What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[ViaCrucis]

I'd point out that I don't have 96% chimp DNA, I have 100% human DNA. I share 96% of my DNA with chimps because human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. As to how that makes me feel? I don't know that it makes me feel anything. It's kind of like asking me how I feel about the earth being round.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That the 96% statistic is quoted and seems to be strongly preferred by some people here makes me wonder why, when the similarity calculation methods that more accurately measure degrees of relatedness between different organisms measures us as 98% similarity.

It seems to me to be a rather desperate strategy, as whatever method of measurement is used, we are related to chimps to the same degree; they are just different methods of measuring the same thing, as kilometres and miles are different ways of measuring distance.

The strangeness, and to my eyes desperation to make us look 'different' from chimps, is most obvious when someone says that '98%' is wrong and it's 'only' '96%', when both figures are correct (as figures in miles and kilometres can both be correct even if the number is different). And quibbling about the method of calculation doesn't actually change the fact that we are very closely related to chimps and bonobos.

 

[DogmaHunter]

why?

Because of all the reasons that dozens of people have been explaining to you in these sily conversations.

we find motors in nature for instance. so if a motor with a self replicating system can evolve by evolution why not a self replicating car?

You're comparing organic oranges with plastic apples again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. i actually refer to a car that made from organic component, like a living thing.

Indeed. You refer to imaginary things that do not exist.

so in this case the analogy is good since we dealing with a living object.

No. The analogy is pure fantasy that makes no sense at all, with no relevance to the real world whatsoever.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That the 96% statistic is quoted and seems to be strongly preferred by some people here makes me wonder why, when the similarity calculation methods that more accurately measure degrees of relatedness between different organisms measures us as 98% difference.

Can't we edit. Typos again. That should be '... measures us as 98% similarity.'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can't we edit. Typos again. That should be '... measures us as 98% similarity.'.

There's a little edit button in the lower left of any text box.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There's a little edit button in the lower left of any text box.

Ah, in the triple bar menu. Thanks. I wondered why I couldn't edit.

 

[Noxot]

That the 96% statistic is quoted and seems to be strongly preferred by some people here makes me wonder why, when the similarity calculation methods that more accurately measure degrees of relatedness between different organisms measures us as 98% similarity.

It seems to me to be a rather desperate strategy, as whatever method of measurement is used, we are related to chimps to the same degree; they are just different methods of measuring the same thing, as kilometres and miles are different ways of measuring distance.

The strangeness, and to my eyes desperation to make us look 'different' from chimps, is most obvious when someone says that '98%' is wrong and it's 'only' '96%', when both figures are correct (as figures in miles and kilometres can both be correct even if the number is different). And quibbling about the method of calculation doesn't actually change the fact that we are very closely related to chimps and bonobos.

there could be different ways to measure such a thing than just the limited comprehension of DNA that we have. humans don't understand DNA very well because if we did then we would already be genetically modifying ourselves and other things a lot more than we currently are.

why are chimps so much stronger than human beings? why are human beings much smarter than chimps? human creativity is on a completely different level than anything chimps or bonobos have ever done. humans alter the world as much as nature does, chimps don't. this kind of measurement is a distance that is further away than a 96% or 98%.

I think the DNA argument of 98% the same is a lie, it's not thought through and it's too limited a view of how DNA works and the effects that it causes. there is a vast gulf between humans and chimps. on some levels it's probably not a lie, I don't really know how exactly they go about measuring and comparing it but it is obvious that a few supposed minor differences create huge differences.

 

[sfs]

there could be different ways to measure such a thing than just the limited comprehension of DNA that we have. humans don't understand DNA very well because if we did then we would already be genetically modifying ourselves and other things a lot more than we currently are.

You're confusing two different things here. We understand DNA just fine, and we have very accurate sequences of human and chimpanzee DNA. What we are only beginning to understand is exactly how DNA sequence translates into an organism's structure and behavior.

 

[sfs]

That the 96% statistic is quoted and seems to be strongly preferred by some people here makes me wonder why, when the similarity calculation methods that more accurately measure degrees of relatedness between different organisms measures us as 98% similarity.

To me, the two relevant numbers seem to be 97% (fraction of base pairs in the human genome that are identical to chimpanzee DNA) and 98.8% (pairwise identity in homologous DNA).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

why are chimps so much stronger than human beings?

Just as a matter of interest, they're not really very much stronger. See Are Chimps Stronger Than Humans?

 

[DogmaHunter]

there could be different ways to measure such a thing than just the limited comprehension of DNA that we have. humans don't understand DNA very well because if we did then we would already be genetically modifying ourselves and other things a lot more than we currently are.

The fact that we already can modify ourselves and other things to any extent, shows that we understand DNA a LOT better then you are willing to admit.

Also, there's also all the rest that we are now able to do with DNA... like determine if your dad is your actual biological dad and how closely related you are to any other random human (or other animal).

why are chimps so much stronger than human beings?

We inhabit very different niches in which we live very different lives. We have no use for such strength. Chimps do.
So the answer is: difference in selection pressures.

why are human beings much smarter than chimps?

Same as above. Selection pressures: different habitats, different niches.
It's also worth noting, btw, that several studies have shown that the actual difference in intelligence isn't as big as humans like to think.

In fact, one such study concluded with a bit of irony that the reason we are so smart later in life is because we are dumber earlier in life............

There was this experiment they did with a transparant box with children (both humans and chimps). In the first test, the box was completely covered in black paint, so that it wasn't transparent. The test subject was shown a series of movements and manipulations. At the end of the series, a piece of candy dropped out of the box.

Both humans and chimps quickly picked up these movements and very soon both were doing it to get candy. Humans didn't pick up faster or slower then the chimps.

In the second test, the same box was given only this time it was transparent. Being transparent, it was obvious that easily half the movements that were shown previously, didn't help the process at all! They were completely unecessary.

Chimps were given the box and instantly they stopped doing the unecessary movements. Humans didn't! The human children continued to do as they were thought, eventhough it was just a waste of time and energy.

And that's actually the main difference between us.......
We engage in unecessary trivia. We blindly do what we are told. We learn everything from our elders, including things that seem unecessary. And we don't question. We just do and learn and remember.

All this piles up in knowledge later in life, which we then apply. Chimps only learn what they really really need to know. We learn everything. Almost seemingly just for the sake of learning.

human creativity is on a completely different level than anything chimps or bonobos have ever done

So?
Cheetah's speeds is on a completely different level as well.

I don't see how it matters. Every species will have traits unique to them. It's kind of what makes them a seperate species.....

humans alter the world as much as nature does, chimps don't.

However, chimps DO manufacture and use tools. And they do so purposefully. They literally "plan" their tool use. They go to one spot to gather the material required, manipulate it into the tool they need, then they move to another spot where they use said tool.

Essentially, that is exactly what we do - only on a more primitive level.

this kind of measurement is a distance that is further away than a 96% or 98%.

As I showed above, not really....
The expression of these differences might seem very big, but the actual difference at bottom isn't nearly as big.

I think the DNA argument of 98% the same is a lie

So, how credibly do you think this is.... to accuse the entire biology community of being liars?

it's not thought through

There's nothing to think through. It's an objective measurement.

there is a vast gulf between humans and chimps

It's much smaller then you think it is.

. on some levels it's probably not a lie, I don't really know how exactly they go about measuring and comparing it

In that case, maybe.... just MAYBE, you should learn about it before feeling qualified to argue against it???

but it is obvious that a few supposed minor differences create huge differences.

Again, not that huge if we get down to it.

 

[Noxot]

I stand by my idea that human beings are more different to chimps than what mere DNA comparisons have to say but I acknowledge that on a DNA level that we appear to be very similar.

The fact that we already can modify ourselves and other things to any extent, shows that we understand DNA a LOT better then you are willing to admit.

hmm I would say that this is not wholly true but since I can't articulate or remember what was said fully by the expert I listened to I will link a recent sam harris podcast that talked about the matter, maybe some here would enjoy it. it's only 48 mins.

Waking Up with Sam Harris #106 — Humanity 2.0 (with Jennifer A. Doudna)

info:
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jennifer Doudna about the gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9. They talk about the biology of gene editing, how specific tissues in the body can be targeted, the ethical implications of changing the human genome, the importance of curiosity-driven science, and other topics.

Jennifer A. Doudna is a professor in the Chemistry and the Molecular and Cell Biology Departments at the University of California, Berkeley, investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and researcher in the Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She is internationally recognized as a leading expert on RNA-protein biochemistry, CRISPR biology, and genome engineering. She is the author (with Samuel Sternberg) of A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

1. Humans (descendants of Adam) were made (3rd Day) billions of years, in man's time, before any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7
2. Humans blood was mixed with the blood of the sons of God (prehistoric people) when Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry. Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married and produced children with prehistoric people. Gen 6:4 That is how our genetics were contaminated with the DNA and ERVs of Mitochondrial Eve. Amen?

If Adam and Eve's genetics didn't already look very similar to the ERV and mutation laden DNA of the people already here, no such interspecies union would occur - ergo, Adam and Eve had to be prehistoric people that were already here.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'd point out that I don't have 96% chimp DNA, I have 100% human DNA. I share 96% of my DNA with chimps because human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. As to how that makes me feel? I don't know that it makes me feel anything. It's kind of like asking me how I feel about the earth being round.

-CryptoLutheran

....round?? I thought it was flat?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why not? But it doesn't mean that just because a manufactured car is known to be intelligently designed, some self-replicating, evolving entity must also be intelligently designed just because you call it a car, too.

Exactly; you can't change things in the world by redefining or relabeling them and hoping that the associative baggage of your label somehow carries over. You can call a cave a house, and you can live in it, but that doesn't mean it was designed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It's also worth noting, btw, that several studies have shown that the actual difference in intelligence isn't as big as humans like to think.

In fact, one such study concluded with a bit of irony that the reason we are so smart later in life is because we are dumber earlier in life............

There was this experiment they did with a transparant box with children (both humans and chimps). In the first test, the box was completely covered in black paint, so that it wasn't transparent. The test subject was shown a series of movements and manipulations. At the end of the series, a piece of candy dropped out of the box.

Both humans and chimps quickly picked up these movements and very soon both were doing it to get candy. Humans didn't pick up faster or slower then the chimps.

In the second test, the same box was given only this time it was transparent. Being transparent, it was obvious that easily half the movements that were shown previously, didn't help the process at all! They were completely unecessary.

Chimps were given the box and instantly they stopped doing the unecessary movements. Humans didn't! The human children continued to do as they were thought, eventhough it was just a waste of time and energy.

And that's actually the main difference between us.......
We engage in unecessary trivia. We blindly do what we are told. We learn everything from our elders, including things that seem unecessary. And we don't question. We just do and learn and remember.

All this piles up in knowledge later in life, which we then apply. Chimps only learn what they really really need to know. We learn everything. Almost seemingly just for the sake of learning.

So?
Cheetah's speeds is on a completely different level as well.

I don't see how it matters. Every species will have traits unique to them. It's kind of what makes them a seperate species.....

However, chimps DO manufacture and use tools. And they do so purposefully. They literally "plan" their tool use. They go to one spot to gather the material required, manipulate it into the tool they need, then they move to another spot where they use said tool.

Essentially, that is exactly what we do - only on a more primitive level.

As I showed above, not really....
The expression of these differences might seem very big, but the actual difference at bottom isn't nearly as big.

So, how credibly do you think this is.... to accuse the entire biology community of being liars?

There's nothing to think through. It's an objective measurement.

It's much smaller then you think it is.

In that case, maybe.... just MAYBE, you should learn about it before feeling qualified to argue against it???

Again, not that huge if we get down to it.

Did you mention that chimps also have better short-term memory?

 

[xianghua]

This question is at the core of your fallacy.

Motors in biological systems are molecular in scale, made of biological components, are part of living creatures that are known to evolve, are relatively simple, and have a plausible evolutionary explanation. Cars are none of those things and are known to be manufactured. They are not comparable for your purpose. They only have the concept of rotation and the word 'motor' in common.

so again: what you will say if you will find such a living car?

 

[xianghua]

Then it's not a car.

realy? so if you will find an object like this one (just that made from organic components and has a self replicating system):

you will not consider it as a car?

(image from GTM Cars - Wikipedia)

 

[pitabread]

realy? so if you will find an object like this one (just that made from organic components and has a self replicating system):

you will not consider it as a car?

(image from GTM Cars - Wikipedia)

Such a thing would never exist in the first place so it's a moot point. This may come as a surprise to you, but your imagination is not reality.

Now will you drop these silly fantasies and just deal with reality? Or do we need to have this conversation again in a week?