Man and Ape DNA not as close as some think?

[savedandhappy1]

And God said, Let Us make Man ('adam) in Our image,
after Our likeness.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind,
and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
And God said,
Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle,
and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Genesis 1:25-26)

Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. "What is it in that other 1.6 percent that makes us different from them?
That's the critical question," said de Waal, a renowned primatologist."If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions." (from http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jo...marksaaa99.htm) "Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human? Another good example is that during the sixties, American doctors tried to use chimpanzee organs for transplants in humans, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. ... An interesting footnote that shows how complex this issue really is, ... humans differed from most other animals, including chimpanzees, in a small but possibly vital way. In most animals, the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecues called sialic acid. In humans, a genetic mutation means this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. Proteins and membrane lipids that have sialic acid take part in many processes. They help cells stick to one another. They may also play a part in disease susceptibility. This might be a reason why Chimpanzees seem far less suspeceptible for infectious diseases like malaria and cholera. ... This might be one factor in those chimp to human transplants in which organs were rejected." (from http://www.fromlondon.freeserve.co.uk/cuchimpdna.html)
A more recent "Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions." ref: Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13

Didn't copy all of article because of copywrite laws, so here is the link.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/image.html


I don't know all the big words that sometimes come along when we get into discussions of science, so if you all could keep it simple I would appreciate it.

I would just like to get some input into the finding that are mentioned in this article. Thanks

​

 

[FallingWaters]

...

Didn't copy all of article because of copywrite laws, so here is the link.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/image.html

I don't know all the big words that sometimes come along when we get into discussions of science, so if you all could keep it simple I would appreciate it.

I would just like to get some input into the finding that are mentioned in this article. Thanks​

I liked this quote:
"80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different."

​

 

[TySJI]

Our genes code our physical attributes, apes have the closest physical attributes of all animals to us, thus it should follow that they'd be relatively closer to us genetically then other animals. I see no trouble as a creationist with apes having a genetic code close to ours.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I am cutting and pasting this article but it is an article I wrote so that is ok.

DNA Similarity​

Often it is said that chimp and human DNA are more then 99% similar. That’s a very
misleading statement. The whole chimpanzee genome has been mapped recently (1). It
has been shown there is only 96% similarity. Humans have an amount of information
equivalent to a thousand 500-page books, a 4 percent difference
amounts to 40 large books (2). That's far from being a small difference.​

Normally when the DNA % is figured out they ignore differences such as humans have
23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24, the size of the chimpanzee genome
is 10% greater than the size of the human genome (3), and 18 pairs of chromosomes are
‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’(4)
Genes and markers on the chromosomes are in different orders and evolutionists would
like to say this came about from mutations but there is more evidence this would be
because a creator created chimps and humans separately.​

To say a chimp is even nearly human, as some say, is very misleading. We have about
50% similarity in our genes to those of bananas (5). We might as well say bananas are
half human or humans are half banana. Watch video of a chimp in the wild. Any rational
person can see that chimps and humans differ by leaps and bounds just by simple
observations. You don't see chimps going to church and worshiping God. You don't see
chimps making computers or space ships that land on the moon. You don't see chimps
sport the latest fashion designs. The list goes on but I hope you get the idea. Some people
say they have found the missing link, some say they are still looking. The only missing
link though is God. Evolutionists take him out of the equation and treat macroevolution
as fact even though the evidence says otherwise.​

1. Nature 2005 Issue 437:69–87
2. Sarfati, J. 1999. "Refuting Evolution" 1999, page 82.
3. Marks, J. 2000. "98% alike? (What our similarity to apes tells us about our
understanding of genetics.)" Chronicle of Higher Education May 12, 2000, B7.
4.Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434.​

5. Robert May 2000. New Scientist magazine July 1, 2000, page 5.

 

[mark kennedy]

I could give you a long list of peer reviewed scientific publications that show the divergence is around 5%. That means that the two genomes are 3 billion base pairs long and 150 million of those base pairs are simply different. The common ancestor would have lived about 5 million years ago which comes to 30 base pairs permenantly changed every year for 5 million years.

This would have to occur in the entire population and to make a long argument short, this just does not happen. If you are really interested in the subject I beg you to try to understand the absurdity of the following statement:

Point mutation rates in exons (synonymous sites) and noncoding (introns and intergenic) regions are generally assumed to be the same. However, comparative sequence analyses of synonymous substitutions in exons (81 genes) and that of long intergenic fragments (141.3 kbp) of human and chimpanzee genomes reveal a 30%–60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA​

(Neutral Substitutions Occur at a Faster Rate in Exons Than in Noncoding DNA in Primate Genomes, Pub Med May 2003)

The exons are where the genes are and they are far less likely to allow mutations. Why? Because it results in disease, disorder and death but here they are saying that the mutation rate is 30%–60% higher mutation rate in exons than in non-coding DNA!!!

Do you have any idea how utterly impossible this is? I can tell you from personal experience evolutionists are aware of these facts. My guess is that is why they are doing the full court press to suppress creationism.


Over the last couple of years I have been astonished at just how different chimanzees and humans really are, especially in their DNA.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mumluvsherboys]

I could give you a long list of peer reviewed scientific publications that show the divergence is around 5%. That means that the two genomes are 3 billion base pairs long and 150 million of those base pairs are simply different. The common ancestor would have lived about 5 million years ago which comes to 30 base pairs permenantly changed every year for 5 million years.

This would have to occur in the entire population and to make a long argument short, this just does not happen. If you are really interested in the subject I beg you to try to understand the absurdity of the following statement:

Point mutation rates in exons (synonymous sites) and noncoding (introns and intergenic) regions are generally assumed to be the same. However, comparative sequence analyses of synonymous substitutions in exons (81 genes) and that of long intergenic fragments (141.3 kbp) of human and chimpanzee genomes reveal a 30%–60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA​

(Neutral Substitutions Occur at a Faster Rate in Exons Than in Noncoding DNA in Primate Genomes, Pub Med May 2003)

The exons are where the genes are and they are far less likely to allow mutations. Why? Because it results in disease, disorder and death but here they are saying that the mutation rate is 30%–60% higher mutation rate in exons than in non-coding DNA!!!

Do you have any idea how utterly impossible this is? I can tell you from personal experience evolutionists are aware of these facts. My guess is that is why they are doing the full court press to suppress creationism.


Over the last couple of years I have been astonished at just how different chimanzees and humans really are, especially in their DNA.

Grace and peace,
Mark

This is absolutely incredible! Thank you so much for posting this. This is truely a blessing to me. I would love to see you post this in the "Dinosaurs and People" thread. I feel creationist were bullied right out of that site because of our lack of knowledge in evolution. You are very knowledgeable and you and others as knowledgeable as you would be a blessing to people who are struggling with the idea of evolution vs creationism. Evolutionist truely believe there is no debate. Have a great day! Many blessings to you and yours!

 

[mark kennedy]

This is absolutely incredible! Thank you so much for posting this. This is truely a blessing to me. I would love to see you post this in the "Dinosaurs and People" thread. I feel creationist were bullied right out of that site because of our lack of knowledge in evolution. You are very knowledgeable and you and others as knowledgeable as you would be a blessing to people who are struggling with the idea of evolution vs creationism. Evolutionist truely believe there is no debate. Have a great day! Many blessings to you and yours!

Well, thank you so much, that is a very kind and generous thing to say. I have spent a lot of time reading up on Genetics and I have even discussed the Chimpanzee Genome paper (nature 2005) with one of the authors. The problem is that I have spent so much time on that, that I actually know very little about dinosaurs or geology.

I have tried to get through to creationists that it's not the creationist against science or even evolution is it is defined scientifically. It is limited verses continuous evolution, see my signiture. Evolutionists are not quite as bold when you challenge them on the facts, the same holds true for the Bible as history.

I'll tell you what, I'll see if I can find the thread you are talking about and see if there is anything I can contribute.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Well, thank you so much, that is a very kind and generous thing to say. I have spent a lot of time reading up on Genetics and I have even discussed the Chimpanzee Genome paper (nature 2005) with one of the authors. The problem is that I have spent so much time on that, that I actually know very little about dinosaurs or geology.

I have tried to get through to creationists that it's not the creationist against science or even evolution is it is defined scientifically. It is limited verses continuous evolution, see my signiture. Evolutionists are not quite as bold when you challenge them on the facts, the same holds true for the Bible as history.

I'll tell you what, I'll see if I can find the thread you are talking about and see if there is anything I can contribute.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark

Thanks for your reply!
Here is the link to the thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4268066

It has turned into a talk about evolution so it really isn't about dinosaurs anymore. It is more about apes and evolution.

I believe armed with knowledge and scriptures you can be very beneficial to many people. Including myself.

You will see how heated it gets in there so I don't blame you if you take a look and get out of there faster than you went in. But I believe if people are made aware of the real facts then there is good in that. What I have noticed and you can see for yourself is that most evolutionists in this thread guard their theory to a point that nothing else matters--- even loving thy neighbor.

Again, I thank you! Have a lovely day and God bless you and yours.

Grace and peace to you too

 

[mumluvsherboys]

I am cutting and pasting this article but it is an article I wrote so that is ok.

DNA Similarity​

Often it is said that chimp and human DNA are more then 99% similar. That’s a very
misleading statement. The whole chimpanzee genome has been mapped recently (1). It
has been shown there is only 96% similarity. Humans have an amount of information
equivalent to a thousand 500-page books, a 4 percent difference
amounts to 40 large books (2). That's far from being a small difference.​

Normally when the DNA % is figured out they ignore differences such as humans have
23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24, the size of the chimpanzee genome
is 10% greater than the size of the human genome (3), and 18 pairs of chromosomes are
‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’(4)
Genes and markers on the chromosomes are in different orders and evolutionists would
like to say this came about from mutations but there is more evidence this would be
because a creator created chimps and humans separately.​

To say a chimp is even nearly human, as some say, is very misleading. We have about
50% similarity in our genes to those of bananas (5). We might as well say bananas are
half human or humans are half banana. Watch video of a chimp in the wild. Any rational
person can see that chimps and humans differ by leaps and bounds just by simple
observations. You don't see chimps going to church and worshiping God. You don't see
chimps making computers or space ships that land on the moon. You don't see chimps
sport the latest fashion designs. The list goes on but I hope you get the idea. Some people
say they have found the missing link, some say they are still looking. The only missing
link though is God. Evolutionists take him out of the equation and treat macroevolution
as fact even though the evidence says otherwise.​

1. Nature 2005 Issue 437:69–87
2. Sarfati, J. 1999. "Refuting Evolution" 1999, page 82.
3. Marks, J. 2000. "98% alike? (What our similarity to apes tells us about our
understanding of genetics.)" Chronicle of Higher Education May 12, 2000, B7.
4.Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434.​

5. Robert May 2000. New Scientist magazine July 1, 2000, page 5.

I enjoyed this article very much as well, I would like to invite you and your expertise in the forum I listed. I think you would be most beneficial to both creationists and evolutionists alike as well!
Here is the link:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4268066


Have a lovely day!

 

[Xaero]

I post this just for clarifications:

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.

The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

That means 71% of the proteins differ only in about 2 amino acids:
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf

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.

Ok, now to the point mutations: They are higher in coding regions because of methylated CpG sites, that means that one nucleotide (Cytosine) is modificated for higher mutation rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CpG_site

CpG dinucleotides have long been observed to occur with a much lower frequency in the sequence of vertebrate genomes than would be expected due to random chance. For example, in a genome with 42% GC content (like the human genome), a pair of nucleotides consisting of cytosine followed by guanine would be expected to occur 0.21 * 0.21 = 4.41% of the time. The frequency of CpG dinucleotides in human genomes is 1% — less than one fourth of the expected frequency. Scarano et al. proposed that the CpG deficiency is due to an increased vulnerability of methylcytosines to transition mutation in genomes with CpG cytosine methylation.

But the overall mutation rate is higher in non-coding areas:
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168

Studies of differences between the chimpanzee and human genomes have focused on protein-coding genes. However, examples of amino acid changes between chimp and human have not been able to explain most of the phenotypic differences between us and our fellow hominoids. King and Wilson (1975) proposed that the main differences between chimps and humans will be found in non-coding regulatory DNA. Consistent with this hypothesis, recent whole-genome scans for evolutionarily conserved DNA elements that have evolved rapidly since our divergence from the chimp-human ancestor have discovered largely non-coding regions. The authors investigate a carefully screened set of 202 such human accelerated regions (HARs). Most of these HARs do not code for proteins, but instead are located in introns and intergenic regions near protein-coding genes.

To be short, point mutations are only responsible for 1/4 of the difference between human and chimp. They are the fine tuning of protein coding genes, while in non-coding regions happens most of the mutations with raw shuffling (inversion,indels ...).

Hace a nice day and God bless you!

PS.: the Nematode Genome is only 1/40 of the size of the human genome. 75% similarity just means that 75% of our genes have counterparts in the nematode genome, which is absolute understandable since all lifeforms share basic proteins and metabolism functions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome. http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Just to clarify those 5 million indels would have had to be fixed at a rate of 1 per year for 5 million years. They add up to 146 million bases so if you do the math it comes to more then the respective genomes could sustain. That is in addition to the point mutations that occur would occur at the predicted rate except for one important thing to consider, they would virtually all have to be fixed.

The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

First of all the entire genome was compared and diverged by at least 120 million base pairs so the 99% figure is incomprehensible. This is an initial sequence so there were samples that were not of high enough quality to make an adequate comparison. Ok, 71% of the protein coding genes diverge by a mean average of one or two codons but that does not mean that the divergence is slight, successive changes across broad lines. Gross structural indels occur within reading frames and yet the reading frames are virtually all still functional. This must happen in 6 million years and they never compare the known rate at which indels are fixed for good reason. Ten years ago scientists were claiming the DNA was 99% identical and it has been conclusively demonstrated that it is at least three times that large. You have to realize, the divergence represented are in fixed sequences for the most part.

"Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species."

There is also a real problem with what kind of indels are represented. Most of the human sequence would have had to result from deletions in the hominid line, this makes absolutely no sense at all.

To be short, point mutations are only responsible for 1/4 of the difference between human and chimp. They are the fine tuning of protein coding genes, while in non-coding regions happens most of the mutations with raw shuffling (inversion,indels ...).

Well, yea, sort of…here's the thing. There are 35 million point mutations, which are by definition each a single base pair. Then there are 5 million indels that collectively account for 90 million base pairs that diverge in the respective genomes. These leaves the evolutionist with two problems they have absolutely no answers for. Firstly how do the hominid generations (about 300,000) accumulated the requisite number of mutations and fix them in the respective genomes? That's not as hard to figure if you assume that the randomly occurring germline mutations are usually fixed. It doesn't happen but that is not the biggest problem. The real problem is how you account for the divergence in the protein coding and regulatory genes involved in the development of the human brain.

We devised a ranking of regions in the human genome that show significant evolutionary acceleration. Here we report that the most dramatic of these 'human accelerated regions', HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal-Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal-Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology.
Newsworthy elements:
1. This is not a protein-coding gene, but an RNA gene. It likely plays an important role in the regulation of other genes, specifically in the developing cortex.
2. This research team went looking through the noncoding areas of the genome for such fast-evolving areas. There are others, whose function remains to be seen but may be just as interesting as this one.
3. I am very impressed with the number of substitutions on the human lineage compared with other vertebrates. The region is highly conserved: only two bases are different between chimpanzees and chickens. In contrast, there have been 18 substitutions on the human lineage! It's like every other species is driving the same Plymouth Reliant, and humans are driving a Ferrari!
4. It remains possible that the human sequence has been shaped by a relaxation of a selective constraint that acts in other species, rather than positive selection. But it doesn't seem very likely, especially since the gene still has a critical developmental function.
5. Now, this is the fastest of the regions of rapid evolution in the non-protein-coding genome, according to the paper. But if there are any substantial number of these, the number of selected substitutions they involve could easily exceed the number of amino acid substitutions between the human and chimpanzee genomes (already more than 40,000).
6. That being said, it may be hard to figure this number out, since most regions will not have the unusual combination of high conservation among distant taxa and rapid change in humans. Most will have more or less equal substitution rates among taxa. But amino acid substitutions are starting to look like the low-hanging fruit of a very tall tree.
Here's a hint of what's to come, from the last paragraph of the paper:
Many of the other top candidates are associated with genes known to be involved in neurodevelopment, an area where there has been significant divergence since our last common ancestor with chimpanzee. Thus, this seems to be a promising approach to identifying candidate regions involved in neurodevelopmental aspects of our uniquely human biology.​

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/hawks/hawks.html

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Gross structural indels occur within reading frames and yet the reading frames are virtually all still functional.

.........

There is also a real problem with what kind of indels are represented. Most of the human sequence would have had to result from deletions in the hominid line, this makes absolutely no sense at all.

I'd like to see citations (and elaboration, if possible) for these two statements. In particular, the latter statement seems to reflect a still unaddressed misunderstanding of indels. I'll be unsubscribing from this thread after this post, in the interest of respecting the creationist subforum; hopefully you could start a new thread in the open OT section about this.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Gotta love how the evolution believing Christians can't help but break the rules on a regular basis in our subforum.

 

[Xaero]

Hi Mark, thanks for your response .

First of all the entire genome was compared and diverged by at least 120 million base pairs so the 99% figure is incomprehensible.

Yea, i think the source (genome.gov) expressed it bad. It means that 99% of the protein coding genes are similar. Seems like they confused "genome" with "genes". The latter make up only 3% of the whole genome.


You seem to have spend much time in reading about human/chimpanzee genome project - it took me some time to catch you up. Answering the rest of your claims would contain offensive arguments so i think this conversation is worth a new thread in the open OT forum - i will create one soon.

God bless,

Xaero

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark, thanks for your response .

Yea, i think the source (genome.gov) expressed it bad. It means that 99% of the protein coding genes are similar. Seems like they confused "genome" with "genes". The latter make up only 3% of the whole genome.


You seem to have spend much time in reading about human/chimpanzee genome project - it took me some time to catch you up. Answering the rest of your claims would contain offensive arguments so i think this conversation is worth a new thread in the open OT forum - i will create one soon.

God bless,

Xaero

First of all my figures come from the Initial sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005.

The analysis of modest-sized insertions reveals 32 Mb of human-specific sequence and 35 Mb of chimpanzee-specific sequence, contained in 5 million events in each species. Nearly all of the human insertions are completely covered, whereas only half of the chimpanzee insertions are completely covered. Analysis of the completely covered insertions shows that the vast majority are small (45% of events cover only 1 base pair (bp), 96% are <20 bp and 98.6% are <80 bp), but that the largest few contain most of the sequence (with the 70,000 indels larger than 80 bp comprising 73% of the affected base pairs). (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium Nature 2005)​

The protein coding genes are largely a matter of perspective. between 70% to 80% of the protein coding genes show differences at an amino acid sequence level. Sure, the mean average is a single codon but if you notice 70% of the affected base pairs are larger then 80 base pairs. Dozens of them scattered, seemingly at random, across that respective genomes are gross stuctural indels.

Look, if you want to hammer this out in the common forum just tell me which thread. The point is that human evolution from that of apes is a genetic and anatomical impossibility. I don't care about radiometric dating, ice crystals or the how much dust is on the moon. As science and theology humans are either apes or they are unique to the earthly landscape.

You might be convinced that human evolution from apes is clearly evident. I don't reject TOE as natural history on theological grounds, the science is jacked up.

Just let me know if you decide to bring this up in the common forum.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'd like to see citations (and elaboration, if possible) for these two statements. In particular, the latter statement seems to reflect a still unaddressed misunderstanding of indels. I'll be unsubscribing from this thread after this post, in the interest of respecting the creationist subforum; hopefully you could start a new thread in the open OT section about this.

Comparing 231 orthologous genes on the chromosomes, Watanabe et al. [1] found 179 cases in which the human and chimpanzee protein-coding sequences were of equal lengths. Of these, approximately 80% have at least one amino-acid difference between the two species, leading to an average amino-acid divergence of 0.82%. Interestingly, of the remaining 52 orthologs, 15 were found to have indels within their coding sequences and 32 were found to have changes in the first ATG (start codon) or the stop codon, changes that would potentially lead to gross structural differences between the human and chimpanzee protein products. Given that fewer than 54% of human-mouse orthologs have coding sequences of different lengths [5], it seems rather surprising that as many as 20% have changed between humans and chimpanzees, despite the significantly shorter time since their divergence. Watanabe et al. [1] hypothesized that indels and structural changes may represent one of the major mechanisms of proteome evolution in the higher primates.​

What makes us human? Pub Med


I found this is a couple of minutes with minimal effort. The facts beg the question of a genetic mechanism on their hands and knees and scientists are well aware of this. I'll watch the common forum and consider an appropriate thread title if I don't find one started that I like.

The evidence is not that tough to come by, in fact, it gets easier everytime I am challenged to do it.

 

[Xaero]

The protein coding genes are largely a matter of perspective.

I am not one who argues that the gene comparison indicates that man=ape, i know that even slight differences in genotype can have big differences in phenotype.
However i just wanted to clarify the numbers (like 99% and 95%) in genome comparisons.

My advertised thread comes this sunday night and will be about the traces of evolution in both genomes human/chimpanzee - and some thoughts about
the possibility of human evolution (from the molecular biology view).
Stay tuned

 

[RouterX]

Even if:
Humans and chimps had 99.999999999% compatible DNA.
Christ's bones were found and His DNA was verified
Ken Hamm said he was now an evolutionist

It's all information obtained from man. If it conflicts with God's Word, then it's wrong. It may appear right. It may make sense. It may work as a system for us while we are here, but's it's man made. Made from the fallen mind of man.

For this reason, I don't fear old earth - evolution - DNA - if it's what fallen man observes and it works for him as a system - terrific. I look forward to seeing the true and perfect rules of nature when I'm with Christ.

 

[mark kennedy]

Even if:
Humans and chimps had 99.999999999% compatible DNA.
Christ's bones were found and His DNA was verified
Ken Hamm said he was now an evolutionist

If we were 99% ape I would be a Theistic Evolutionist, If Christs ressurection were disproven, by any tangable line of evidence, I would not be a Christian and if Ken Hamm denied special creation tommorow I doubt that I would care.

It's all information obtained from man. If it conflicts with God's Word, then it's wrong. It may appear right. It may make sense. It may work as a system for us while we are here, but's it's man made. Made from the fallen mind of man.

That I can agree with, in fact, theologians call that the noetic affects of sin. Our reasoning is not only imperfect and fallable but inclined to chase the wind. We have this not only in the sciences but theology is also subject to the same limitations.

For this reason, I don't fear old earth - evolution - DNA - if it's what fallen man observes and it works for him as a system - terrific. I look forward to seeing the true and perfect rules of nature when I'm with Christ.

I don't really care about the age of the earth, DNA sequence identity or the rationalizations of worldly systems of thought. We are exorted to set our mind on Christ which all believers are driven to do through the new birth.

Indeed our blessed hope of the redemption of the purchase price anticipates a perfect creation, not subject to vainity like the present world.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Even if:
Humans and chimps had 99.999999999% compatible DNA.
Christ's bones were found and His DNA was verified
Ken Hamm said he was now an evolutionist

It's all information obtained from man. If it conflicts with God's Word, then it's wrong. It may appear right. It may make sense. It may work as a system for us while we are here, but's it's man made. Made from the fallen mind of man.

For this reason, I don't fear old earth - evolution - DNA - if it's what fallen man observes and it works for him as a system - terrific. I look forward to seeing the true and perfect rules of nature when I'm with Christ.