Humans DNA is 99% similar to that of chimps?

[LewisWildermuth]

Are you saying the measurements are wrong? If so, can you show me how they are wrong?

Are you laughing at God because he copied 99% of the chimp to make us either through special creation or evolution?

What exactly are you laughing at?

Even if special creation theory is correct, the number still should hold.

 

[RightWingGirl]

The problem isn't just similarity, it's similarity such that it shows evidence of common descent. For example, HRV give evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In our DNA sequence, there's evidence that supports two ape chromosomes fused into one.

What evidence do we have that the two fused? How do we know that it wasn't just made that way?

Why would defects, pattern markings, etc... all be in places that we expect according to evolution?

Could you please clarify?

 

[RightWingGirl]

The claim is not 99% chimp, but 99% similarity in the Dna code.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Does similarity of two objects indicate a common descent, or origin?

 

[steen]

Does similarity of two objects indicate a common descent, or origin?

When put together with all the other different organisms, yes it does.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What evidence do we have that the two fused? How do we know that it wasn't just made that way?

a second centrosome.
embedded telomeres, including a set backwards.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Does similarity of two objects indicate a common descent, or origin?

Could be either, or both.

Evolution could be looked upon as the tool God used to design.

The problem for me with common design is the broken or even the slightly harmful bits that are copied. Why would God use defective parts if He was building from scratch?

If God set out basic rules and let his tools work for him then I can understand why a tool might do this, but God personally doing this?

 

[RightWingGirl]

How do we know that it wasn't made with a second centrosome, and imbedded telomeres, including a set backwards.?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

How do we know that it wasn't made with a second centrosome, and imbedded telomeres, including a set backwards.?

exactly what would make it look like it had evolved? that it was the result of a union event? isn't that close to deception?

if i come home and find that house a mess, all the trash spread around and the big dog eating the remnants of last nights sandwich. i don't immediately blame the cats thinking that they had set the dog up, that them themselves had made the mess and tricked the dog into just sitting there, i have the evidence i need to convict the dog of the crime.

so do you. either God made living creatures to look like they evolved and so far has not left evidence of a signature even though we see ways that this could have been unambiguously done, or they evolved.

in either case, the big dog did it.

 

[pastorkevin73]

exactly what would make it look like it had evolved? that it was the result of a union event? isn't that close to deception?

if i come home and find that house a mess, all the trash spread around and the big dog eating the remnants of last nights sandwich. i don't immediately blame the cats thinking that they had set the dog up, that them themselves had made the mess and tricked the dog into just sitting there, i have the evidence i need to convict the dog of the crime.

so do you. either God made living creatures to look like they evolved and so far has not left evidence of a signature even though we see ways that this could have been unambiguously done, or they evolved.

in either case, the big dog did it.

Is it possible that we do not know enough about DNA and what it does to definitively say that we are the result of evolution?

 

[shernren]

How do we know that it wasn't made with a second centrosome, and imbedded telomeres, including a set backwards?

How do you know that shernren is really a human being? How do you know that shernren isn't really a supercomputer programmed with all the attributes, vocabulary, and attitudes of a human forumer, designed simply as another facet of the worldwide Matrix designed to keep humans in hypnosis while machines suck out their life-force for energy?

The whole problem is that you are trying to salvage the creation hypothesis by changing it into a "trickster hypothesis" (to use the ideas and illustrations of Elliott Sober). Your original hypothesis was:

H(Design) God, as a good designer, designed everything perfectly and did not use evolution.

When confronted with this observation:

A particular human chromosome looks like it is the result of two ape chromosomes merged, with no good design reason for it to look that way

and this hypothesis:

H(Evolution) Evolution can explain how a human chromosome looks like two ape chromosomes merged,

you are challenged to come up with a new hypothesis:

H (Design-trickster) God designed man, but did it in such a way as to make him look evolved.

You are right in that we cannot choose between your hypothesis and ours on the basis of evidence alone, because you have designed your hypothesis in such a way that it is predictively equivalent to ours. In layman's terms, anything evolution can explain, the hypothesis that "God created to look evolved" also can "explain".

But firstly, this is no good reason to reject evolution, because by analogy it is possible to construct many other trickster hypotheses. For example, you are looking at a computer right now, right?

Observation: Something looking like a computer is in front of me.

H(Computer) There is a computer in front of me.
H(Alien) There is an alien in front of me who is using very powerful psychic powers to deceive me into seeing and interacting with something like a computer in front of me instead of it.

Just because H(Alien) is predictively equivalent to H(Computer) doesn't make the computer hypothesis any less convincing. We could construct similar "trickster hypotheses" for many other things we know to be true, but that wouldn't make them any less true or convincing. In the same way, just because your hypothesis is predictively equivalent doesn't diminish the validity of evolution, even if it somehow increases the validity of creationism.

Secondly, the trickster hypothesis introduces very different auxiliary observations about God into a Christian worldview. The original design hypothesis could actually have been broken into:

H(Design) - God designed everything
A(Perfect) - God wanted everything to be perfectly designed

while your hypothesis is now:

H(Design) - God designed everything
A(Trickster) - God wanted everything to look like it evolved.

We learn a lot about God's character from the idea that He wanted everything to look perfect. What would we learn about God's character if creation told us that He wanted everything to look like it evolved without any better reason?

 

[steen]

How do we know that it wasn't made with a second centrosome, and imbedded telomeres, including a set backwards.?

Well, that is "Lats Thursdayism." The idea that God deliberately created everything to look like something it is not. Did God create the entire universe last Thursday including your fully formed memories of a time before last thursday?

That concept lead to a God that deliberately is deceiving us.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, that is "Lats Thursdayism." The idea that God deliberately created everything to look like something it is not. Did God create the entire universe last Thursday including your fully formed memories of a time before last thursday?

That concept lead to a God that deliberately is deceiving us.

Just because you have been told that everything is really old doesn't mean God was trying to fool you. What we know about history conclusivly proves that human beings have allways been human beings and were never apes. On the other hand the Bible as history from antiquity is without a close second with regards to historic accuracy. Science has not built the telescope or microscope that can see into the primordial past and yet scientists pontificate about it endlessly.

The problem remains, the chimpanzee and the human being are different in 83% of their protein coding genes. They are no where near 99% identical, they are 96% simular in the DNA that can be compared and only 29% identical.

What everyone seems to overlook is that the brain and the liver would have had to undergo dramatic changes. Evolutionists want to compare this to sickle-cell or other supposed beneficial mutations but there has never been one single beneficial effect from a mutation affecting the human brain. Mutations create brain tumors not imporved fittness, no such thing exists in natural science but they still want you to believe its a scientific fact.

It's all supposition, anecdotal evidence and ad hoc conjecture. The world doesn't look old, they observe something like the decay rate for weeks or months and project it over billions of years. That is not science, that is supposition with a profoundly antitheistic theme.

 

[steen]

EDITED. I got to angry and wrote what I shouldn't have.

 

[shernren]

The problem remains, the chimpanzee and the human being are different in 83% of their protein coding genes. They are no where near 99% identical, they are 96% simular in the DNA that can be compared and only 29% identical.

Why do I get the feeling that you're only plucking out the numbers which look nice? I'm looking at the "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome" paper and I can't find your 83% and 96% numbers, where are your sources? I'm assuming that your 29% identical statistic comes from:

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with

29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.

Firstly, don't you think it's strange that when a researcher starts by saying the genomes are extremely similar, and then uses the 29% statistic to back his statements, that you can arrive at the exactly opposite conclusion - that the two genomes are extremely dissimilar?

Full explanation:

Evolutionary constraint on amino acid sites within the hominid lineage. Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively. About 5% of the proteins show in-frame indels, but these tend to be small (median = 1 codon) and to occur in regions of repeated sequence. The close similarity of human and chimpanzee genes necessarily limits the ability to make strong inferences about individual genes, but there is abundant data to study important sets of genes.

Look what the researchers are saying: that the genomes were so similar that it actually hampered their efforts to study their evolution, presumably because it became difficult to identify the small changes here and there in a sea of conserved genetic material. And note that the median number of substitutions is (to be generous, using the synonymous figure) three. Three substitutions change one or at the most two amino acids. Insulin alone has about 100 amino acids when first transcribed from DNA.

One or two amino acids out of at least a hundred differ in each protein. Is that a substantial difference? You have failed to show how it is. And I am getting quite annoyed at what seems to be a consistent bias towards misinterpreting data - first the chromosome 22 study and now the 29% figure.

 

[IisJustMe]

... so I apologize if I'm covering old ground here. But the title of the thread is based on a misnomer that was thought to be true five years ago, but is becoming further and further from the truth the deeper the researchers get into the genomes of humans and apes.

The reality is, less than four percent of either genome has been mapped to date, and the last numbers I saw, which were from mid-2005, indicated that the number was down to 93.4% similarity. Again, that is with less than four percent of the genomes of either human or apes mapped. So the original "99% similar" number was something leaped on and publicized by the TE and/or secular evolutionist adherents.

As it turns out, they were overly optimistic, and are going to regret they ever made the comparison by the time its all over.

 

[steen]

... so I apologize if I'm covering old ground here. But the title of the thread is based on a misnomer that was thought to be true five years ago, but is becoming further and further from the truth the deeper the researchers get into the genomes of humans and apes.....

Do you happen to have a source in this?

 

[IisJustMe]

Do you happen to have a source in this?

How is it that the pro-evolutionist doesn't know the latest research? Or could it be that you just blindly quote as fact that which the evolution faithful feed to you?

First, let's look at the history of the false statement that the genomes are 98% similar: Go to harunyahya dotcom slash articles slash 70darwinists_sci17 dot php

In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98 % similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution. (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %. (CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997)"

The article goes on to state that, in this respect, human DNA also resembles nemotode DNA to a 75% ratio, and fruitfly DNA at a 60% ratio.

The truth is, at the writing of this artcile, there was no research whatsoever tundertaking the effort to map the chimpanzee or other ape genomes, according to the article. So the original statement of a 98 or 99 opercent similarity was a lie from the beginning, being based on protein makeup and not on the actual genetic map. Once the project was actually undertaken, it was found that an actual map of the two genomes was going to further disprove the contention. Go to apologetics press dotorg slash articles slash 2070

"While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002)."

This is just another method by which the evolutionary faithful try to further their religion while insisting it is science. Science, however, doesn't rely on lies and subterfuge to be proven.

 

[gluadys]

Harun Yahya is the Muslim world's Kent Hovind.

What many people don't realize is that the % of similarity will differ according to what portion of the genome is studied. The closest similarity occurs in coding DNA--the DNA that is actually used to produce proteins. This portion of the DNA was studied first and produced the 98-99% figure. So far as I know that is still correct.

It has always been expected that when non-coding DNA was factored in, the genetic similarity would fall. And the figure I have most often seen from reliable sources when non-coding DNA is included is 95%.

I would need to see a scientific source for the 93.4% figure to determine what is being compared.

When comparing different figures, it is important to check the scientific papers from which they are derived, to see what aspect of the genome was being studied. Different numbers often reflect different types of studies or different types of comparisons rather than an error in any of the studies.

Journalists tend to be impatient with the fine distinctions scientists make and tend to leave out the details. So it can be confusing when one headline says 99% and another 95% or something else. But the number from one study cannot be applied to another when the data bases are different.

 

[Poke]

The 98-99% claim has always been known to be false. These claims were based on comparing the same genes, so in theory it would even be possible for the chimps and humans to have "100% identical DNA," while the chimp would still be chimp and a human still a human. Genes unique to either humans or chimps were not compared. The fact that Evolutionists were telling the public that chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA is testimony to their dishonesty.

Evolutionists are starting to back down on the 98% claim. But, even 98% represents a massive chasm for Evolution to overcome.

Why should we expect chimps to have very different DNA? They're made by the same designer, using the the same biochemical laws, and a there is a lot of physical similarity. The Evolutionist DNA similarity argument really boils down to the illogical "Monkeys sure do look like us."