When Asked this Question, Darwinians are Silent

[mark kennedy]

At one time I was on the brink of becoming a Theistic Evolutionist, I had reorganized my theology and was ready to concede. Then the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome came out in 2005, just three years after joining CF. It was a whole different ball game after that. I have an obvious error I uncovered in Talk Origins, there is no defending it, there is no talking around it. Evolutionists get conspicuously silent when confronted with the indels. I'm trying to avoid the long technical discussions I could add to the OP, this is a simple math question.

-----------------------taken from another discussion---------------------

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise. This is what I'm talking about, a statement that is corrected and easily refuted with basic math:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Talk Origins, Claim CB144)
​

The question is what is 1.23% plus 3%, this isn't a trick question, it's not between 1% and 2% it's 4.23%. That's not my opinion, that's not my interpretation, that's exactly what the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, that they specifically cite, actually says:

Genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events,

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb
• the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb.

This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

That is their cited source material, the comparison is base pairs, NOT NUMBER OF EVENTS. The number of events does not change the percentage, it's explicitly stated in the paper. No Creationist would get away with such an obvious misstatement, accidental, intentional or otherwise.

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

If your a Creationist and trying to make a point and the Darwinians have you on the ropes. Just point this one out. They will either change the subject or go silent, at least that's been my experience. Try it sometime.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sanoy]

Can you add what the impact or conclusion of this is? I just see numbers and I don't why those numbers matter. (my ignorance)

 

[mark kennedy]

Can you add what the impact or conclusion of this is? I just see numbers and I don't why those numbers matter. (my ignorance)

There are two basic genomic comparisons, always measured in base pairs or nucleotides. One is the single base and the other is known as indels (insertions and deletions). Some of these supposed insertions and deletions are over a million base pairs long, they haven't a clue how to explain how they got there without devastating the genome. So they just simply pretend they are not there. It's not so much that they are there, it's the fact that Darwinians, Talk Origins in particular but I know of a lot more, that concerns me the most.

If you ever want to slow their roll, remind them of this statistic. I'm not kidding, it will shut them up like nothing else will.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sanoy]

There are two basic genomic comparisons, always measured in base pairs or nucleotides. One is the single base and the other is known as indels (insertions and deletions). Some of these supposed insertions and deletions are over a million base pairs long, they haven't a clue how to explain how they got there without devastating the genome. So they just simply pretend they are not there. It's not so much that they are there, it's the fact that Darwinians, Talk Origins in particular but I know of a lot more, that concerns me the most.

Let me repeat this back and tell me if I got it. So in evolution were expecting small mutations that get naturally selected. The idea being small so it's okay. But each insertion or deletion has millions of base pairs associated with it, so it's only small in appearance. When you look at what is actually behind that seemingly small mutation you find enormous change on the Genomic scale. Is that right?

 

[mark kennedy]

Let me repeat this back and tell me if I got it. So in evolution were expecting small mutations that get naturally selected. The idea being small so it's okay. But each insertion or deletion has millions of base pairs associated with it, so it's only small in appearance. When you look at what is actually behind that seemingly small mutation you find enormous change on the Genomic scale. Is that right?

Most mutations are simple copy errors, there are actually repair mechanisms that clean them up. A few base pairs here and there are no big deal as long as they don't effect things like regulatory and protein coding genes. Evolutionists have no problem explaining this, it's a random spontaneous mutation rate with an occasional beneficial effect. When you are talking a million base pairs inserted or deleted the statistics go out the window, there is nothing like this in the natural world. Genes would necessarily be involved.

That's not even the most important aspect here, the fact that they can completely misrepresent the facts is staggering. The biggest differences are called, Human Accelerated Regions (HAR), these are mostly gene deserts. One of the most important genes involved in the early development of the human brain, between the 7th and 17th week is in one of them. When you compare a chimpanzee and chicken you get two substitutions, when you compare humans and chimpanzees you get 17 substitutions. The regulatory gene is 117 nucleotides long and this is in a section of DNA that is ridiculously different between chimpanzees and humans.

That's just one example, there are many. The fact that they won't admit the obvious makes a clear argument that they are not interested in facts. Try it sometime, show them a genomic comparison and see if they can stay on topic because I have had no luck getting them to even address the issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sanoy]

Wow I had no idea. Looks like there are a lot more problems for evolution to explain intentional consciousness.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow I had no idea. Looks like there are a lot more problems for evolution to explain intentional consciousness.

They have bigger problems with that, they can't admit basic math.

 

[SkyWriting]

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

Talk Origins is an online rag. A Penney Miserable.

 

[mark kennedy]

Talk Origins is an online rag. A Penney Miserable.

Oh their not so bad, their just wrong and that's not easy for them

 

[Archie Dupont]

At one time I was on the brink of becoming a Theistic Evolutionist, I had reorganized my theology and was ready to concede. Then the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome came out in 2005, just three years after joining CF. It was a whole different ball game after that. I have an obvious error I uncovered in Talk Origins, there is no defending it, there is no talking around it. Evolutionists get conspicuously silent when confronted with the indels. I'm trying to avoid the long technical discussions I could add to the OP, this is a simple math question.

-----------------------taken from another discussion---------------------

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise. This is what I'm talking about, a statement that is corrected and easily refuted with basic math:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Talk Origins, Claim CB144)
​

The question is what is 1.23% plus 3%, this isn't a trick question, it's not between 1% and 2% it's 4.23%. That's not my opinion, that's not my interpretation, that's exactly what the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, that they specifically cite, actually says:

Genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events,

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb
• the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb.

This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

That is their cited source material, the comparison is base pairs, NOT NUMBER OF EVENTS. The number of events does not change the percentage, it's explicitly stated in the paper. No Creationist would get away with such an obvious misstatement, accidental, intentional or otherwise.

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

If your a Creationist and trying to make a point and the Darwinians have you on the ropes. Just point this one out. They will either change the subject or go silent, at least that's been my experience. Try it sometime.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark,

I am confused somehow. You apparently try to pin Darwinists with a math error. According to your statement they get some numbers wrong, and therefore we are not descended from apes. I follow you there, but in my opinion it is dangerous to fight Darwinists on their own playground. By stating that the genomes are too different from each other to be related you inherently acknowledge that if the numbers would play out, evolution is actually true. And there are actually species different from each other on whom the math would in fact work out.

So I would advice against wielding such an substantive argument as not to seduce atheist into arguing that you essentially acknowledge their theory (just not on the ape human comparison).

Also, most people have absolutely no idea what you are talking about concerning the numbers and will most likely not be convinced with such in depth information.

Keep it simple, dont try to beat them on the details on their own turf, beat them at their whole reasoning.

Blessings,
Archie

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark,

I am confused somehow. You apparently try to pin Darwinists with a math error. According to your statement they get some numbers wrong, and therefore we are not descended from apes. I follow you there, but in my opinion it is dangerous to fight Darwinists on their own playground. By stating that the genomes are too different from each other to be related you inherently acknowledge that if the numbers would play out, evolution is actually true. And there are actually species different from each other on whom the math would in fact work out.

So I would advice against wielding such an substantive argument as not to seduce atheist into arguing that you essentially acknowledge their theory (just not on the ape human comparison).

Also, most people have absolutely no idea what you are talking about concerning the numbers and will most likely not be convinced with such in depth information.

Keep it simple, dont try to beat them on the details on their own turf, beat them at their whole reasoning.

Blessings,
Archie

For one thing this isn't there turf and the numbers are irrefutable. Since the Chimpanzee Genome project they have simple ignored the indels and grossly misrepresented this landmark research. They don't even make arguments, they can't.

 

[Archie Dupont]

For one thing this isn't there turf and the numbers are irrefutable. Since the Chimpanzee Genome project they have simple ignored the indels and grossly misrepresented this landmark research. They don't even make arguments, they can't.

You fail to grasp what I mean to say:

You might claim correctly that humans are not related to apes, but by going into the details of genes and their descendance, you inadvertently support the idea of evolution. What if a darwinian would accept your premise but would point out that your math problem actually applies to two different kind of apes having the same forefather? That would prove a darwinian system

I'm merely stating that in triumphantly balling in this very complicated argument, you might find yourself in deeper waters than you think, debating darwinians. We refute the idea of evolution, not merely the idea of humans and apes being related.

 

[Job 33:6]

You fail to grasp what I mean to say:

You might claim correctly that humans are not related to apes, but by going into the details of genes and their descendance, you inadvertently support the idea of evolution. What if a darwinian would accept your premise but would point out that your math problem actually applies to two different kind of apes having the same forefather? That would prove a darwinian system

I'm merely stating that in triumphantly balling in this very complicated argument, you might find yourself in deeper waters than you think, debating darwinians. We refute the idea of evolution, not merely the idea of humans and apes being related.

I completely agree with this (though from the other side of the coin, in that i support biological evolution).

Regarding the OP

@mark kennedy

The nature article sited, doesn't appear to find an issue with their proposal of a 3% difference between genomes. So why should anyone be bothered by this? Nature will always take precedence over a site like talk origins, as it isnt a research paper, it is just a website referencing research papers (and is therefore more prone to error if that is the case).

 

[Archie Dupont]

I completely agree with this (though from the other side of the coin, in that i support biological evolution).

Regarding the OP

@mark kennedy

The nature article sited, doesn't appear to find an issue with their proposal of a 3% difference between genomes. So why should anyone be bothered by this? Nature will always take precedence over a site like talk origins, as it isnt a research paper, it is just a website referencing research papers (and is therefore more prone to error if that is the case).

Exactly.

Such a small deviation from what would conclude a positive result doesn't render the complete research void. It could indicate a mathematical mistake or a misinterpretation of the data. It does not disprove anything, it merely creates reasonable doubt about the scientific method. I would be surprised if a convinced Darwinian would take this kind of logic serously, let alone make him go silent..

 

[mark kennedy]

You fail to grasp what I mean to say:

You might claim correctly that humans are not related to apes, but by going into the details of genes and their descendance, you inadvertently support the idea of evolution. What if a darwinian would accept your premise but would point out that your math problem actually applies to two different kind of apes having the same forefather? That would prove a darwinian system

I'm merely stating that in triumphantly balling in this very complicated argument, you might find yourself in deeper waters than you think, debating darwinians. We refute the idea of evolution, not merely the idea of humans and apes being related.

It's not that it's so complicated because it's not really, in DNA comparisons the indels are ignored. The same with comparative anatomy, the human and Chimpazee brains are vastly different. I've never thought the Darwinian view was very good on the evidece, I'm not going the argue the obscure but rather remind them of the obvious.

 

[Job 33:6]

@mark kennedy

What would you say to my post?

 

[mark kennedy]

I completely agree with this (though from the other side of the coin, in that i support biological evolution).

Regarding the OP

@mark kennedy

The nature article sited, doesn't appear to find an issue with their proposal of a 3% difference between genomes. So why should anyone be bothered by this? Nature will always take precedence over a site like talk origins, as it isnt a research paper, it is just a website referencing research papers (and is therefore more prone to error if that is the case).

Someone has a problem with mutation averaging 300 base pairs and some over a million. Because they do not acknowledge then in general statements.

 

[Job 33:6]

Someone has a problem with mutation averaging 300 base pairs and some over a million. Because they do not acknowledge then in general statements.

Is that stated in the research paper? Or who are you referring to?

 

[mark kennedy]

Is that stated in the research paper? Or who are you referring to?

We are talking about the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper,

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...​

...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...This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome)
​

This was and is confirmed by at least 5 previous studies.

​

Figure 6

Notice it spikes around 300 nucleotides. My point is simply that these comparisons are always done in base pairs, not number of events. When they say that indels represent 3% of the differences in the two genomes it refers to overall sequence identity. Indels are also refereed to as gaps. The point being that there is no way we are 98% the same, unless you completely ignore or otherwise misrepresent the comparison.

 

[Job 33:6]

We are talking about the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper,

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...​

...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...This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome)
​

This was and is confirmed by at least 5 previous studies.

​

Figure 6

Notice it spikes around 300 nucleotides. My point is simply that these comparisons are always done in base pairs, not number of events. When they say that indels represent 3% of the differences in the two genomes it refers to overall sequence identity. Indels are also refereed to as gaps. The point being that there is no way we are 98% the same, unless you completely ignore or otherwise misrepresent the comparison.

Is the research paper also stating that there is only a 2% difference? Or is talk origins only, or both?

It looks like talk origins refers to 98%, while the research paper, something closer to 95%. Is your argument that they both cant be right or?