we talking about 100% copies, or their gene for hemoglobin is simular to ours giving room for genetic drift? Lets not forget that that the most basic microbe shares 50% or something like that of it's genetic material with us, *or was it higher it's been a while* but thats due to the fact that there are many genes and such that are universally used.

ALso in one of the books I read, think it was a Dawkins one on evolution, it was pointed out that while only 99% of our encoding DNA is different, easily majority of our genes are different from chimps and such by one or more basepairs, wich is where the differences add up. A single deletion or insertion can change a gene.

The gene that gives us our brain size and such was just 13 base pair difference out of 152 or some odd.

And not sure if this was confused here, but the 99 or so % identical to chimps and the 95% are two different comparisons. One is of encoding DNA AKA our genes, the other is our entire DNA junk, encoding, pseudogenes and so on.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Sophophile

Newbie
Jul 21, 2008
256
18
✟15,482.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Keeping in mind that I don't really know much about this field, it shouldn't matter how close our genome is to apes in particular because don't we share 99% of genes with mice as well (or something like that?)

Hi ivebeenshown

Your statement is incorrect. Look at this diagram showing genetic distances between various species -- humans are on the right, next to them are chimps (pan), and on the far left is the mouse.



Genetically, humans are most similar to chimps, then gorillas, then orangutans (pongo), then monkeys, and we are least similar to mice. This genetic evidence matches the evolutionary expectation of relatedness from just looking at the species' physical characteristics.

Cheers
S.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
"The only reason chimps get the position as humanity's sister taxon among the apes is the repeated observation that they are the most similar of the apes to humans. "
Todd's Blog: Chimp genome again

I thought some were saying we're like Bonobos
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
So it doesn't matter which chimp we're supposed to be related (by behaviour) too? Because the two behave very very differently
We're not more closely related to one species of chimp than to the other. They're more closely related to one another than either species is to us. The point is that we're closely related to the genus Pan than to any other ape.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
We're not more closely related to one species of chimp than to the other. They're more closely related to one another than either species is to us. The point is that we're closely related to the genus Pan than to any other ape.

The article says it's not about genetics, but behaviour. But now it doesn't matter which chimp we're related to?
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
A chimp off the old block, perhaps?

You'll never make a monkey out of me!

The strange thing is that an article says that we're closely related to chimps based on behaviour - not genetic! But the two chimp species behave very differently from each other.

So are we simply related because we share similar (behavioural) characteristics of both?
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Todd's blog article? Where does it mention behaviour?

I was in error to say it was about behaviour. It doesn't specifically say this. What it does is it doesn't exclude it, by talking about all similarities

"The only reason chimps get the position as humanity's sister taxon among the apes is the repeated observation that they are the most similar of the apes to humans. It doesn't matter what the particular similarity actually is, chimps are the most similar to humans. "
Ibid.

I asked you about behaviour, specifically. That's where we're up to.

The article goes on about saying the 99% similiarity in genes is irrelevant

"...because the actual percent identity (whatever that is) makes no difference at all. "
Ibid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0