Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So you all claim...... but yet real scientists admit that hereditary tests to trace ancestry is a scam, that all it can really tell you is where that genome type exists today.

This is because any mutation or change to the genome makes tracing it backwards impossible before the mutation occurred. Without an original unmutated genome, it’s all guesswork and fantasy....

We aren’t doing great. We have more inherent genetic diseases year by year....

https://www.britannica.com/science/human-genetic-disease

“With the increasing ability to control infectious and nutritional diseases in developed countries, there has come the realization that genetic diseases are a major cause of disability, death, and human tragedy. Rare, indeed, is the family that is entirely free of any known genetic disorder. ”

“About 1 out of 150 live newborns has a detectable chromosomal abnormality. Yet even this high incidence represents only a small fraction of chromosome mutations since the vast majority are lethal and result in prenatal death or stillbirth. Indeed, 50 percent of all first-trimester miscarriagesand 20 percent of all second-trimester miscarriages are estimated to involve a chromosomally abnormal fetus.”

This is because we're not subservient to natural selection anywhere near as much as we were pre civilisation, especially so in the last few centuries. Just a few thousand years ago we didn't even know about cancer, despite it being prevalent in most animal organisms in one form or another. Anyone who had diabetes or was anaphylactic over nuts just died mysteriously because nobody knew about these things (and of course, were subsequently removed from the gene pool btw), so it's only now that science has been able to identify & successfully treat these genetic diseases (along with every other disease & ailment) have we even been able to accumulate more genetic issues as a species. Same with any other normally detrimental or adverse condition we might be born with - this is no mystery - it's not like the human population suddenly became very promiscuous four centuries ago, it was because we got better at identifying our ailments and prenatal conditions that caused stillborns and miscarriages and successfully treated them to term and beyond.... that and every other scientific endeavour that helped our quality of life and food production, etc.

Also, got a cite for that rubbish about "real scientists admitting hereditary tests are a scam"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is because we're not subservient to natural selection anywhere near as much as we were pre civilisation, especially so in the last few centuries. Just a few thousand years ago we didn't even know about cancer, despite it being prevalent in most animal organisms in one form or another. Anyone who had diabetes or was anaphylactic over nuts just died mysteriously because nobody knew about these things (and of course, were subsequently removed from the gene pool btw), so it's only now that science has been able to identify & successfully treat these genetic diseases (along with every other disease & ailment) have we even been able to accumulate more genetic issues as a species. Same with any other normally detrimental or adverse condition we might be born with - this is no mystery - it's not like the human population suddenly became very promiscuous four centuries ago, it was because we got better at identifying our ailments and prenatal conditions that caused stillborns and miscarriages and successfully treated them to term and beyond.... that and every other scientific endeavour that helped our quality of life and food production, etc.

Our promiscuity has nothing to do with genetic fitness, except it would have helped alleviate some of it by mixing genes..... It would have offset the damage caused by mutations over the centuries..... Only recently has any mixing really started, most cultures have been isolated from one another. Man's natural tendency to mate only within his own race also added to it....

Also, got a cite for that rubbish about "real scientists admitting hereditary tests are a scam"?

Sure, you got a cite to defend the other rubbish????

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/dna-ancestry-test

https://www.livescience.com/7384-genetic-ancestry-tests-hype-scientists.html

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-dna-ancestry-tests-review-comparison

So the scientists in our ancestry tests just handpick the one they like the best is about what it amounts to. That and by the time they use statistical algorithm's to filter the results they say just about anything they want them to say......

"Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with.""

So we can reasonably conclude DNA can't tell us where we originated or that we are even associated with the racial or social group of monkeys.......

"But such results are beyond the capabilities of current tests, scientists say. In the Genghis Khan example, the company that performed the test, Oxford Genetics, did not have DNA samples from the Mongol warlord himself because his tomb has never been found."

Since no DNA exists of pre-human ancestors before the claimed divergence...... it is all based upon inference and wishful thinking, because that's what they want to see. Also they built the ape DNA platform based off of the human, not from scratch as they did with the human. Their entire foundation is biased and does not reflect reality, it was skewed from the beginning....

Then of course when you compare the two, why look, they are almost identical. Well I wonder why, you built it to match the human genome from the start.... cut out anything that didn't fit, moved the rest around till it did, and wholla.....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Our promiscuity has nothing to do with genetic fitness, except it would have helped alleviate some of it by mixing genes..... It would have offset the damage caused by mutations over the centuries..... Only recently has any mixing really started, most cultures have been isolated from one another. Man's natural tendency to mate only within his own race also added to it....

Well, seems you've misunderstood the point, we're more informed about treating genetic diseases that in many cases we didn't even know about even just a couple of thousand years ago. we have the advent of science and the scientific method to thank for it along with everything science has afforded us - long life, easy food, quality of life, etc.

Sure, you got a cite to defend the other rubbish????

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/dna-ancestry-test

https://www.livescience.com/7384-genetic-ancestry-tests-hype-scientists.html

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-dna-ancestry-tests-review-comparison

LOOOOL! Are you Serious?? I asked for you to cite a reference for your claim that "Real Scientists admit hereditary tests are a Scam!", not how they rate consumer grade testing kits at the emergence of the industry! haaahahaha! - but let's carry on:

So the scientists in our ancestry tests just handpick the one they like the best is about what it amounts to. That and by the time they use statistical algorithm's to filter the results they say just about anything they want them to say......

"Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with.""

So here we have an evaluation of an emerging service industry where many of the independent and competing labs providing this very cheap offering are still acquiring their proprietary in-house genetic datasets and their relationship to the various ancestral stomping grouds. This isn't anyone admitting anything about the demonstrably effective process of hereditary testing, but instead is a caution to consumers that these are indeed consumer grade services and in general, would require a thorough archaeological analysis of tribal and civilisation movements, which is well past a $99 internet kit that essentially just provides an accurate genome sequencing.

So we can reasonably conclude DNA can't tell us where we originated or that we are even associated with the racial or social group of monkeys.......

"But such results are beyond the capabilities of current tests, scientists say. In the Genghis Khan example, the company that performed the test, Oxford Genetics, did not have DNA samples from the Mongol warlord himself because his tomb has never been found."

Yep! So a commercial "for profit" outfit inferred a porkie pie to spice up their offering. The science behind it is far from suspect, let alone "admitted to be a scam by real scientists" - this is just a Dishonest claim you've made here - what a surprise...

Since no DNA exists of pre-human ancestors before the claimed divergence...... it is all based upon inference and wishful thinking, because that's what they want to see. Also they built the ape DNA platform based off of the human, not from scratch as they did with the human. Their entire foundation is biased and does not reflect reality, it was skewed from the beginning....

Then of course when you compare the two, why look, they are almost identical. Well I wonder why, you built it to match the human genome from the start.... cut out anything that didn't fit, moved the rest around till it did, and wholla.....

You'll have to provide a citation for this rubbish about ape genetic sequence being built from human genome too. We've sequenced a wide array of species these days now the costs to do so are far less than they used to be. No need to use any genome to build a sequence of any other genome. Next, just as the tests correctly identified mongol ancestry but not Genghis Khan in particular, we too can identify a common ancestor between us an chimpanzees without having to know one particular ancestor that lived then. Still not seeing this alleged "Real scientists admitting hereditary tests are a scam" business...

(it's "Voila!" too by the way... unless "wholla" is a spectacularly new American verb I've never heard of?)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sure, but you’ll just avoid that too like you do everything else. Thought you people understood biology and you aren’t even aware the chimp genome was modeled on the human genome?????

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.amp

“New, higher-quality assemblies of great ape genomes have now been generated without the guidance of the human reference genome. The effort to reduce "humanizing" discovery bias in great ape genomes provides a clearer view of the genetic differences that arose as humans diverged from other primates.”

No, it provides discovery of the difference that were already unique to both species, minus the PR.

“The scientists note that many of the genetic differences between humans and other apes were not recognized when their genomes were first compared.”

Of course they were not, they built one using the other. Now that it’s being done from scratch we will see if they continue the propaganda or the truth.....

“Because they contain only half of the paired human chromosomes, studies of these rare human growths help tell similar duplicated genes apart.”

Or tell the truth that they are not really similar at all......

 

[Jimmy D]

Sure, but you’ll just avoid that too like you do everything else. Thought you people understood biology and you aren’t even aware the chimp genome was modeled on the human genome?????

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.amp

“New, higher-quality assemblies of great ape genomes have now been generated without the guidance of the human reference genome. The effort to reduce "humanizing" discovery bias in great ape genomes provides a clearer view of the genetic differences that arose as humans diverged from other primates.”

No, it provides discovery of the difference that were already unique to both species, minus the PR.

“The scientists note that many of the genetic differences between humans and other apes were not recognized when their genomes were first compared.”

Of course they were not, they built one using the other. Now that it’s being done from scratch we will see if they continue the propaganda or the truth.....

“Because they contain only half of the paired human chromosomes, studies of these rare human growths help tell similar duplicated genes apart.”

Or tell the truth that they are not really similar at all......

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can read such articles and not take away the obvious message that all the great apes share a common ancestor.

I'm not trying to argue with you (for a change ) I really can't understand it.

What do you think when you read sentences like...

"The researchers said that their recent findings fit with their previous studies showing that the genomes of the common ancestral lineage for African great apes likely underwent an expansion of segmental duplication more than 10 million years ago. These repeats of sections of the genetic code may have made great ape genomes particularly prone to deletion and duplication events, thereby accelerating the rate of mutations with major consequences that helped drive the evolution of ape species."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.html#jCp

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can read such articles and not take away the obvious message that all the great apes share a common ancestor.

I'm not trying to argue with you (for a change ) I really can't understand it.

What do you think when you read sentences like...

"The researchers said that their recent findings fit with their previous studies showing that the genomes of the common ancestral lineage for African great apes likely underwent an expansion of segmental duplication more than 10 million years ago. These repeats of sections of the genetic code may have made great ape genomes particularly prone to deletion and duplication events, thereby accelerating the rate of mutations with major consequences that helped drive the evolution of ape species."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.html#jCp

What do I take from that? Pure fantasy delusions that they can look at a genome and tell 10 million years ago anything happened without a sample genome from 10 million years ago to compare it to.

I see confirming the fallacy because the differences were more than expected as the similarities were less than expected.

I see standard PR hype that has no basis in reality, but is mere propaganda.

That’s what I see.

So the question is on what actual facts do “you” see changes 10 million years ago without a reference genome to compare it too?

I’m not trying to argue with you either. I am just astounded you can actually believe they can claim to see changes 10 million years ago, when they have no reference genome to compare it with......

You’re all’s imagination and gullibility is astounding.....

 

[Jimmy D]

What do I take from that? Pure fantasy delusions that they can look at a genome and tell 10 million years ago anything happened without a sample genome from 10 million years ago to compare it to.

I see confirming the fallacy because the differences were more than expected as the similarities were less than expected.

I see standard PR hype that has no basis in reality, but is mere propaganda.

That’s what I see.

So the question is on what actual facts do “you” see changes 10 million years ago without a reference genome to compare it too?

I’m not trying to argue with you either. I am just astounded you can actually believe they can claim to see changes 10 million years ago, when they have no reference genome to compare it with......

You’re all’s imagination and gullibility is astounding.....

Meh, I take it at face value, it makes no real difference to me whether they're correct or not.

Neither of us are professional geneticists however, nor have we studied the paper that the article is describing, if it's passed peer review though that's good enough for me.

I suppose I'm fortunate in not having a strong psychological need to reject scientific findings.

 

[tas8831]

As evolutionists fully admit and understand, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, leading to no net change in the organism.

Even creationist Walter ReMine acknowledged that neutral mutations can affect phenotype. As has been explained to you in this thread already, neutral refers to fitness, that is, these mutation neither increase nor decrease fitness. They may well do nothing at all, but they can also alter phenotype, albeit in such a way so as to not affect fitness.

Now this is where the illogical comes into play. You should pay close attention here.

This will be fun - yes, please pay attention...

They want you to believe that creature B and creature C split from creature A at t amount of years into the past. This is because they find x amount of mutations in B and y amount of mutations in C. But because of their flawed assumption that the creatures were similar to begin with, they assume all the mutations have accumulated over time leading to divergence.

1. It is not the accumulation of mutations in and of itself that imply divergence.
2. Do YOU not assume that the created Kinds produced 'sub-kinds' over time,and that these 'sub-kinds' would be similar to the parental Kinds? You are arguing against your own beliefs, as is often the case, and do not see it.
3. I have presented a series of abstracts on this forum more than a dozen times that demonstrate the accuracy of using DNA analysis for inferring ancestor-descendant relationships. Neither you nor any other creationists has ever even tried to deal with that in a rational, scientific way.

Yet we all understand the vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever. In reality almost all of the x and y mutations are neutral, and have led to no change over time.

Relevance?

Mutations do not prove past similarity, they instead prove past dissimilarity.

So you are saying that as mutations accumulate, things get MORE similar?

Since the vast amount of mutations lead to no change over time, they instead show that creature B and C were dissimilar from the beginning, not similar.

Illogic on top of naive folk genetics.

Hint - there IS NO 1-to-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUTATIONS AND PHENOTYPE.

The accumulation of neutral mutations is informative for various reasons, but phylogenetic analyses are NOT done to assess morphological changes.

Please read up on these subjects?

But evolutionists ignore what they know to be true, and instead calculate all mutations as having an effect and leading to change over time.

Misrepresentation due to ignorance.

Contrary to the fact that we understand almost all mutations are neutral, then deleterious and only then beneficial.

What does that even mean?

The mutations that do have an effect almost invariably lead to loss of fitness in creatures, with only the rare mutation leading to a beneficial change.

Actually, some interesting experiments have indicated that beneficial mutations occur much more commonly that previously believed, but whatever. Your basic premise is flawed, so just another error won't really matter.

Their calculations of past similarity are based upon false assumptions of accumulation of mutation going backwards, even if their own science tells them that almost all mutations are neutral.

Laughably erroneous.

In reality they can not account for change without incorrectly assuming that the vast majority of mutations were all beneficial and induced change, ignoring the reality that they were instead neutral and effected no change, showing the creatures were never similar to begin with.

More naive folk genetics.

It is all smoke and mirrors and false assumptions. Misdirection and double-talk to divert you from the truth. They want you to believe they can calculate the past rate of change from mutations, but as we all know, the vast majority of mutations led to no change at all....... In reality the only thing they are calculating is the wishful thinking in their own minds......

Pity that one of the side-effects of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is that those under its spell lack the ability to grasp how wrong they are.

 

[tas8831]

Standard reply to those in the bubble that always seem to fail to support their bald faced claims.

I'm sorry - what claim did I not support, and which claim have you ever supported?

I mean, ACTUALLY supported?

“When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.”

Cool projection, champ!

 

[tas8831]

So you all claim...... but yet real scientists admit that hereditary tests to trace ancestry is a scam, that all it can really tell you is where that genome type exists today.

Evidence please.
Otherwise, that is just a - what was your new slogan? - ah yes - bald faced claim.

This is because any mutation or change to the genome makes tracing it backwards impossible before the mutation occurred. Without an original unmutated genome, it’s all guesswork and fantasy....

False.

We aren’t doing great. We have more inherent genetic diseases year by year....

https://www.britannica.com/science/human-genetic-disease

“With the increasing ability to control infectious and nutritional diseases in developed countries, there has come the realization that genetic diseases are a major cause of disability, death, and human tragedy. Rare, indeed, is the family that is entirely free of any known genetic disorder. ”

“About 1 out of 150 live newborns has a detectable chromosomal abnormality. Yet even this high incidence represents only a small fraction of chromosome mutations since the vast majority are lethal and result in prenatal death or stillbirth. Indeed, 50 percent of all first-trimester miscarriagesand 20 percent of all second-trimester miscarriages are estimated to involve a chromosomally abnormal fetus.”

What is your evidence that these are increasing in number, as opposed to our being able to detect them more readily?

And as an aside - what do you think of your deity for 'cursing' us all with this terminal extinction-level 'illness' of mutation?

 

[tas8831]

But you all keep deluding yourselves with those beneficial mutations making us better.....

Why does God make us get worse?

 

[tas8831]

So precious.... Those keyword-search pontifications do not go so well for you, champ...

Sure, you got a cite to defend the other rubbish????

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/dna-ancestry-test

https://www.livescience.com/7384-genetic-ancestry-tests-hype-scientists.html

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-dna-ancestry-tests-review-comparison

So the scientists in our ancestry tests just handpick the one they like the best is about what it amounts to. That and by the time they use statistical algorithm's to filter the results they say just about anything they want them to say......

"Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with.""

So we can reasonably conclude DNA can't tell us where we originated or that we are even associated with the racial or social group of monkeys.......

"But such results are beyond the capabilities of current tests, scientists say. In the Genghis Khan example, the company that performed the test, Oxford Genetics, did not have DNA samples from the Mongol warlord himself because his tomb has never been found."

Since no DNA exists of pre-human ancestors before the claimed divergence...... it is all based upon inference and wishful thinking, because that's what they want to see. Also they built the ape DNA platform based off of the human, not from scratch as they did with the human. Their entire foundation is biased and does not reflect reality, it was skewed from the beginning....

Then of course when you compare the two, why look, they are almost identical. Well I wonder why, you built it to match the human genome from the start.... cut out anything that didn't fit, moved the rest around till it did, and wholla.....

When will you learn?

So precious...

I especially like the cherry-picked quotes - weird how keen the creationist can be with that skill - searching out quotes or snippets that might appear to support their cause, even as they gloss over and ignore quotes like this:

These tests can identify related individuals who share a common maternal or paternal ancestor, and even where in the world people with your genetic signature live today. A common misconception about genetic ancestry testing, Bolnick said, is that it can reveal information about an individual's ancestry.
....
One problem with this approach, scientists say, is that because such tests analyze less than 1 percent of a person's genome, they will miss most of a person's relatives....​

Your entire premise on this issue is akin to the claims of creationists when it comes to radiometric dating, and how they will point out the "errors" one gets when one tries to use Carbon dating for something 10 millions years old, then proclaim all such dating is in error.

A couple errors in your argument, off the top of my head:

1. Ancestry DNA tests are searching WITHIN a single species, phylogenetic analyses are looking at relationships between species. Look at the difference this way - you have a big jar full of marbles of different sizes and colors. You want to find all of the marbles of a particular size, so you make a sieve, dump all of the marbles through it, and now you have all of the marbles of one size, and all of the marbles of other sizes. All of the same-sized marbles are of several different colors, so you sort out all of the blue ones. That is like what these ancestry tests do - they sort out the blue ones from the other colors, but they cannot identify one specific blue marble.
Separating marbles by size is like what is done with phylogeny analyses. You are making a fallacious extrapolation.
2. You conflate these ancestry tests inability to identify a specific lineage or a specific ancestor with an analytical system that has never had such a goal.
Phylogenetic analyses are not looking for specific ancestors, they are looking for groupings.
3. Erroneous implications by you cannot negate tested methodologies:


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

 

[tas8831]

LOL! It never ends...

Thought you people understood biology and you aren’t even aware the chimp genome was modeled on the human genome?????

I am 100% certain that you have no idea what that means.

It wasn't "modeled" on the human genome - the human genome was used as a reference.
It is painfully easy to spot someone that has ZERO experience or knowledge of any of this stuff when you write hyperbolic nonsense like that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.amp

“New, higher-quality assemblies of great ape genomes have now been generated without the guidance of the human reference genome. The effort to reduce "humanizing" discovery bias in great ape genomes provides a clearer view of the genetic differences that arose as humans diverged from other primates.”

No, it provides discovery of the difference that were already unique to both species, minus the PR.

Tell us all what you think "chimp genome was modeled on the human genome" means.

“The scientists note that many of the genetic differences between humans and other apes were not recognized when their genomes were first compared.”

Of course they were not, they built one using the other. Now that it’s being done from scratch we will see if they continue the propaganda or the truth.....

Tell us all what you think "they built one using the other" means.

“Because they contain only half of the paired human chromosomes, studies of these rare human growths help tell similar duplicated genes apart.”

Or tell the truth that they are not really similar at all......

LOL!

OK, genetics expert - I await your explanation as to how genomes are assembled for analysis.

Here is the actual paper:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/eaar6343.full

Explain it all to us.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Meh, I take it at face value, it makes no real difference to me whether they're correct or not.

Neither of us are professional geneticists however, nor have we studied the paper that the article is describing, if it's passed peer review though that's good enough for me.

I suppose I'm fortunate in not having a strong psychological need to reject scientific findings.

That’s exactly the problem as you stated: it makes no difference to you whether they’re correct or not.....

Sorry, argument ad-populum is a fallicious argument.....

Yes, I suppose you are fortunate in having no need to care if what you believe in is true or not as you said.....

 

[tas8831]

Also, got a cite for that rubbish about "real scientists admitting hereditary tests are a scam"?

Nope - just his usual misinterpretation/keyword searching nonsense.

 

[Jimmy D]

That’s exactly the problem as you stated: it makes no difference to you whether they’re correct or not.....

Why's that a problem? It's better to be open minded and receptive to evidence than to reject evidence out of hand because of dogmatic beliefs. That's your problem, not mine mate.

Besides it's one paper about ape genome comparison, if it was found to be "fantasy" or whatever you called it wouldn't be earth shattering news would it. Common descent would still be corroborated by multiple lines of evidence.

Sorry, argument ad-populum is a fallicious argument.....

Yes it is. Unfortunately you don't know where it's applicable - because I never made such an argument. Clueless as usual.

Yes, I suppose you are fortunate in having no need to care if what you believe in is true or not as you said.....

That's not what I said. While you're on wikipedia looking up logical fallacies check out what a "straw man" is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL! It never ends... I am 100% certain that you have no idea what that means.

It wasn't "modeled" on the human genome - the human genome was used as a reference.
It is painfully easy to spot someone that has ZERO experience or knowledge of any of this stuff when you write hyperbolic nonsense like that.

Tell us all what you think "chimp genome was modeled on the human genome" means.


Tell us all what you think "they built one using the other" means.
LOL!

OK, genetics expert - I await your explanation as to how genomes are assembled for analysis.

Here is the actual paper:
High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes

Explain it all to us.

What baffles me is that he is probably aware that one of the people that actually worked on sequencing the chimp genome as well as the paper, posts in this very forum.

It's like he has no shame whatsoever. In his place, I'ld be a bit more reserved in making such wild claims, while knowing that that person might actually read it and hand me my own behind on a golden plate.

How arrogant must one be as a random internet forum poster, with no scientific credentials whatsoever, to tell one of the team members of the chimp genome project, that he has no clue what he is doing and that his conclusions are completely incorrect?

I'm not really sure. But it sure is a level of arrogance that I don't encounter in real life....

 

[DogmaHunter]

That’s exactly the problem as you stated: it makes no difference to you whether they’re correct or not.....

Sorry, argument ad-populum is a fallicious argument.....

Sounds like you don't know what an argument ad populum is....................

Yes, I suppose you are fortunate in having no need to care if what you believe in is true or not as you said.....

That's not actually what he said.
But whatever

 

[tas8831]

What baffles me is that he is probably aware that one of the people that actually worked on sequencing the chimp genome as well as the paper, posts in this very forum.

It's like he has no shame whatsoever. In his place, I'ld be a bit more reserved in making such wild claims, while knowing that that person might actually read it and hand me my own behind on a golden plate.

How arrogant must one be as a random internet forum poster, with no scientific credentials whatsoever, to tell one of the team members of the chimp genome project, that he has no clue what he is doing and that his conclusions are completely incorrect?

I'm not really sure. But it sure is a level of arrogance that I don't encounter in real life....

Sadly, that attitude is not uncommon. I have seen an author of a science book show up on a forum where a poster had been discussing her work. She corrected his (creationist's, of course) interpretations, and the dude actually argued with her, insisting that she was interpreting her own work incorrectly.

It isn't just creationists, unfortunately - back when I naively used to post using my real name, I had mentioned one of my own papers and a fellow evolutionist provided his take on how we had performed a particular analysis and why to a creationist on the forum. I explained what we had really done, and he insisted that we had not done so.. I was quite taken aback. But no question that this attitude is far far more common among those with no science background (i.e., most creationists).

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Sure, but you’ll just avoid that too like you do everything else. Thought you people understood biology and you aren’t even aware the chimp genome was modeled on the human genome?????

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.amp

“New, higher-quality assemblies of great ape genomes have now been generated without the guidance of the human reference genome. The effort to reduce "humanizing" discovery bias in great ape genomes provides a clearer view of the genetic differences that arose as humans diverged from other primates.”

No, it provides discovery of the difference that were already unique to both species, minus the PR.

“The scientists note that many of the genetic differences between humans and other apes were not recognized when their genomes were first compared.”

Of course they were not, they built one using the other. Now that it’s being done from scratch we will see if they continue the propaganda or the truth.....

“Because they contain only half of the paired human chromosomes, studies of these rare human growths help tell similar duplicated genes apart.”

Or tell the truth that they are not really similar at all......

Sorry, been away for a bit - I'd ask some questions, but I see @tas8831 has found your posts, and given he's started replying to you and asking questions far more learned than mine would've been. In particular, I haven't seen anywhere you've answered this post of his:

LOL! It never ends...

Sure, but you’ll just avoid that too like you do everything else. Thought you people understood biology and you aren’t even aware the chimp genome was modeled on the human genome?????

I am 100% certain that you have no idea what that means.

It wasn't "modeled" on the human genome - the human genome was used as a reference.
It is painfully easy to spot someone that has ZERO experience or knowledge of any of this stuff when you write hyperbolic nonsense like that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ape-genome-insights-human-evolution.amp

“New, higher-quality assemblies of great ape genomes have now been generated without the guidance of the human reference genome. The effort to reduce "humanizing" discovery bias in great ape genomes provides a clearer view of the genetic differences that arose as humans diverged from other primates.”

No, it provides discovery of the difference that were already unique to both species, minus the PR.

Tell us all what you think "chimp genome was modeled on the human genome" means.

“The scientists note that many of the genetic differences between humans and other apes were not recognized when their genomes were first compared.”

Of course they were not, they built one using the other. Now that it’s being done from scratch we will see if they continue the propaganda or the truth.....

Tell us all what you think "they built one using the other" means.

“Because they contain only half of the paired human chromosomes, studies of these rare human growths help tell similar duplicated genes apart.”

Or tell the truth that they are not really similar at all......

LOL!

OK, genetics expert - I await your explanation as to how genomes are assembled for analysis.

Here is the actual paper:
High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes

Explain it all to us.

I'll go grab some popcorn and await your replies!

@tas8831 , Top job as always, I learn so much when you take the time to properly dismantle the technicalities... Carry on then, don't let me hold you back!