Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

[Split Rock]

...The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) and lost 86 genes since diverging from their most recent common ancestor with chimps. Including the 729 genes chimps appear to have lost since their divergence, the total gene differences between humans and chimps was estimated to be about 6 percent. Human-chimp Difference May Be Bigger[/INDENT]

So tell me Mark... is the glass 94% full, or 6% empty? How about explaining the 94% commonality in total genes between humans and a completely unrelated animal that lives in trees?

One of the mainstays of this forum is finding an error, usually by creating one through semantics or twisting statements.

Ad hominems
Rhetorical devices
Error Fabrication

I have also noticed this use of semantics or twisting statements on behalf of you and your cohorts. I am glad to see one of you admit it. In fact, I have previously posted a more inclusive list of common creationist skills. Here it is again for your benefit:

1. Semantics
2. Quote mining
3. Naysaying
4. Strawmen
5. Shifting goalposts
6. Special pleading (double standards)
7. A strong persecution complex
8. Cognitive dissonance
9. Claiming victories never earned
10. Empty rhetoric
11. Appeal to authority
12. Threats of hellfire (argumentum ad baculum)
13. Made up statistics
14. Libel
15. Ad hominem arguments
16. Begging the question or circular arguments
17. Appeal to incredulity
18. Appeal to popularity or the majority
19. Delusions of grandeur
20. Non-sequiturs (Fallacy of False Cause)
21. Fallacy of the Consequent
22. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
23. Fallacy of Accident (destroying the exception)
24. Converse Fallacy of Accident (argue from a special case to a general rule)
25. Fallacy of Many Questions (e.g., Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?)
26. Appeal to emotion (e.g. “I am not a monkey!&#8221
27. Sophistry
28. Hypocrisy
29. History Revisionism

 

[Skaloop]

Mark, even if you were correct in your interpretation of these results, so what? 98% or 92%; either way, it's a significant similarity. Especially if these are allegedly separately created creatures that need not have any similarity at all.

It's like with the age of the universe arguments many YEC followers use; "Oh, they say 15 billion years old, but even they admit they could be wrong by a billion years!" It's still well beyond the ~6000 years they bring up.

 

[shinbits]

sorry if this is a dumb question, but does saying that our similiarity is only 96% as opposed to 98% to chimps really matter?

 

[shinbits]

Mark, even if you were correct in your interpretation of these results, so what? 98% or 92%; either way, it's a significant similarity. Especially if these are allegedly separately created creatures that need not have any similarity at all.

It's like with the age of the universe arguments many YEC followers use; "Oh, they say 15 billion years old, but even they admit they could be wrong by a billion years!" It's still well beyond the ~6000 years they bring up.

whoops, didn't see this post. excuse the one above.

 

[AV1611VET]

The last thread I participated in had an Opening Post that was passing off the same of propaganda of humans and chimps being '98% the same'. What was revealing about that is that not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus.

Mark, don't expect these people to correct themselves.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but Pluto is a perfect example.

100% of the people here (whose posts I read, anyway) agreed with Pluto being downgraded to the status of dwarf planet.

But when I went to Wikipedia, I noticed it not only was contested, but the contest was settled on by vote.

Then, even after that, there are some in the IAU that still disagree with the vote --- yet 100% of the "scientists" here (that I saw) agree with the vote.

In addition, some here (and I'm not sure I agree with this), claim that the scientists never had a definition for planet in the first place.

Can you believe this?

 

[mark kennedy]

So that isn't name calling?

I guess you better start tallying your falsehoods?

This is all you will do in this thread because, well...it's all you do. Do note the constant use of the pronoun 'you' and the absence of anything remotely substantive or on topic.

Ad hominems- 6
Rhetorical devices- 3
Error Fabrication-2

 

[Skaloop]

Mark, don't expect these people to correct themselves.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but Pluto is a perfect example.

100% of the people here (whose posts I read, anyway) agreed with Pluto being downgraded to the status of dwarf planet.

But when I went to Wikipedia, I noticed it not only was contested, but the contest was settled on by vote.

Then, even after that, there are some in the IAU that still disagree with the vote --- yet 100% of the "scientists" here agree with the vote.

In addition, some here (and I'm not sure I agree with this), claim that the scientists never had a definition for planet in the first place.

Can you believe this place?

I don't think that's entirely accurate. I, for one, am not sufficiently informed on the issue to say whether Pluto should be a planet or not. But I do accept that the professionals who are sufficiently informed made a decision. It's not that I necessarily agree with the vote, but I do accept that the majority of the experts feel that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet.

And you realize that if the vote had gone the other way, and Pluto stayed a planet, there would be other celestial bodies that would need to be included under the definition of 'planet' and I would accept that decision as well.

I expect that you would be using your same argument in reverse, asking why scientists suddenly decided to have a few more planets (as opposed to downgrading one to non-planet status).

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think that's entirely accurate. I, for one, am not sufficiently informed on the issue to say whether Pluto should be a planet or not. But I do accept that the professionals who are sufficiently informed made a decision. It's not that I necessarily agree with the vote, but I do accept that the majority of the experts feel that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet.

This is the first time someone has used the term "majority" since I ... well ... griped about it.

And you realize that if the vote had gone the other way, and Pluto stayed a planet, there would be other celestial bodies that would need to be included under the definition of 'planet' and I would accept that decision as well.

I get that rubbed in my face all the time --- and that point means nothing to the point I am making.

Namely that 100% --- one hundred --- not 99.9999999999% --- 100 --- agreed with the vote at first --- until I started effectively using it against them.

Now, like I said, you're the first one to use the term "majority".

I expect that you would be using your same argument in reverse, asking why scientists suddenly decided to have a few more planets (as opposed to downgrading one to non-planet status).

Nope --- that's not the point I'm making.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Mark, don't expect these people to correct themselves.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but Pluto is a perfect example.

100% of the people here (whose posts I read, anyway) agreed with Pluto being downgraded to the status of dwarf planet.

But when I went to Wikipedia, I noticed it not only was contested, but the contest was settled on by vote.

Then, even after that, there are some in the IAU that still disagree with the vote --- yet 100% of the "scientists" here (that I saw) agree with the vote.

In addition, some here (and I'm not sure I agree with this), claim that the scientists never had a definition for planet in the first place.

Can you believe this?

Pluto?.... who cares? really

But, 96% DNA similarity with chimps. Now that's pretty important.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Oh, and the voting thing about Pluto AV, sound kind of like the process which decided what books should be included in the Bible, doesn't it?

 

[Split Rock]

Mark, don't expect these people to correct themselves.

Like creationists here correct themselves? How many times have I had to correct you and others here, when you refer to"God's Word," instead of your interpretation of scripture?

I hate to keep bringing this up, but Pluto is a perfect example.

I think you like bringing up Pluto. You forgot to mention the Space Shuttle and Thalidomide.

100% of the people here (whose posts I read, anyway) agreed with Pluto being downgraded to the status of dwarf planet.

So what?

But when I went to Wikipedia, I noticed it not only was contested, but the contest was settled on by vote.

Among astronomers, yes. How many astronomers post here? None.

Then, even after that, there are some in the IAU that still disagree with the vote --- yet 100% of the "scientists" here (that I saw) agree with the vote.

Again.. so what?

In addition, some here (and I'm not sure I agree with this), claim that the scientists never had a definition for planet in the first place.

Not a specific one, no. That is where the problem with the term started in the first place. As a creationist, of course, you always ignore context.... don't you?

Can you believe this?

Can you?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, as you yourself say, estimates of gene number still change by thousands (I've recently heard one that puts our gene number close to that of fruit flies, under 20k). OK, chimps have no orthologues of what, 1500ish human genes? What does that mean if we don't even know how many genes either species has?

I think some of it has to do with what you consider a gene, of course the most important (arguably I guess) are the protein coding genes. The most current count I could find was 20,488 genes but the jury is still out on non-coding RNA.

Also, I see that these are not singletons, but all members of gene families (the study didn't look at singleton genes at all). They were gained by duplication. Nothing out of the ordinary is going on, it seems. Furthermore, it seems that the number of these duplications is in absolutely the right ballpark as far as "evolutionary" expectations are concerned:

Nothing unusual?

Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, including changes likely driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families

These are not genes changed but lost and gained. How many genes are missing between members of the Pan or Gorrilla genus? What do you mean nothing unusual when the name of the paper is 'Accelerated rate of gene gain and loss in primates'? This is how it works, if the differences are large its called adaptive, accelerated or positive selection when it's close it's called conserved.

the gain of at least 678 genes in the human genome and the loss of 740 genes in the chimpanzee genome since their split 5-6 million years ago; these results imply that 6.4% (1,418/22,000) of all human genes do not have a one-to-one ortholog in chimpanzee.​

That's not unusual? Bear in mind that 2 mya our supposed ancestors still had chimpanzee size skulls and had just started their threefold expansion of their cranial capacities.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, don't expect these people to correct themselves.

I don't really get it myself. Most of my life I have sought out criticisms of my most sacred and trusted beliefs. I have to admit I was astonished early on at the avalanche of evidence of common ancestry early on and seriously considered Theistic Evolution as a viable alternative. Then I found these genomic comparisons and the pendulum swung the way and I never looked back. You really should seek out sources critical of things you hold to tightly, if for no other reason, to strengthen you confidence. They don't and I wonder if that is not just a lack of confidence.

They may not believe in God as an explanation but they can't believe a lot of the fluff they are putting out either.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but Pluto is a perfect example.

100% of the people here (whose posts I read, anyway) agreed with Pluto being downgraded to the status of dwarf planet.

But when I went to Wikipedia, I noticed it not only was contested, but the contest was settled on by vote.

Then, even after that, there are some in the IAU that still disagree with the vote --- yet 100% of the "scientists" here (that I saw) agree with the vote.

In addition, some here (and I'm not sure I agree with this), claim that the scientists never had a definition for planet in the first place.

Can you believe this?

Oh sure, I believe it. One of the things that Darwin did was to declare that species was so elusive a term that we should not even attempt a definition. Personally I would prefer to substitute the term 'variation' but they thrive on ambiguity

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Personally I would prefer to substitute the term 'variation' but they thrive on ambiguity

Thriving on ambiguity since 1859!

 

[Nathan45]

Why is this thread still going on? it got eviscerated on post 3.

 

[Nathan45]

And AV, for the 1000th time, the designation of pluto as a "Dwarf" planet or a "Planet" is a question of vocabulary not a scientific question. Before, "Planet" didn't have any good definition other than simply being a hardcoded list of 9 planets.

the problem is that they kept finding objects that were like pluto (example, example) and they theorized that there would be hundreds of similar objects, so they had to define "planet" as excluidng pluto or else they'd be liable to call all those other objects "Planets" too, meaning there are actually hundreds of "planets".

The question of whether pluto is a planet or not is not really a scientific question. It's a question of vocabulary. whether you label pluto a planet or a dwarf planet it's still the same as it was before. Nothing changed about our knowledge of pluto when they re-labeled it a dwarf-planet.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why is this thread still going on? it got eviscerated on post 3.

You mean the pedantic one liners that were refuted in post 5?

 

[Nathan45]

Mark, here's what was quoted on post 3:

That isn't to say the commonly reported 1.5 percent nucleotide-by-nucleotide difference between humans and chimps is wrong"

, said IUB computational biologist Matthew Hahn, who led the research. IUB postdoctoral researcher Jeffery Demuth is the paper's lead author.
"Both estimates are correct in their own way,"

This is quoted from the article YOU POSTED.

Simple question, do you understand the difference between measuring differences in a genome by genes and measuring the same difference by nucleotide?

 

[Nathan45]

Some follow up questions for you mark:

Do you understand the difference between a nucleotide and a gene?
Do you understand why measurements of the differences of nucleotides would be different from measurements of the differences of genes?
Do you understand this:

Here are two series of three multi-digit numbers:

128-396-2475
128-397-2475

Based on the individual digits, what percentage difference is there between the two series? 1/10, so 10%.

Based upon the whole numbers themselves, what percentage difference is there between the two series? 1/3, so ~33%.

Which answer is correct?

?

 

[mark kennedy]

So tell me Mark... is the glass 94% full, or 6% empty? How about explaining the 94% commonality in total genes between humans and a completely unrelated animal that lives in trees?

Rhetorical device, with this kind of question no satisfactory answer is expected, possible or ever accepted. It's hopelessly circular.

I have also noticed this use of semantics or twisting statements on behalf of you and your cohorts. I am glad to see one of you admit it. In fact, I have previously posted a more inclusive list of common creationist skills. Here it is again for your benefit:

I have no cohorts that I'm aware of but lets look at your list of random terms and phrases.

1. Semantics

Most modern philosophies emphasis semantics.

2. Quote mining

When studying scientific literature data mining skills are essential.

3. Naysaying

Obscure ad hominem

4. Strawmen

Your beating up on a strawman here since you argue against none of the specifics. You are talking in generalities about nothing.

5. Shifting goalposts

My goal posts have not shifted in years, the molecular basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain from that of apes.

6. Special pleading (double standards)

I've heard this clutch phrase before but it's usually an appeal for any standard other then the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry.

7. A strong persecution complex

I have studied church history and know the differences between childish mockery and persecution.

8. Cognitive dissonance

I like that pharse

9. Claiming victories never earned

TOE and Darwinism in a nutshell

10. Empty rhetoric

You mean like this list

11. Appeal to authority

Depends on what you mean, if you mean peer reviewed scientific literature, then guilty.

12. Threats of hellfire (argumentum ad baculum)

I never did that once, in fact no one in the Bible does except Christ himself.

13. Made up statistics

This ones floating out there in suspended animation.

14. Libel

You mean like calling Time and Nature Web Focus when they say we are 98% the same in our DNA as chimpanzees. I would give anything if they would sue me.

15. Ad hominem arguments

The first thing creationists encounter when posting to these forums and the last thing they will hear.

16. Begging the question or circular arguments

You mean like Darwinian logic assuming universal common ancestry.

17. Appeal to incredulity

That's arguments from incredulity.

18. Appeal to popularity or the majority

You mean the fact that the vast majority of Americans attribute to God what evolutionists would attribute to pagan elementals.

19. Delusions of grandeur

The early church was convinced that they were at war with spiritual forces which is why they prayed for their persecutors. Polycarp at his execution was asked why they had brought him there he simply said a delusion has taken them and would seem to have spread to you (the governor). They spontaneously tore down the bleachers and burned him at the stake in response.

20. Non-sequiturs (Fallacy of False Cause)

Actually it's does not follow.

That's about all I have the patience for, all of them are rhetorical devices but I will count the list as one:

Ad hominems- 6
Rhetorical devices- 4
Error Fabrication-2

By the way, I will note the substantive responses the thread receives with due credit to the poster(s). Unlike evolutionists at large, I embrace and relish the dissenting views contrary to my own.

Have a nice day
Mark