Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

tas8831 · Sep 6, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...

Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long

Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.

The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.

Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!

Had you considered the possibility that those 'same genes' were not sequenced to the same extent?

When I was in graduate school, we we comparing 2 introns from a gene across several species. We used the human gene - the entire coding region, plus introns, plus 3' and 5' flanking regions - as a reference. For some taxa, our genomic DNA samples were old and we had limited success in sequencing the introns. In others, we had no problems at all. The primers we used to generate PCR fragments were in exons because they were fairly well conserved, and so for some taxa we had not only the introns, but parts of exons as well. several taxa had extensive repetitions in their introns, making one, for instance, nearly 1kb larger than all of the others.
By your implicit logic, we should have concluded that these sequences were not from the SAME GENE, despite the fact that we have amplified fragments using identical primers (30+ years of reading on these subjects should be sufficient for your understanding of the above).

I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).

In fact, I am willing to bet in it.

What say you?

tas8831 · Sep 6, 2017

Working my way through this thread - apologies if the things I mention have already been hashed out.

pshun2404 said:
The fact is I have seen at least a half dozen artistically contrived trees as well as a couple of cladistic bush/trees. They vary as to the specific lineages they hypothesize (though flow along the same GENERAL lines). So where you have Rhesus Macaque others have Gorilla/Orangutan which your’s entirely ignores, and so on.

You DO realize, do you not, that not all phylogenetic analyses 1. are not analyzing the same things and 2. do not always use the exact same taxa?

tas8831 · Sep 6, 2017

Jimmy D said:
The problem is that you are arguing against well a researched and rigorous modern understanding of the subject in question so you really need to demonstrate with some rock solid evidence and reasoning that your explanation is correct.

To suggest that they merely compare a sequence of letters and declare a "substitution" or "deletion" is spurious at best.

Good points - in my experience, many creationists seem to believe that their level of understanding of a topic is on par or even superior to that of people that do this stuff for a living.

Aman777 · Sep 6, 2017

tas8831 said:
Good points - in my experience, many creationists seem to believe that their level of understanding of a topic is on par or even superior to that of people that do this stuff for a living.

That is because some Creationists do have a better understanding than those who give their devotion to the False ToE. We have God's Unchangeable Truth while evolutionists have their false, incomplete, assumptions, which are in dire need of being corrected. Faith in mortal man's changeable Science is fine, but NOT when compared to God's Truth. God Bless you

Loudmouth · Sep 6, 2017

Aman777 said:
That is because some Creationists do have a better understanding than those who give their devotion to the False ToE. We have God's Unchangeable Truth while evolutionists have their false, incomplete, assumptions, which are in dire need of being corrected. Faith in mortal man's changeable Science is fine, but NOT when compared to God's Truth. God Bless you

What assumptions are you talking about?

mark kennedy · Sep 6, 2017

tas8831 said:
What is your analysis of the genetic identity between and pair of 'kinds'? By that I mean, have you compared any 2 species that creationists accept as being derived from a common kind? And if not, why not? and if not, of what value is your analysis of the chimp-human question?

You are not even comparing apples to apples, you are comparing one apple to an assertion.

That's actually an interesting thought and I've tried. Whole genome sequences are not that easy to come by. I've always wanted to see comparisons of arctic wild like, especially bears and wolves. Still no luck and it's been a while since I seriously researched this stuff.

I am not sure I follow your biological argumentation here.

Are you of the opinion that there must be some sort of an ideal molecular-to-morphological ratio? That to get this 3-fold change in cranial volume that there should also be a 3-fold difference in genetic identity?

Merely proclaiming that the increase is impossible because... reasons... is not a valid argument.

I really don't have that many arguments, mostly my approach is state the facts and draw a few obvious conclusions. For instance Paranthropos is clearly a transitional but outside our line, right where our ancestors should be. The Homo habilis stone age ape man is contrived and the same rationale would never be applied to anthropology.

As far as direct comparisons to the human genome to the chimpanzee genome the idels are massive. Highly conserved brain related genes would have had to accept major overhauls are be built from scratch. The most basic concept behind the inductive approach to science is one of cause and effect relationships. When it comes to brain related genes mutations are a wrong answer, that much I'm 100% sure of.

mark kennedy · Sep 6, 2017

Aman777 said:
That is because some Creationists do have a better understanding than those who give their devotion to the False ToE. We have God's Unchangeable Truth while evolutionists have their false, incomplete, assumptions, which are in dire need of being corrected. Faith in mortal man's changeable Science is fine, but NOT when compared to God's Truth. God Bless you

I've never thought there was a theory of evolution, evolution is a phenomenon in nature pure and simple. What is called the theory of evolution is actually Darwinian naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. I also think Creationism is a misnomer, there is the doctrine of creation and that literally transcends all of Scripture from the first chapter to the last.

Loudmouth · Sep 6, 2017

mark kennedy said:
What is called the theory of evolution is actually Darwinian naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

What assumptions are you talking about?

Aman777 · Sep 7, 2017

Loudmouth said:
What assumptions are you talking about?

The biggest Satanic Lie in the history of Human civilization is that Humans (descendants of Adam) are the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Scripture shows increased punishment for people who offend little children with such obvious Lies. Mar 9:42

Loudmouth · Sep 7, 2017

Aman777 said:
The biggest Satanic Lie in the history of Human civilization is that Humans (descendants of Adam) are the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Scripture shows increased punishment for people who offend little children with such obvious Lies. Mar 9:42

Can you at least attempt to make sense? Let's review the conversation, shall we?

mark kennedy: What is called the theory of evolution is actually Darwinian naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Me: What assumptions are you talking about?

You: The biggest Satanic Lie in the history of Human civilization is that Humans (descendants of Adam) are the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Scripture shows increased punishment for people who offend little children with such obvious Lies. Mar 9:42

mark kennedy claimed that the theory of evolution is based on assumptions. Nowhere in your post did you list a single assumption that relates to the theory of evolution. Want to try again?

Goatee · Sep 7, 2017

The closest any human has been to a chimp that I have seen is my Father-in-law!

Aman777 · Sep 7, 2017

Loudmouth said:
Can you at least attempt to make sense? Let's review the conversation, shall we?

mark kennedy: What is called the theory of evolution is actually Darwinian naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Me: What assumptions are you talking about?

You: The biggest Satanic Lie in the history of Human civilization is that Humans (descendants of Adam) are the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Scripture shows increased punishment for people who offend little children with such obvious Lies. Mar 9:42

mark kennedy claimed that the theory of evolution is based on assumptions. Nowhere in your post did you list a single assumption that relates to the theory of evolution. Want to try again?

I was giving an example of the false assumptions of the ToE which are being force taught to children all over the world. Humans are NOT descended from Apes. The sons of God (prehistoric people) did descend from the common ancestor of Apes according to Genesis 1:21 which shows their creation from WATER. Humans (descendants of Adam) were formed from the dust of the GROUND.

Loudmouth · Sep 7, 2017

Aman777 said:
I was giving an example of the false assumptions of the ToE which are being force taught to children all over the world. Humans are NOT descended from Apes.

That is not an assumption in the theory of evolution. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.

Are you saying that you don't know the difference between conclusions and assumptions?

Aman777 · Sep 7, 2017

Loudmouth said:
That is not an assumption in the theory of evolution. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.

Are you saying that you don't know the difference between conclusions and assumptions?

My conclusion is that one of the false assumptions of the ToE, such as the ignorant idea that Humans evolved from Apes, is easily refuted. I find it hard to keep up with the latest dodges dreamed up by the naive people who follow the false ToE. They love to change words and their meanings in order to TRY to support their false ideas.

Loudmouth · Sep 7, 2017

Aman777 said:
My conclusion is that one of the false assumptions of the ToE, such as the ignorant idea that Humans evolved from Apes, is easily refuted.

That is not an assumption. Try again.

I find it hard to keep up with the latest dodges dreamed up by the naive people who follow the false ToE. They love to change words and their meanings in order to TRY to support their false ideas.

You are the one changing the meanings of words, not I.

mark kennedy · Sep 7, 2017

Aman777 said:
The biggest Satanic Lie in the history of Human civilization is that Humans (descendants of Adam) are the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Scripture shows increased punishment for people who offend little children with such obvious Lies. Mar 9:42

Oh I don't know, ye shall be as gods was a pretty big one. They think this is something modern but there is nothing new under the sun (Romans 1:22; Acts 17:28). I've been going over their evidence for years and found them less then convincing to put it mildly. The logic is flawed and the evidence is contrived, not that the artifacts and scientific observations are nonexistent, just that their arguments based on them don't line up with actual evidence.

Grace and peace,
Mark

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 7, 2017

tas8831 said:
...I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).

In fact, I am willing to bet in it.

What say you?

I'm willing to bet (turn of phrase, not literally - I don't bet) he hasn't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

USincognito · Sep 7, 2017

xianghua said:
some parts in the chimp genome is actually closer to chicken genome then to human.

You're not parroting that garbage from ICR's Brian Thomas, are you?

tas8831 said:
Good points - in my experience, many creationists seem to believe that their level of understanding of a topic is on par or even superior to that of people that do this stuff for a living.

We have a working geneticist here who regularly gets lectures from Creationists about genetics. It's quite amusing to watch.

xianghua · Sep 8, 2017

USincognito said:
You're not parroting that garbage from ICR's Brian Thomas, are you?

what are you talking about? see here:

Distinctive structures between chimpanzee and humanin a brain noncoding RNA

"HARs: 18 substitutions occurred since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, whereas HAR1 is well conserved across other amniotes with only 2 nucleotide (nt) changes between chicken and chimpanzee"

tas8831 · Sep 8, 2017

Aman777 said:
That is because some Creationists do have a better understanding than those who give their devotion to the False ToE.

This does not follow from what I wrote.

Some creationists may well have better understanding on specific issues, but I can, without hesitation, say that none that I have encountered do, and without question none on here do.

Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian

Contributor

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Contributor

Christian

Contributor

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Christian

Contributor

Christian

Contributor

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency