- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Not just certainty - but I wanted to keep the title manageable.
A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity
by Frost Smith on December 30, 2015
Often scientific reports or mainstream media claim 99% identical comparisons between human and chimp genomes.
(How often? I have NEVER heard that figure used. ALL offset parentheticals mine)
The number has been dropping in some circles recently, but is still on the order of 95+%. There is inherent bias in these calculations because significant lengths of DNA that are quite different between the two species are omitted from the results.
(Inherent bias? Do tell!)
A very simplified comparison would be comparing blue jeans (pardon the pun)
(Hoo hoo ha ha! so witty!)
with cut-off jeans. The fact that the legs are missing on one is discounted and only the upper portion is compared, with particular emphasis on the comparison of the rivets, buttons, pockets, topstitching, and zipper, but not much comparison on the brand, color, or the quality of the fabric.
(Creationists love their analogies, don't they? Read through this and notice what you do NOT see - an acknowledgement that there are actually sound reasons why some DNA is "ignored" or 'not counted')
In a similar way, gaps or missing portions (like the missing legs on the cut-off jeans) and regulatory portions (like the fabric) from one are typically ignored, and only gene-rich segments of DNA are analyzed (like pockets, buttons, and rivets).
(By 'in a similar way', I suppose they are referring to the frequency with which creationists misrepresent the issue. Also note the confidence that Frost employs - so matter of fact.)
Taking all those things into account, in 2012 creationist scientists Drs. Tomkins and Bergman came up with an overall similarity of around 81%—quite a difference!1
(Yes totally! Oh, and Bergman has no background at all in genetics or anything similar - his doctorate is in something like 'educational testing' or something. But the exclamation point - so certain!).
Other researchers have come up with even lower percent similarity, averaging around 70%.2 In 2013, Tomkins tested alignment of each chimpanzee chromosome against its human counterpart and only found an overall genome similarity of about 70%, which was published in Answers Research Journal.
(Yes. He found that. He also failed to take into account the reasons why. Of course, what we do NOT see is an analysis of, say, pairs of chromosomes from 2 humans being compared, or pairs of chromosomes from Tomkins believes are derived from an original Kind. Why is that?)
OMITTING MORE OF THE SAME TO LOOK AT SOME RATHER SILLY, BUT CERTAIN - and misleading - COMMENTARY
Is the Test Tube 80% Full or 20% Empty?
Looking at Tomkins’ lower percentages may give some a sigh of relief,
(Sigh of relief? Oh yes - the creationist, deep down, finds even the high % similarity troubling to their beliefs! So, decreasing the % similarity - by any means necessary - gives them 'relief.')
but the fact that we’re even 80% similar is disconcerting to many, or perhaps causes evolutionists to still assert common ancestry.
("assert"? So confident that common ancestry is just an "assumption" or "assertion" of the God-haters...)
But step outside either paradigm for a moment and consider how all plants and animals must function together, sharing organic material and using the same inorganic resources. Life simply wouldn’t work on this planet without some degree of sameness. The biologic functions that we all share involve the same mechanics: intake, metabolism, mobility, output, and so on. While there are numerous ways this is accomplished throughout the animal and plant kingdom, there are still these basic functions on even a cellular level, as well as a “macroorganism” and environmental level.
(this next part... Oy...)
LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS OF ACTUAL BASES PUTS THE PROBLEM IN EVEN CLEARER LIGHT.
And consider what that 20% difference means. There are roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. That would be a difference of roughly 4,000 proteins.
(Only providing that the 'new' % similarities refer ONLY to regions containing genes. )
And given that we expect there to be some commonality in proteins, for example, digestive enzymes, that 80% should be looking a bit less impressive. And keep in mind that less than 5% of the human genome contains protein-coding sequences.
(Yes - let's keep that in mind, for it sort of undermines the 'That would be a difference of roughly 4,000 proteins' claim...)
Looking at the numbers of actual bases puts the problem in even clearer light. Conservatively, if the human genome is over 3,000,000,000 base pairs, and the difference is 20%, that is 600,000,000 base pair differences just between humans and chimps!
(!)
That adds up to a lot of evolution when you consider all the organisms in the kingdoms of life—that couldn’t happen even in 6 billion years, especially considering the changes that are kept have to be viable, too!
(Where to start? ASSUMPTIONS -the differences are in coding regions; the differences have to be 'viable' - CONTRADICTION/INCONSISTENCY - remember, he just acknowledged that only 5% of the genome contains protein coding genes, so why would all of the 600,000,000 base pair differences have to be 'viable'? But gosh, he is CERTAIN!)
God created one world and made it a beautiful place for his creations to live together and thrive.
(Quite a 'conclusion' from what was written - wait, that is NOT a conclusion drawn from the science - that is an ASSUMPTION.)
Why wouldn’t He use good and common designs? Those things that aren’t good are a result of the Curse on creation that God pronounced in response to man’s desire to try to be a god himself in the Garden of Eden.
(More ASSUMPTION and QUESTION BEGGING.)
And still we are looking for a way to not give God the glory He deserves for His creation, because we’re back to our jean analogy with evolutionists only lining up rivets, pockets, and zippers and ignoring the rest, trying to make it seem simpler for a godless process. We will agree with them on the fact that the “jeans” all have one “designer” and contain similar materials and functional designs. But the Bible-believer’s designer is the God of the Bible, who created all things after their kind and pronounced His creation “very good” in Genesis 1. Consider the beauty, diversity, and complexity of creation and meditate upon Job 38–41. God is worthy.
(Amazing Creation science in action! Why do evolution news releases NEVER end with a paragraph or two about how the evidence 'shows the bible to be in error'?
Hmmm.....
Just an exercise in 'good for the gander')
A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity
by Frost Smith on December 30, 2015
Often scientific reports or mainstream media claim 99% identical comparisons between human and chimp genomes.
(How often? I have NEVER heard that figure used. ALL offset parentheticals mine)
The number has been dropping in some circles recently, but is still on the order of 95+%. There is inherent bias in these calculations because significant lengths of DNA that are quite different between the two species are omitted from the results.
(Inherent bias? Do tell!)
A very simplified comparison would be comparing blue jeans (pardon the pun)
(Hoo hoo ha ha! so witty!)
with cut-off jeans. The fact that the legs are missing on one is discounted and only the upper portion is compared, with particular emphasis on the comparison of the rivets, buttons, pockets, topstitching, and zipper, but not much comparison on the brand, color, or the quality of the fabric.
(Creationists love their analogies, don't they? Read through this and notice what you do NOT see - an acknowledgement that there are actually sound reasons why some DNA is "ignored" or 'not counted')
In a similar way, gaps or missing portions (like the missing legs on the cut-off jeans) and regulatory portions (like the fabric) from one are typically ignored, and only gene-rich segments of DNA are analyzed (like pockets, buttons, and rivets).
(By 'in a similar way', I suppose they are referring to the frequency with which creationists misrepresent the issue. Also note the confidence that Frost employs - so matter of fact.)
Taking all those things into account, in 2012 creationist scientists Drs. Tomkins and Bergman came up with an overall similarity of around 81%—quite a difference!1
(Yes totally! Oh, and Bergman has no background at all in genetics or anything similar - his doctorate is in something like 'educational testing' or something. But the exclamation point - so certain!).
Other researchers have come up with even lower percent similarity, averaging around 70%.2 In 2013, Tomkins tested alignment of each chimpanzee chromosome against its human counterpart and only found an overall genome similarity of about 70%, which was published in Answers Research Journal.
(Yes. He found that. He also failed to take into account the reasons why. Of course, what we do NOT see is an analysis of, say, pairs of chromosomes from 2 humans being compared, or pairs of chromosomes from Tomkins believes are derived from an original Kind. Why is that?)
OMITTING MORE OF THE SAME TO LOOK AT SOME RATHER SILLY, BUT CERTAIN - and misleading - COMMENTARY
Is the Test Tube 80% Full or 20% Empty?
Looking at Tomkins’ lower percentages may give some a sigh of relief,
(Sigh of relief? Oh yes - the creationist, deep down, finds even the high % similarity troubling to their beliefs! So, decreasing the % similarity - by any means necessary - gives them 'relief.')
but the fact that we’re even 80% similar is disconcerting to many, or perhaps causes evolutionists to still assert common ancestry.
("assert"? So confident that common ancestry is just an "assumption" or "assertion" of the God-haters...)
But step outside either paradigm for a moment and consider how all plants and animals must function together, sharing organic material and using the same inorganic resources. Life simply wouldn’t work on this planet without some degree of sameness. The biologic functions that we all share involve the same mechanics: intake, metabolism, mobility, output, and so on. While there are numerous ways this is accomplished throughout the animal and plant kingdom, there are still these basic functions on even a cellular level, as well as a “macroorganism” and environmental level.
(this next part... Oy...)
LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS OF ACTUAL BASES PUTS THE PROBLEM IN EVEN CLEARER LIGHT.
And consider what that 20% difference means. There are roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. That would be a difference of roughly 4,000 proteins.
(Only providing that the 'new' % similarities refer ONLY to regions containing genes. )
And given that we expect there to be some commonality in proteins, for example, digestive enzymes, that 80% should be looking a bit less impressive. And keep in mind that less than 5% of the human genome contains protein-coding sequences.
(Yes - let's keep that in mind, for it sort of undermines the 'That would be a difference of roughly 4,000 proteins' claim...)
Looking at the numbers of actual bases puts the problem in even clearer light. Conservatively, if the human genome is over 3,000,000,000 base pairs, and the difference is 20%, that is 600,000,000 base pair differences just between humans and chimps!
(!)
That adds up to a lot of evolution when you consider all the organisms in the kingdoms of life—that couldn’t happen even in 6 billion years, especially considering the changes that are kept have to be viable, too!
(Where to start? ASSUMPTIONS -the differences are in coding regions; the differences have to be 'viable' - CONTRADICTION/INCONSISTENCY - remember, he just acknowledged that only 5% of the genome contains protein coding genes, so why would all of the 600,000,000 base pair differences have to be 'viable'? But gosh, he is CERTAIN!)
God created one world and made it a beautiful place for his creations to live together and thrive.
(Quite a 'conclusion' from what was written - wait, that is NOT a conclusion drawn from the science - that is an ASSUMPTION.)
Why wouldn’t He use good and common designs? Those things that aren’t good are a result of the Curse on creation that God pronounced in response to man’s desire to try to be a god himself in the Garden of Eden.
(More ASSUMPTION and QUESTION BEGGING.)
And still we are looking for a way to not give God the glory He deserves for His creation, because we’re back to our jean analogy with evolutionists only lining up rivets, pockets, and zippers and ignoring the rest, trying to make it seem simpler for a godless process. We will agree with them on the fact that the “jeans” all have one “designer” and contain similar materials and functional designs. But the Bible-believer’s designer is the God of the Bible, who created all things after their kind and pronounced His creation “very good” in Genesis 1. Consider the beauty, diversity, and complexity of creation and meditate upon Job 38–41. God is worthy.
(Amazing Creation science in action! Why do evolution news releases NEVER end with a paragraph or two about how the evidence 'shows the bible to be in error'?
Hmmm.....
Just an exercise in 'good for the gander')
Last edited:
