Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[tas8831]

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study

How is the 99% reached????

"One of the more popular methods is based on an algorithm called BLAST, which chops up DNA (or proteins) into small segments and then tries to compare them to the segments on a different set of DNA (or proteins). This seems like the most “generous” way to compare two genomes, because it doesn’t require one genome to be structured similarly to the other. The only thing that matters is whether a bit of information in one genome can be found anywhere in the other genome."

More likely, even using the fakery of BLAST....

"Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

Looks like Wile is ignorant of how blast BLAST works. Or he was unwittingly dissing Tomkins' sleazy antics. Or both. And as SFS has documented on here, Buggs basically admitted that his 'study' was in error.

You've never done a BLAST, have you?

I have done BLAST searches using megabases of DNA, not little chunks - see, Tomkins chopped his DNA into 'little chunks' for HIS study, then told BLAST (using a script) to only return hits between human and chimp that matched 100%. It is as if he set out to get lower scores...

Anyway - here is what you nor Tomkins nor Wile seem to be aware of (or are actively trying to cover up) - using the techniques of Buggs or Tomkins, the pairwise comparisons of ALL pairs of taxa will be lowered. This includes taxa that creationists believe to be related via intrabaraminic evolution.

IOW - the creation "scientists" have hoisted themselves by their own petard and either are too driven by dogma to know it, or driven by their mendacity to cover it up.

 

[tas8831]

By the creationist count, humans would be much less similar to other humans, since that counting method would be affected by the. fact that humans have more genetic diversity than chimpanzees.

An Italian creationist group did some basic DNA comparisons a few years back, attempting to show that the human-chimp DNA difference is larger than claimed. They produced some kind of extrapolatory algorithm (i made that phrase up!) in which they took the % differences on a segment of DNA of X-length, then extrapolated that out to megabase length (or something to this effect, I forget the specifics). This method showed that humans and chimps differed by like 10% or something, and thus was too much to be accounted for by evolution. But they made one little mistake - they included a pair of humans in their analysis, and their method showed that any 2 humans would differ by ~5%, a divergence level that creationists were generally claiming at that time proved humans and chimps could not be related.

I note that the graph showing this had been removed from their website several years ago.

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL!

Well, unless you are Roy Britten...

Roy Britten put the number at 95%, those were base pairs btw. I get your game, deny the most obvious fact and it casts doubt on everything else. You never read the paper did you, you probable never do. But that not your job on here, you just taunt and mock creationists, theres on in every thread. Wanna kbow why? Because its impossible to explain.

 

[tas8831]

Roy Britten put the number at 95%, those were base pairs btw. I get your game, deny the most obvious fact and it casts doubt on everything else. You never read the paper did you, you probable never do. But that not your job on here, you just taunt and mock creationists, theres on in every thread. Wanna kbow why? Because its impossible to explain.

The Britten paper? Sure I read it.

Did you?

Britten included all of the nucleotides (his words - you'd better correct him!) as part of a 'raw nucleotide count'. Britten knows that indels are single mutational events, regardless of their size, just as all knowledgeable, competent genetics-types do.

Had you ever read his paper, you would have seen, bolding mine:

"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge — by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison."

 

[mark kennedy]

The Britten paper? Sure I read it.

Did you?

Britten included all of the nucleotides (his words - you'd better correct him!) as part of a 'raw nucleotide count'. Britten knows that indels are single mutational events, regardless of their size, just as all knowledgeable, competent genetics-types do.

Had you ever read his paper, you would have seen, bolding mine:

"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge — by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison."

They are assumed to be due to mutations, I notice you didnt cite your source material. Could it be, (Divergence between samples of Chimpanzee and Human Sequences is 5% Counting Indels PNAS Oct. 2002).

Your not even cleaver, you deny the obvious and go on to quote the irrelavent. This estimate was confirmed by tge Chimpanzee Chromosome 21 paper and the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2095. Those are just the ones off the top of my head.

 

[tas8831]

They are assumed to be due to mutations, I notice you didnt cite your source material. Could it be, (Divergence between samples of Chimpanzee and Human Sequences is 5% Counting Indels PNAS Oct. 2002).

That is the one - I did not cite it since it seemed obvious that was the one under discussion.

Your[sic] not even cleaver [sic], you deny the obvious and go on to quote the irrelavent.

What is the obvious?

And what was irrelevant?

This estimate was confirmed by tge Chimpanzee Chromosome 21 paper and the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2095. Those are just the ones off the top of my head.

What of it?

The numbers can vary depending on which loci are being compared, how much data there is, etc. The specific number is truly irrelevant - regardless of the exact numbers, human and chimp are more similar to each other than either is to any other critter. And if creationists want to make arguments about some specific number that pertains to one specific thing, then they'd best not employ double standards when those same arguments come back to haunt them, such as by declaring whatever % the human-chimp identity is to be 'too much' for evolution to account for then dismissing % identities between creatures claimed by creationists to have descended from a created Kind that diverge by just as much or more.



Oh - you must have accidentally missed this post:

Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

 

[mark kennedy]

That is the one - I did not cite it since it seemed obvious that was the one under discussion.

Still supposed to cite it.

What is the obvious?

The level of divergence.

And what was irrelevant?

Whether were talking about DNA or RNA.

What of it?

Just calling you out on the facts before you one off on another tangent.

The numbers can vary depending on which loci are being compared, how much data there is, etc. The specific number is truly irrelevant - regardless of the exact numbers, human and chimp are more similar to each other than either is to any other critter. And if creationists want to make arguments about some specific number that pertains to one specific thing, then they'd best not employ double standards when those same arguments come back to haunt them, such as by declaring whatever % the human-chimp identity is to be 'too much' for evolution to account for then dismissing % identities between creatures claimed by creationists to have descended from a created Kind that diverge by just as much or more.

The arguments generally hover around the fact that there are 5 million indel events so the 98% figure is accurate, its not. Or you cut the number of base pairs in half because its two genome which is not true either. You, on the other hand dont have an argument

Oh - you must have accidentally missed this post:

Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh - you must have accidentally missed this post:

Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing[/QUOTE]
You make the argument that you should count the indel as one base pair. One 3 million base pairs count as the same percentage of divergence as a single base substitution. Its absurd.

 

[tas8831]

What is the obvious?

The level of divergence.

And what level do you think is relevant and why, and do the same criteria apply to ALL pairwise comparisons?

And what was irrelevant?

Whether were talking about DNA or RNA.

Was Britten referring to RNA, as you claim, when he wrote:

"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge — by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison."

Just calling you out on the facts before you one off on another tangent.

Tangent like pointing out your weird flip-flopping on mutation events v. total number of nucleotides?

The arguments generally hover around the fact that there are 5 million indel events so the 98% figure is accurate, its not. Or you cut the number of base pairs in half because its two genome which is not true either. You, on the other hand dont have an argument

It is accurate when referring to mutation events.
You only keep harping on the total number of nucleotides in indels because you think it rescues your myths.

It doesn't.

 

[tas8831]

Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing
You make the argument that you should count the indel as one base pair. One 3 million base pairs count as the same percentage of divergence as a single base substitution. Its absurd.

Wow, great rebuttal...

What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?

"A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene, such that the sequence differs from what is found in most people. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes."

You know of different definitions?

Compare 2 taxa that you think are intra-kind variations. Tell us the raw nucleotide count, then the number of mutations. And let's see if your 'standards' remain.

 

[tas8831]

And he never did...

Wow, great rebuttal...

What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?

"A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene, such that the sequence differs from what is found in most people. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes."

You know of different definitions?

Compare 2 taxa that you think are intra-kind variations. Tell us the raw nucleotide count, then the number of mutations. And let's see if your 'standards' remain.

 

[tas8831]

Of course, juastatruthseeker has taken his side show on the road - he is making the same basic claims on another forum.

Of note, physicist YEC kook Wile has added a disclaimer to his essay:

"PLEASE NOTE: The results of this study are known to be wrong due to a bug in the computer program used. A new study that uses several different computer programs shows an 88% overall similarity."

Looks like Wile is ignorant of how blast BLAST works. Or he was unwittingly dissing Tomkins' sleazy antics. Or both. And as SFS has documented on here, Buggs basically admitted that his 'study' was in error.

You've never done a BLAST, have you?

I have done BLAST searches using megabases of DNA, not little chunks - see, Tomkins chopped his DNA into 'little chunks' for HIS study, then told BLAST (using a script) to only return hits between human and chimp that matched 100%. It is as if he set out to get lower scores...

Anyway - here is what you nor Tomkins nor Wile seem to be aware of (or are actively trying to cover up) - using the techniques of Buggs or Tomkins, the pairwise comparisons of ALL pairs of taxa will be lowered. This includes taxa that creationists believe to be related via intrabaraminic evolution.

IOW - the creation "scientists" have hoisted themselves by their own petard and either are too driven by dogma to know it, or driven by their mendacity to cover it up.

And yeah, Wile takes Tomkins' use of BLAST to do NOT a phylogenetic analysis, but a sequence identity comparison, and believes that is how all such studies are done.

The dumb leading the dumber in YEC land.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course, juastatruthseeker has taken his side show on the road - he is making the same basic claims on another forum.

Of note, physicist YEC kook Wile has added a disclaimer to his essay:

"PLEASE NOTE: The results of this study are known to be wrong due to a bug in the computer program used. A new study that uses several different computer programs shows an 88% overall similarity."



And yeah, Wile takes Tomkins' use of BLAST to do NOT a phylogenetic analysis, but a sequence identity comparison, and believes that is how all such studies are done.

The dumb leading the dumber in YEC land.

Buddha would frown on your comment.
Perhaps your mom as well.

 

[tas8831]

Buddha would frown on your comment.
Perhaps your mom as well.

Doubt it. Honesty was important to them. But apparently not to you.

 

[SkyWriting]

Doubt it. Honesty was important to them. But apparently not to you.

I don't judge.