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.
IIRC, the 98% similarity was a big surprise in the first place, so clearly, close relatedness or not, people expected far less...It certainly can be but my thing is this. If they make the argument that we must be related because you are so close genetically and then it is found that we are actually three to four times more different, doesn't that argue against common ancestry?
i was thinking the other day, chimps are smart but none of them seem to have gotten the idea to steal machetes from people. They dont seem to use any weapons. Imagine if a group of chimps did get the idea. Its no so far fetched that they might.
It certainly can be but my thing is this. If they make the argument that we must be related because you are so close genetically and then it is found that we are actually three to four times more different, doesn't that argue against common ancestry?
Nope.
IIRC, the 98% similarity was a big surprise in the first place, so clearly, close relatedness or not, people expected far less...
And the two numbers still measure completely different kinds of similarity/difference.
In the gene number comparison, the units are orthologous genes, which may or may not have identical sequences, but it's only their presence that counts. That, on the one hand, creates a new source of difference that nucleotide-by-nucleotide comparison can't deal with, and on the other, ignores the one source of difference nucleotide-by-nucleotide comparison doesn't.
Mark:
Ok. fine. it's 96% (or 92% or 94% or whatever) not 98%, if the 98% figure doesn't count the additions or the subtractions, or whatever. who cares?
If we were comparing apples to apples and clearly we are not, the substitution, in the open reading frame of a protein coding gene, would most often result in a truncated protein. This is due to a stop codon being inserted causing a frameshift.
Hmm, I like the weapons idea. I've never heard of chimps using weapons against each other, though recently someone discovered that they may use weapons for hunting. Having a big, possibly sharpened stick and being able (and willing) to use it does look like a serious advantage.Who in the group handled weapons how well would have a lot to do with who got to reproduce.
I did have one: that the 98% similarity came as a surprise, and people expected much less based on how different chimps and humans are phenotypically.I don't know if you have a point there or not.
Where did that come from again?My point is that if it's nucleotide by nucleotide and gaps (indel) it's 96%.
Actually, it doesn't all have to happen after the split. Some (a lot?) of it could have come from pre-existing polymorphisms that were fixed independently after the split.If it's gene comparisons and I do mean the actually number of genes in common, it's 96%. When you look at 3 billion base pairs and 4% of the divergence has to have happened since the split I don't see this happening by random mutations, genetic drift or any of the other normative evolutionary pathways.
For Pete's sake, don't harp on that expansion again until you've shown me what's implausible about achieving it by a small relative increase every generation.Then you have to take into account that 2 million years ago the lineage leading up to humans has to have a genetic basis for a threefold expansion.
Is synaesthesia a disorder? Tone deafness? Not-exactly-average intelligence? A unique personality?This is perhaps the most conserved of the human organs with no known effects from genetic changes except disease and disorder.
I think I've mentioned Odysseus to you? Odysseus the homeobox gene that's accumulated more amino acid substitutions in the past 0.5 million years than in hundreds of millions of years (the 700 My they suggest is probably too much, but 600 wouldn't be too far-fetched) before?This would include on HAR1f regulatory gene that has not been substantially altered since the Cambrian allowing on two substitutions since the split between primate ancestors and chicken ancestors.
, andPollard et al. 2006 said:No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400 Myr ago17.
In addition to the primates, the dog and cow genomes also contain HAR1F orthologues, whereas only the HAR1 region, and not the entire transcript, can be aligned to other available amniote genomes.
Let's see that paper, then.Pardon my incredulity but I can't even get a straight answer what the mutation rate would be. Maybe you would like to try:
Make sure you differentiate your own comments from stuff you quote. I first thought that the paper said it's well known that indels occur at that rate, but it says no such thing. The rate you quote is their empirical estimate. (And so is the divergence!!!)In a word, it would have had to be mutations, primarily indels (aka length mutations). It is well known that length mutations have the lowest mutation rate at 2.3 x 10^-9. They are 10 times less common then single substitutions and yet they account for almost three times more divergence. This is the table based on 1.33% divergence:
(Which I highly doubt is reasonable, since humans have much longer generation times than all other apes, so presumably, early hominins would've started with a shorter generation time.*)Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years
Which they previously estimated from the same data. (And it's only the divergence for autosomal pseudogenes, but that's just a quibble)and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%
As you can see above, I decided to read the mutation rate paper, just to make sure I understand what you're talking about.Care to give it a try?
Naraoia already responded to this, but I'd like to quote it again.
Assuming that you actually meant to write what you wrote here (accidentally using the wrong word or something is human.), this paragraph gives me the idea that you've read a lot of Wikipedia or other sources on genetics. That you've gathered a bunch of facts on the whole issue.
But that you don't actually understand it.
Whenever I've studied a certain subject, but don't truly understand it, I have the same situation. I know a bunch of facts, vaguely know the connections between some of the facts, and may be able to string together a plausible sounding story involving all the facts.
But without actually understanding the process, you're likely to make some minor errors in the story... errors that a teacher would spot, and from which the teacher could deduce that you actually don't know what you're talking about.
Hmm, I like the weapons idea. I've never heard of chimps using weapons against each other, though recently someone discovered that they may use weapons for hunting. Having a big, possibly sharpened stick and being able (and willing) to use it does look like a serious advantage.
I did have one: that the 98% similarity came as a surprise, and people expected much less based on how different chimps and humans are phenotypically.
Where did that come from again?
Actually, it doesn't all have to happen after the split. Some (a lot?) of it could have come from pre-existing polymorphisms that were fixed independently after the split.
For Pete's sake, don't harp on that expansion again until you've shown me what's implausible about achieving it by a small relative increase every generation.
Let's work it out together. Assume, as you suggest, an increase from 500 to 1500 cm[sup]3[/sup] in 2 million years, and the same relative increase each generation (which fits nicely with an exponential increase). Stay with the 20-year generation time for simplicity. That means we have 100 000 generations for a threefold increase.
There's a handy compound interest calculator here (so I don't have to worry about miscalculation). Try the following parameters:
500 for starting deposit
0.0011 for annual interest rate
100000 years
And mentally substitute "average brain volume" for "deposit", "increase" for "interest" and "generation" for "year".
The result is 1502.07.
0.0011% is the constant rate of increase you need to triple a starting number in 100000 generations. One thousandth of one per cent, or 0.015 cm[sup]3[/sup] for a 1500 cm[sup]3[/sup] brain. Is this really so unbelievable under strong, possibly runaway selection? When existing variation within our species is much larger than that?
Is synaesthesia a disorder? Tone deafness? Not-exactly-average intelligence? A unique personality?
I highly doubt all the genetic variation in the human brain is pathological. The fact that we can't always pinpoint specific genes behind perfectly normal variation doesn't mean no genetic influence is involved, only that these are complex polygenic traits.
I think I've mentioned Odysseus to you? Odysseus the homeobox gene that's accumulated more amino acid substitutions in the past 0.5 million years than in hundreds of millions of years (the 700 My they suggest is probably too much, but 600 wouldn't be too far-fetched) before?
HAR1f and HAR1 haven't been around since the Cambrian. From the paper reporting its discovery:, andSo HAR1 seems amniote-specific, and the HAR1f gene mammal-specific. Maybe it was an innocent mistake on your part, but suggesting that HAR1 or HAR1f has been conserved since the Cambrian adds at least 100 million years (the Cambrian was over 505 Mya) to the awe factor of your claim...
It would seem that there's something of a mess in your brain, and that hardly helps discussion. If I hadn't decided to look into this HAR1f thing in more detail, I'd never have known that HAR1f isn't even the accelerated region but one of the two genes that overlap it.
Let's see that paper, then.
Make sure you differentiate your own comments from stuff you quote. I first thought that the paper said it's well known that indels occur at that rate, but it says no such thing. The rate you quote is their empirical estimate. (And so is the divergence!!!)
They also don't say, as far as I can tell from a quick read and a search of the text, that indels account for three times the divergence compared to substitutions. They could hardly have said that, since they estimated the mutation rate from the divergence, they didn't take a known estimate of indel rates and apply it to a divergence estimate.
(Which I highly doubt is reasonable, since humans have much longer generation times than all other apes, so presumably, early hominins would've started with a shorter generation time.*)
Which they previously estimated from the same data. (And it's only the divergence for autosomal pseudogenes, but that's just a quibble)...
...Can you tell me what your point was with citing it? Sorry, but I honestly can't figure out why this paper is relevant to anything, or what I should "give a try".
First of all Wikipedia is a source like Creationist websites or Talk Origins, good starting point but hardly primary source documentation. You have no idea what I have read or what I know because all you need to know about me is that I'm a YEC and you are immediately considering yourself my intellectual superior. Naraoia has not adequately responding but then again he is not required to do so unless it interests him.
Again, you would not have the slightest idea what I understand and what I don't. This is typical of the two a priori assumptions of Darwinian metaphysics. First, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes (naturalistic assumptions). If you refuse to make the first assumption then the second one is that you are arguing from incredulity (ignorance).
I have studied the scientific literature regarding human evolution both in genetics and paleontology. Unlike the typical poster on here I don't rely on Talk Origins, Creationist websites, Wikipedia and pedantic satire for the substance of my arguments.
That's not the case and the rationalization you are using as a characterature is more of a performance then a valid criticism. This is how it works, responding to the OP is generally a string of ad hominem attacks undermining any visage of credibility on the part of the creationist. This is usually followed by a series of pedantic and circular questions chosen for the dramatic effect rather then their substantive content. Then enters the scientific type who will cherry pick a few points and if pressed will even make a few substantive points. This individual will be limited to the point made previously by the evolutionists who make the initial contact which is Naraoia's primary difficulty except he is probably not aware of it.
Naraoia seems genuinely curious but has picked up on a fallacious thesis that 'chimpanzees and humans are 98% the same in their DNA'. It's simply not true and the more recent genetics research has proven conclusively that this is false. It was still upheld that even though we are only 96% the same in our DNA we are still 98% the same in our genes. As it turns out this is not true either.
When the paper discussed in the OP says that the 98% still holds true depending on the comparison you have to understand what they mean by that:
To understand the genetic basis of the unique features of humans, a number of pilot studies comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes have been conducted. Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis, whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account. (Nature 429, 382-388 27 May 2004)Do note that this comparison indicated that 20% of the protein coding sequences show gross structural changes, which is nothing more then major structural differences.
Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins, as listed in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5). In addition, 87 genes in the catalogue show mutations in at least one of the splice sites. (Nature 2004)That's a brief look at one of a dozen primary source documents that has fueled my skepticism with regards to chimpanzee/human common ancestry. The other thing has nothing much to do with scientific literature per se, it is the general attitude of evolutionists like yourself. I have enjoyed a great deal of success isolating their arguments and refuting them on the facts from their cherished scientific literature. Exposing the myth of universal common ancestry is no big trick but don't ask evolutionists their opinion. You have to go to the peer reviewed literature itself, they will get it right there no matter how much they conflate and distort the actual evidence elsewhere.
Have a nice day
Mark
Still keeping track of the ad homs and personal remarks?
Oh never mind. Its practically the whole post other than the cut and
paste.
In the dept of undermining credibility, nobody can do that like a person can do it for himself.
Going on and on about other people rather than sticking to facts and data is one way to lost credibility
Another is to start out with an unshakable assumption like, say, that common descent between people and other apes is impossible.
But the best one employed so far in this case is to have made a completely false statement about how every time a chimp skull is dug up its immediately classified as human (ancestor).
After that... why pay attention to the rest of what someone has to say? Not unless they are willing to admit an error, and admit that is was at best a gross exaggeration.
The reasons that yec and creos are not taken seriously include
a) Zero data
b) unalterable assumptions
c) unwillingness to ever concede error
They tend to take care of their own credibility problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?