When Asked this Question, Darwinians are Silent

[mark kennedy]

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

Bad math, 3 plus 1.23 isn't 2.

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?

Talk Origins argued that since there are 5 million events it means that the 3% due to indels brings the total to a single percentage point. That's a load of baloney.

 

[Job 33:6]

Bad math, 3 plus 1.23 isn't 2.

This doesnt answer the question.

 

[mark kennedy]

This doesnt answer the question.

Actually it does, it is literally closer to 95%.

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually it does, it is literally closer to 95%.

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

If it is only talk origins, then there is no dilemma, as talk origins isn't your published research. Its just a website like any other that sources information, much like wikipedia.

If you had a conflict between two research papers, it could be significant, if the conclusions of at least one of the two documents, was counter to evolution. Though, in the case of the nature article you linked, that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

Neither said it was a 2% difference, the Chimpanzee genome paper said this:

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)
​

Talk Origins greatly distorted the divergence:

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)​

That's never going to come out 2%:

∼32 Mb of human-specific sequence and
∼35 Mb of chimpanzee-specific sequence

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​

If it is only talk origins, then there is no dilemma, as talk origins isn't your published research. Its just a website like any other that sources information, much like wikipedia.

They directly contradict and grossly misrepresent the research paper, that's the point.

If you had a conflict between two research papers, it could be significant, if the conclusions of at least one of the two documents, was counter to evolution. Though, in the case of the nature article you linked, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I never said there was a contradiction in the research papers, that has nothing to do with it. They equivocate the percentage of divergence, which is measured in base pairs with the number of events, which is bogus. So do the math, what is 1.23% plus 3% because 2% is a wrong answer.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

Bad math, 3 plus 1.23 isn't 2.

This doesnt answer the question.

The answer is that Talk Origins saying 2% is clearly and obviously wrong, just doing the basic math. The research paper says 4.23%. This isn't difficult to understand, the level of divergence is described in no uncertain terms in Nature and grossly distorted in Talk Origins. When asked this question Darwinians invariably go silent, because if they don't they have to deal with an impossible number of mutations, some over a million base pairs long. That's not a formula for adaptive evolution, it's a formula for extinction.

 

[Job 33:6]

Regardless of these details, i dont see why any of this matters.

The cream of the crop is going to be the research paper. Again, talk origins is somewhat of a wikipedia equivelant, its a reference to research, but it itself isnt the published work.

When we look at the research paper itself, the research paper doesnt suggest anything like a "formula for extinction" at all.

So the question becomes, why would the research papers comments be a recipe for extinction? Given the nonchalant nature of the research article, this is just an every day research document that doesnt actually challenge the theory of evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a quote straight from the research paper itself

"Our close biological relatedness to chimpanzees not only allows unique insights into human biology, it also creates ethical obligations. Although the genome sequence was acquired without harm to chimpanzees, the availability of the sequence may increase pressure to use chimpanzees in experimentation. We strongly oppose reducing the protection of chimpanzees and instead advocate the policy positions suggested by an accompanying paper152. Furthermore, the existence of chimpanzees and other great apes in their native habitats is increasingly threatened by human civilization. More effective policies are urgently needed to protect them in the wild. We hope that elaborating how few differences separate our species will broaden recognition of our duty to these extraordinary primates that stand as our siblings in the family of life."

You would think that if the research paper were proposing an idea as controversial as "a recipe for extinction", they would find a better way to word their conclusion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Regardless of these details, i dont see why any of this matters.

The cream of the crop is going to be the research paper. Again, talk origins is somewhat of a wikipedia equivelant, its a reference to research, but it itself isnt the published work.

When we look at the research paper itself, the research paper doesnt suggest anything like a "formula for extinction" at all.

So the question becomes, why would the research papers comments be a recipe for extinction? Given the nonchalant nature of the research article, this is just an every day research document that doesn't actually challenge the theory of evolution.

Who said anything about challenging the theory of evolution, what are you talking about. Talk Origins isn't the only Darwinian propaganda mill ignoring the indels. I've seen it in Time, Scientific American, and even the Nature Web Focus article announcing the publication.

Both the total number of candidate human insertions/chimpanzee deletions (blue) and the number of bases altered (red) are shown.(Figure 6)​

Notice the bar graph at the right title 100+, that's a million base pairs. This is a serious problem for Chimpanzee Human common ancestry given the effects of mutations, especially if they are a million base pairs. These are deletions from 15,000 base pairs to upwards of 3 million base pairs. If you don't understand what the problem here is I suggest you need to educate yourself as to the effects of mutations on protein coding and regulatory genes:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations. Kimbal Biology Pages)
​

Especially with regards to Indels and Frameshift mutations:

Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels. involving one or two base pairs (or multiples of two) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless.

(Mutations. Kimbal Biology Pages)​

Such large mutations would include vast numbers of vitally important coding and regulatory genes. Mutations simply don't happen on this scale for that reason.

No process is 100% accurate. Even the most highly skilled typist will introduce errors when copying a manuscript. So it is with DNA replication. Like a conscientious typist, the cell does proofread the accuracy of its copy. But, even so, errors slip through. It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 10^7) nucleotides added to the chain. (Mutations. Kimbal Biology Pages)
​

That's happening in humans and mammals about one in fifty million nucleotides. The reason for this is that the genome has repair mechanisms, from the S phase of the cell cycle to chromosome repair mechanisms like this one.

(DNA repair)

That's why Talk Origins and Darwinians at large never address this obvious problem with Chimpanzee Human common ancestry. They just ignore the indels and pretend the problem doesn't exist.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here is a quote straight from the research paper itself

"Our close biological relatedness to chimpanzees not only allows unique insights into human biology, it also creates ethical obligations. Although the genome sequence was acquired without harm to chimpanzees, the availability of the sequence may increase pressure to use chimpanzees in experimentation. We strongly oppose reducing the protection of chimpanzees and instead advocate the policy positions suggested by an accompanying paper152. Furthermore, the existence of chimpanzees and other great apes in their native habitats is increasingly threatened by human civilization. More effective policies are urgently needed to protect them in the wild. We hope that elaborating how few differences separate our species will broaden recognition of our duty to these extraordinary primates that stand as our siblings in the family of life."

You would think that if the research paper were proposing an idea as controversial as "a recipe for extinction", they would find a better way to word their conclusion.

Our ethical obligations to Chimpanzees is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. The paper simply characterizes the length and nature of the differences in the two respective genomes.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

What? Talk Origins is an online rag.
Even if you think Peer Review is a bad process for screening publications
Talk Origins does not even have that.

Definition II 7a in the OED says rag is colloquial for:
A newspaper or magazine, esp. one regarded as inferior or worthless.
It is often used to refer to tabloid newspapers, which some see as a lower form of journalism.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

God is very big. Even bigger than DNA. Even bigger than the ignorance-based
idea of "random". Talk Origins is barely better than over-the-fence gossip.

 

[Job 33:6]

Our ethical obligations to Chimpanzees is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. The paper simply characterizes the length and nature of the differences in the two respective genomes.

Thats the whole point. Youre trying to critique something sourcing a research article that is irrelevant to your position.

If you wanted to argue in favor of a "recipe for extinction", thats what you should be citing or discussing. You shouldnt be taking a random article about ethics toward chimps, trying to turn it into an article about doomsday.

hahaha, pretty funny...

 

[Archie Dupont]

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.

In my opinion, 95% indicates a very big similarity. What authority decides that only at 98% a relation exists and not 95%?

 

[mark kennedy]

Thats the whole point. Youre trying to critique something sourcing a research article that is irrelevant to your position.

If you wanted to argue in favor of a "recipe for extinction", thats what you should be citing or discussing. You shouldnt be taking a random article about ethics toward chimps, trying to turn it into an article about doomsday.

hahaha, pretty funny...

That is absurd, you think the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome is irrelevant to the divergence between the chimpanzee and human genome. You brought up the ethics responsibility statement which you know admit was irrelevant, then dismissing this landmark genomic comparison as irrelevant. This is typical of Darwinian fallacious rhetoric, that is the silence that always results from the problems of indels being ignored.

 

[mark kennedy]

In my opinion, 95% indicates a very big similarity. What authority decides that only at 98% a relation exists and not 95%?

There is nothing authoritative that indicates 98%. What is more the size and number of the requisite mutations makes chimpanzee human common ancestry unlikely, if not impossible.

 

[mark kennedy]

What? Talk Origins is an online rag.
Even if you think Peer Review is a bad process for screening publications
Talk Origins does not even have that.

Definition II 7a in the OED says rag is colloquial for:
A newspaper or magazine, esp. one regarded as inferior or worthless.
It is often used to refer to tabloid newspapers, which some see as a lower form of journalism.

Talk Origins is a propaganda tool for Darwinians who made a statement that is impossible to reconcile to the facts. You might have no problem with a deletion of 3 million base pairs but the respective genomes would. Such mutations on this scale would be deleterious at best and we have every reason to believe they would be lethal on an epic scale. That's why the response is effectively silence.

 

[Archie Dupont]

There is nothing authoritative that indicates 98%. What is more the size and number of the requisite mutations makes chimpanzee human common ancestry unlikely, if not impossible.

So if it was 98% it is possible to have a common ancestor? So if I can name two species that have 98% similarity, you would admit right here and now evolution is a real thing?

Because that is exactly the conundrum you get yourself in my friend. You might prove one experiment false, but in that you would agree with the method..

 

[mark kennedy]

So if it was 98% it is possible to have a common ancestor? So if I can name two species that have 98% similarity, you would admit right here and now evolution is a real thing?

I never denied that evolution is a real phenomenon in nature, I never suggested anything of the sort. The point here is that we are not 98% the same in our DNA and the 90 million base pairs thought to have resulted from indels is impossible to reconcile to Mendelian genetics. The effects would have been devastating, not adaptive on an evolutionary scale.

Because that is exactly the conundrum you get yourself in my friend. You might prove one experiment false, but in that you would agree with the method..

There is no conundrum, this isn't about an experiment and there is nothing wrong with the methodology. Your response to the indels as representing 3% of the divergence, their length, size and deleterious effect of such mutations is silence.

 

[Archie Dupont]

I never denied that evolution is a real phenomenon in nature, I never suggested anything of the sort. The point here is that we are not 98% the same in our DNA and the 90 million base pairs thought to have resulted from indels is impossible to reconcile to Mendelian genetics. The effects would have been devastating, not adaptive on an evolutionary scale.


There is no conundrum, this isn't about an experiment and there is nothing wrong with the methodology. Your response to the indels as representing 3% of the divergence, their length, size and deleterious effect of such mutations is silence.

"Your response"..? I am not an atheist nor am I debating you over the math you present and I am definitely not silent.
Speaking of: you don't have problem with evolution? If evolution is not the problem and you consider it plausible, I don't get why you would be so worried about humans and apes being related.