Do Chimps and Humans Share a Common Ancestor? Primer for a formal debate

[mark kennedy]

it's interesting how much cherry picking mark is doing. He ignores multiple erv's as just 'mutation' even though that violates the definition of evr. Then finds one evr and asserts it as proof against common ancestory ignoring the millions of years when it was most likely added to the genome.

Really Mark already lost the EVR debate in the formal section a long time ago.

Sorry to interrupt your talking around me but there is no proof without a null hypothesis. If you are so all fired convinced just answer me one question. What is the source of ERVs and how much of the Human genome is composed of them?

Or will you just keep begging the burden of proof?

 

[sbvera13]

About that, you are saying that homology is a compelling proof of a common ancestor. Does that mean that you accept that divergence is a compelling proof of special creation?

That would be a false dilemma. There could be other possible explanations for divergence that don't involve special creation. Acquired, heritable characteristics for example.

 

[USincognito]

I just found this graphic on another forum and thought I'd cross post it here in case anyone the thread might find it useful.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html

 

[JBJoe]

What is the source of ERVs and how much of the Human genome is composed of them?

"Endogenous retrovirus" is a retrovirus that has been passed on to another generation. While technically any retrovirus that has transcribed itself into the DNA of a cell of its host is endogenous to that cell, we don't give it the formal name 'endogenous' until it has been passed on from a germ cell into the next generation, in which case the inactive retrovirus will be present in every cell in the offspring's body (except mature red blood cells.)

7-8% of the human genome contains ERVs or fragments thereof (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=138943). That translates to roughly 210-240 megabases.

 

[Mumbo]

That was three maybe four teeth, now how many human family ancestors do they have from the same time frame.

Lots. So?

The reason I picked the timeframe was pretty obvious, I'm dating back to the LCA.

I'm aware that you're dating back to the LCA. It's the lower limit of 1 million years I'm concerned with, not the upper one. Why not stretch the limit to 500,000, to accomodate the teeth? It took a long time to find those things, so it'd be a shame if they were excluded for no reason.

Four teeth verses thousands of fossils, yea, that sounds pretty fishy to me.

International evolutionist conspiracy, maybe?

The number is wrong, what are you using as a source?

Didn't use a source, it was from memory. The Nature article you pointed out gives a similarly vague figure of "over 98%." The number's usually given as being between 96% and 99%, depending on the criteria used. If you think that the difference between 96 and 99 percent is worth mentioning, say so. If you have another point to make, then just make it already. I'm getting impatient waiting for you to say something substantial.

It's not per gene, it's per diploid generation and the effect of the gene is what triggers natural selection.

Come on, that was implied. Stop splitting hairs, this is starting to get ridiculous.

Just stringing the thread out, I knew you would have the wrong answers. You guys are so predictable.

Oh, so you're intentionally being irritating. That explains it. Look, instead of dancing around the questions, could you just answer them? It saves a lot of trouble.

I could catalog them for you but I have to save something for the debate if anyone ever steps up.

How about giving a sneak preview, 10 words or less. I haven't been wasting my time waiting for an answer, have I?

About that, you are saying that homology is a compelling proof of a common ancestor.

Homology means similarity based on common ancestry, so you're being redundant. I knew you'd get your definitions confused. You guys are so predictable.

Does that mean that you accept that divergence is a compelling proof of special creation?

Divergence? You must not be using that term in the way I'm familiar with, because I don't see how it relates to special creation. You're going to have to explain it to me. Make sure to use words of two syllables or less; you know how slow evolutionists can be on the uptake.

Go back and check your facts because you are you are mistaken on some key facts.

Yes, Professor Kennedy.

Wait a second, this isn't biology class. You're no teacher, and I'm nowhere near being as mistaken about anything as you claim, so climb down from your high horse and stop delaying.

 

[anffyddwyr]

I am a young earth creationist with an avid interest in the life sciences from a fundamentalist point of view. I am opposed to evolution as natural history, specifically, I consider the human/chimp common ancestor to be a modern myth.

Let's look at this from the creationists point of view,
God made everything, it just so happens God made Chimps and Humans anatomically the same,
some parts are a slightly different shape, smaller or larger, but all of the parts do the same thing,
shave a chimp and you have a very old man, why God chose to do this is a mystery.

What puzzles me is this, why do creationists concentrate on proving evolution wrong and NEVER,
I repeat NEVER try to show where creation is right?

Could a creationist for once forget evolution and please, please tell me where creation is right.
Unfortunately 'God did it' is not an answer, if you do consider it to be the answer,
we might as well all pack up and go home now.

 

[kingreaper]

The difference in fossil prevalence between humans and chimps is explained by the difference in environment: In a forest/rainforest environment anything which dies decays rapidly and is reabsorbed, fossilisation is highly unlikely. On plains, while things still decay and bones are picked clean, there is a greater likelihood of something lasting long enough to be buried and subsequently fossilised.

 

[Split Rock]

Didn't use a source, it was from memory. The Nature article you pointed out gives a similarly vague figure of "over 98%." The number's usually given as being between 96% and 99%, depending on the criteria used. If you think that the difference between 96 and 99 percent is worth mentioning, say so. If you have another point to make, then just make it already. I'm getting impatient waiting for you to say something substantial.

Yes, for Mark this is a BIG difference. The numbers themselves do not matter, it is the fact that 96% represents a smaller percentage of similarity compared to 98-99%. He still cannot explain why we share 96% of our DNA with Chimps, however... I predict, he will never attempt to do so in this thread.

 

[Phred]

Short version;

(ERVs) have become all but extinct in the human lineage, HERV-K. The chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that must have been introduced by mutation since the split. PtERV2 is not in the human genome and it is too large to have been introduced by mutation since the split. PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in humans. (Nature 2005)

Here's the thing, if ERVs are such sweeping proof of common ancestry, the inverse logic must be intuitively obvious. With the ERV there has to be a null hypothesis for a LSCA. I fully intend to show exactly what that is and why this argument is not only counter productive to TOE as natural history. It is vivid proof that TOE apologists are either oblivious to what the evidence is, or grossly disingenuous when presenting it.

That's the readers digest version, I'll save the detailed exposition for the debate.

Have a nice day
Mark

What "split"?

 

[Split Rock]

Just stringing the thread out, I knew you would have the wrong answers. You guys are so predictable.

Oh, so you're intentionally being irritating. That explains it. Look, instead of dancing around the questions, could you just answer them? It saves a lot of trouble.

I'm afraid Mark has no answers...unless you would like to discuss scripture with him. He doesn't like to admit it here in the C&E forum, but his objections to common ancestry are entirely based on his interpretation of scripture... not genetics.

How about giving a sneak preview, 10 words or less. I haven't been wasting my time waiting for an answer, have I?

I'm afraid so.

 

[RedAndy]

What "split"?

Presumably the "split" between the chimpanzee and human lineage.

 

[mark kennedy]

Lots. So?

So the chimpanzee ancestors are in natural history musuems marked Homo XXX.

The only published information of these fossilized Chimpanzee teeth I have seen was in the same Nature Magazine issue the the Chimpanzee Genome. I'm not excluding them at all I'm just wondering why there is a gap of millions of years between these teeth and the LCA.

International evolutionist conspiracy, maybe?

Basically

Didn't use a source, it was from memory. The Nature article you pointed out gives a similarly vague figure of "over 98%." The number's usually given as being between 96% and 99%, depending on the criteria used. If you think that the difference between 96 and 99 percent is worth mentioning, say so. If you have another point to make, then just make it already. I'm getting impatient waiting for you to say something substantial.

It's 95% according to the paper Nature was announcing. If you had bothered to go to the source you would have known that.

Come on, that was implied. Stop splitting hairs, this is starting to get ridiculous.

I asked you for the level of divergence and you were not only wrong but you keep changing it. I asked you for the mutation rate and you give me some vague generality. Now if you don't know what the mutation rate is then say so and simply ask what it is. Don't pretend you know when you don't, that is ridiculous.

Oh, so you're intentionally being irritating. That explains it. Look, instead of dancing around the questions, could you just answer them? It saves a lot of trouble.

I am not going to post detailed expositions for people who don't have enough personal intergrity to even read it. I'm looking for someone with enough confidence in TOE as natural history to be willing to debate it formally. I won't hold my breath.

How about giving a sneak preview, 10 words or less. I haven't been wasting my time waiting for an answer, have I?

Divergence exceeds known mutation rates and neural gene mutations kill.

How's that?

Homology means similarity based on common ancestry, so you're being redundant. I knew you'd get your definitions confused. You guys are so predictable.

Was that supposed to be funny? If homology is a good argument for common ancestry can differences be valid counter evidence?

Yes, Professor Kennedy.

Wait a second, this isn't biology class. You're no teacher, and I'm nowhere near being as mistaken about anything as you claim, so climb down from your high horse and stop delaying.

Let's get right to it if you are so interested in what kind of evidence I have to present. Accept my challenge at the top of the forum and lets compare notes shall we?

Let's look at this from the creationists point of view,
God made everything, it just so happens God made Chimps and Humans anatomically the same,
some parts are a slightly different shape, smaller or larger, but all of the parts do the same thing,
shave a chimp and you have a very old man, why God chose to do this is a mystery.

I'll ask you the same question everyone else is dodging. If the anatomical simularities are evidence for common ancestry is the inverse logic intuitivly obvious?

What puzzles me is this, why do creationists concentrate on proving evolution wrong and NEVER,
I repeat NEVER try to show where creation is right?

I wouldn't know, I'm a YEC evolutionist.

Could a creationist for once forget evolution and please, please tell me where creation is right.
Unfortunately 'God did it' is not an answer, if you do consider it to be the answer,
we might as well all pack up and go home now.

Right! God didn't do it is a much better explanation. I know why you are so confused, you don't know beans about genetics or how traits are passed on from one generation to another. Why don't you actually learn something about what evolution is before you paint creationists with the antievolution brush stroke?

Tell you what, define evolution and then tell me why creatiionists are not radical evolutionists.

"Endogenous retrovirus" is a retrovirus that has been passed on to another generation. While technically any retrovirus that has transcribed itself into the DNA of a cell of its host is endogenous to that cell, we don't give it the formal name 'endogenous' until it has been passed on from a germ cell into the next generation, in which case the inactive retrovirus will be present in every cell in the offspring's body (except mature red blood cells.)

7-8% of the human genome contains ERVs or fragments thereof (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=138943). That translates to roughly 210-240 megabases.

Good link, now how many of those since the LCA?

"...their abundance in the genome was not predicted by earlier studies. HERVs represent the remnants of ancestral retroviral infections that became fixed in the germline DNA." (Genome Biol, 2001 June 5)

Guess what else the didn't predict? They did not predict the size of the indels. When all the noise started on the Genetic simularity started they were saying 99% the same. The actual nucleotide sequence jumped by 4 times that and they still want everyone to believe is lines up with the current mutation rate. It's a lie.

Now to the ERVs, we are supposed to assume that 8% of the Human genome is the result of germline invasions. Based on that we have to assume the differences between chimpanzees and humans are the result of germline mutations since the split. 2.8% of that are the Class I ERVs in the chimpanzee genome PtERV1 and PtERV2. They consist of 235 greater then 5 million base pairs of lineage specific indels, in the human genome you have 5 that are 8,000 base pairs in length.

That is just what I tripped over on the surface, the deeper you go the worse it gets. This whole line of reasoning is riddled with false assumptions and propaganda.

Finding the evidence is easy, getting evolutionists to admit what the actual evidence is, that is the problem. Mainly because they never admit that the inverse logic. If homology is an argument for common ancestry then divergence is the null hypothesis.

 

[Mumbo]

So the chimpanzee ancestors are in natural history musuems marked Homo XXX.

And the fact that they're more humanlike than chimp-like means nothing? I see.

The only published information of these fossilized Chimpanzee teeth I have seen was in the same Nature Magazine issue the the Chimpanzee Genome. I'm not excluding them at all I'm just wondering why there is a gap of millions of years between these teeth and the LCA.

I'm wondering why that matters in the least.

Basically

I prefer the scheming scientists' interpretation, myself: different habitats made for differing amounts of fossilization. I'll admit that your belief is more fun, though.

It's 95% according to the paper Nature was announcing. If you had bothered to go to the source you would have known that.

You didn't link me a paper, you linked me to Google. Instead of insulting my intelligence (again), why don't you explain why that figure matters?

I asked you for the level of divergence and you were not only wrong

I was?

but you keep changing it.

I only gave one response!

I asked you for the mutation rate and you give me some vague generality.

I was more specific than I should have been! The number's been estimated to be between 1/10,000 and 1/1,000,000. I just gave you the most conservative figure. If I did my internet homework wrong, feel free to correct me and get on with your explanation.

Now if you don't know what the mutation rate is then say so and simply ask what it is. Don't pretend you know when you don't, that is ridiculous.

You know what's even easier? Not asking the question in the first place. It might detract from your false sense of superiority, but it saves time.

I am not going to post detailed expositions for people who don't have enough personal intergrity to even read it. I'm looking for someone with enough confidence in TOE as natural history to be willing to debate it formally. I won't hold my breath.

Jeez, they're just simple questions. I'm not expecting an essay back from you, so relax. Last time I checked, this wasn't the debate thread, so skip the explanations for your continued withholding of information and post something. ANYTHING.

Divergence exceeds known mutation rates and neural gene mutations kill.

How's that?

Not bad! This is the kind of answer I wanted from your first reply. Why'd I have to go through all that trouble to get it?

Was that supposed to be funny? If homology is a good argument for common ancestry can differences be valid counter evidence?

Divergence and difference are two different things. There you go mixing up your biology terms again.

If you want to point out the differences between chimps and humans, feel free. That remaining two percent -- excuse me, five percent -- of genetic disparity will have to include some real doozies, though.

Let's get right to it if you are so interested in what kind of evidence I have to present. Accept my challenge at the top of the forum and lets compare notes shall we?

The challenge to debate formally? Thanks, but no thanks. As you've so readily indicated, I'm just an amateur. Why, I couldn't seem to give you any of the apparently inflexible and unchanging figures that you wanted before you would condescend to give me a straight answer. I'll leave the higher-level insult flinging to the professionals.

I'll ask you the same question everyone else is dodging. If the anatomical simularities are evidence for common ancestry is the inverse logic intuitivly obvious?

Sounds good, but I have doubts that chimps and humans are so dissimilar as to make them clearly unrelated. If you can prove that to be the case without unfairly limiting the effects of mutation, I'm all ears.

 

[mark kennedy]

And the fact that they're more humanlike than chimp-like means nothing? I see.

Not when you look at the cranial capacity.

I'm wondering why that matters in the least.

You wonder why every ape fossil they find is automatically our ancestor and none of them are Chimpanzee ancestors? Seriously?

I prefer the scheming scientists' interpretation, myself: different habitats made for differing amounts of fossilization. I'll admit that your belief is more fun, though.

I prefer to look at the evidence and leave the ad hoc conjecture to the mythographers.

You didn't link me a paper, you linked me to Google. Instead of insulting my intelligence (again), why don't you explain why that figure matters?

They announce the Chimpanzee Genome paper saying the DNA is 98% the same. Then you look at the paper and it indicates 95% at best. If I just tell you that you won't get the point. So what's the difference between 2% and 5%? About 100 Mb of divergence is what.

I was?
I only gave one response!
I was more specific than I should have been! The number's been estimated to be between 1/10,000 and 1/1,000,000. I just gave you the most conservative figure. If I did my internet homework wrong, feel free to correct me and get on with your explanation.
You know what's even easier? Not asking the question in the first place. It might detract from your false sense of superiority, but it saves time.

Ok, I won't ask you questions, that should make it even easier.

Jeez, they're just simple questions. I'm not expecting an essay back from you, so relax. Last time I checked, this wasn't the debate thread, so skip the explanations for your continued withholding of information and post something. ANYTHING.

Last time I checked this was a discussion/debate thread and I can't post to this forum without getting flamed. Personally, I would much prefer to go over the scientific literature and consider the evidence carefully. That is not how things happen around here and I can't remember the last time an evolutionist invited me to a friendly discussion, it's always a debate in here.

Not bad! This is the kind of answer I wanted from your first reply. Why'd I have to go through all that trouble to get it?

We are talking about a couple of posts, I've been into this for a couple of years. Your not going to get it all in a ten words.

Divergence and difference are two different things. There you go mixing up your biology terms again.

You missed the point.

If you want to point out the differences between chimps and humans, feel free. That remaining two percent -- excuse me, five percent -- of genetic disparity will have to include some real doozies, though.

They are.

The challenge to debate formally? Thanks, but no thanks. As you've so readily indicated, I'm just an amateur. Why, I couldn't seem to give you any of the apparently inflexible and unchanging figures that you wanted before you would condescend to give me a straight answer. I'll leave the higher-level insult flinging to the professionals.

That's the whole point of the thread, if your not interested I won't waste a lot of time on a dead end.

Sounds good, but I have doubts that chimps and humans are so dissimilar as to make them clearly unrelated. If you can prove that to be the case without unfairly limiting the effects of mutation, I'm all ears.

I'll tell you what, if you want to look at this try the Chimpanzee Genome paper in Nature. Give it a once over and we can discuss the particulars.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm afraid Mark has no answers...unless you would like to discuss scripture with him. He doesn't like to admit it here in the C&E forum, but his objections to common ancestry are entirely based on his interpretation of scripture... not genetics.

It's based on my epistemology and genetics refutes Darwinism every single time.

I'm afraid so.

Don't count on it.

 

[Mumbo]

Not when you look at the cranial capacity.

Which got progressively larger. Unless you don't believe in the dating scheme, anyhow.

You wonder why every ape fossil they find is automatically our ancestor and none of them are Chimpanzee ancestors? Seriously?

Not particularly. I trust scientists to figure out the truth, since I'm not one myself. It's easier than being a conspiracy theorist. If you have clear reasons for why certain human fossils should be considered as chimpanzee ancestors, that isn't such a bad idea for a post.

I prefer to look at the evidence and leave the ad hoc conjecture to the mythographers.

For conjecture, it's pretty well-reasoned. Chimp and human ancestors can be assumed to have lived in different habitats, so why not go the extra mile and use that as an explanation for the lack of a proper chimp fossil record?

They announce the Chimpanzee Genome paper saying the DNA is 98% the same. Then you look at the paper and it indicates 95% at best.

I'm guessing they used different criteria for each figure, but go on.

If I just tell you that you won't get the point. So what's the difference between 2% and 5%? About 100 Mb of divergence is what.

Great! Now just show that the 95% figure is correct while the 98% one is not, and you've got a case.

Ok, I won't ask you questions, that should make it even easier.

I have no problem with questions, as long as they're asked for a reason. You only asked yours in an effort to inflate your ego.

Last time I checked this was a discussion/debate thread and I can't post to this forum without getting flamed.

Folks here might not be very polite, but so far you're winning the flaming contest.

Personally, I would much prefer to go over the scientific literature and consider the evidence carefully. That is not how things happen around here and I can't remember the last time an evolutionist invited me to a friendly discussion, it's always a debate in here.

Sorry, this is the plebian discussion center. Professional debates are down the hall. If you want a real discussion, however, you might have to look somewhere else.

We are talking about a couple of posts, I've been into this for a couple of years. Your not going to get it all in a ten words.

I got the gist of it, and that's all I wanted in the first place.

You missed the point.

Because you didn't clarify it.

They are.

I'll take your word for it.

That's the whole point of the thread, if your not interested I won't waste a lot of time on a dead end.

Judging by the thread's title, this is a primer. I asked some priming questions, which you roundly refused to address.

I'll tell you what, if you want to look at this try the Chimpanzee Genome paper in Nature. Give it a once over and we can discuss the particulars.

Sounds fair. Got thirty bucks? I don't

Edit: nevermind, once-overing

 

[mark kennedy]

Sounds fair. Got thirty bucks?

If you type the title of the paper in Google (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome) this appears at the top of the results:

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.​

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

Now we can talk about the particulars if you want to read the paper.

 

[anffyddwyr]

I wouldn't know, I'm a YEC evolutionist.

You have certainly earned your name 'The Flim Flam Man'.
Never give a straight answer when a bent one will do, the original ducker and diver.

I understand how you can fool other people, that's easy, but how do you manage to fool yourself?
dedication I suppose.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have certainly earned your name 'The Flim Flam Man'.
Never give a straight answer when a bent one will do, the original ducker and diver.

So now you guys are not content to debate me in the third person, you have to do it in private.

I understand how you can fool other people, that's easy, but how do you manage to fool yourself?
dedication I suppose.

Typical, when the evidence comes up the trolls come out.

 

[Mumbo]

Hey, that's my gif! Get your own!

While I'm once-overing, why not start up a line of discussion?