createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
gradyll,
Do you understand that this table in no way indicates that humans and cats share more DNA than humans and chimps?
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
That is not a base to base comparison of the genomes. That is more of a testament to the completeness and accuracy of the databases for both the human and chimp genomes.
You can call reality la la land all you like. Scripture describes some creatures, and they have traits. Obviously you are in deep denial, and are incapable of considering how the DNA sequences have a created origin basis.Dude, you were just talking about mythical man/beast chimeras. I'll take evidence of the real world over LaLa Land any day of the week.
That depends where you want to use it. One might find some pattern in the gene sequences of the bird and calf, and lion, and man..etc.And yet you can't offer us a scrap of evidence showing that such an approach produces useable results.
No. They never do in any way actually, beyond the present state. Nothing to do with your claim of being related to a potato! Nothing whatsoever. Any evolving we use is the God created gift we have, that exists as we know it here and now.Geneticists do use the theory of evolution, and they can demonstrate that it works.
Predicts?? Example?The theory of evolution accurately predicts what we see in the field of biology. Creationism does not.
Please learn how cladistics and evolution works.
I take that back about being corrected, the database has singular gene comparison, not all homologous genes similiar to other species. For instance the resources I had showed what percentage of all homologous genes that were similiar to cats and rats, cats and dogs, cats and humans etc.
how would your engine show such results. Because what I was comparing was the 95% approx chimp to human studies that were in question not indicating usage of sequencing of genes, in which it is lowered to 70% in some cases.
This would be lower than say the above Cat and dog comparisions at 81%.
You would have to prove a human chimp comparison of all homologous genes simulataneously.
Which even your engine at homolog doesn't do, as far as my knowledge of it is concerned.
So you use an imagined unproven past state, and imaginary common ancestors to make a tree, rather than the actual tree which is the creator. We get it.
That depends where you want to use it. One might find some pattern in the gene sequences of the bird and calf, and lion, and man..etc.
No. They never do in any way actually, beyond the present state. Nothing to do with your claim of being related to a potato! Nothing whatsoever. Any evolving we use is the God created gift we have, that exists as we know it here and now.
Predicts?? Example?
We have found a pattern, and it is the nested hierarchy predicted by common ancestry and evolution. That is why the theory is accepted, because it makes accurate and useful predictions.
You can't explain why we see this pattern.
Your head is planted deep in the sand.
that all works if your theory were observed . . .
to coin them after the fact and in order to make some resemblance of a science prediction is false.
semantics does not remove you from the responsibility of observation prior to said theory. Lets falsify this: a theory must be proven to be unobserved prior to theorization. Thats obsurd.Theories are not observed. How many times do we need to go over this?
Darwin predicted a nested hierarchy from the very start. In his notebooks, you can find the moment that the theory started to click in his brain. Here is what he wrote:
That branching structure is a clade. It formed the foundation for the theory, and it remains the fundamental prediction for the theory.[/
semantics does not remove you from the responsibility of observation prior to said theory.
darwin also said that if we could find an organ that:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
348 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
the specified complexity was provided in peer review form, in which you refused to aknowledge it's peer review twice in this thread.
Prove that the list is complete, especially given that the cat genome has less than 80% coverage.
Also, a cat and human homolog can be 90% similar while a chimp and human homology can be 99% similar. Being homologous does not mean that they are 100% identical, and the table you reference is an incomplete list.
The 95% is for the whole genome, including junk DNA and indels. What I was showing you was a comparison of a single gene between many species. It shows just what we expect to see, with near 100% identity between humans and chimps and much less between other species, with the differences increasing with relatedness. Exactly what we would expect to see with evolution, and something you can't explain.
Also, having 70% identity for a small number of genes does not negate the 99% for all genes, nor does it negate the 95% for the whole genome.
You are comparing apples and oranges. This is no different than saying that a bowling ball weighs less at 7 kg than a feather does at 100 mg because 7 is less than 100.
That is what I already showed you.
"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
The median number of mutations per gene is 5. I would estimate the average human gene to be 1,500 to 2,000 base pairs for a processed mRNA. You do the math.
Just looking at one example shows how wrong you are.
anyway one way you can prove me wrong, is to use a complete list yourself.
namely to use the database you found, and get the percentage rates of similiarity between chimp and human (homologous). And note that homologous doesn't mean the genes are identical. Do this for all homologous genes, and then add the percentages and divide by the number of genes.
Either you are unwilling to,
or are unable to,
do this and thus your argument fails utterly on it's face.
Besides, all the studies you use are incomplete. they don't measure the dissimularities.
in other words the gene sequences are more often then not, dissimiliar.
and your studies 100% all of them, refuse to acknowledge the importance of sequence and disspell them outright.
"why is sequence not important?"
It is your claim that the cat genome is closer to humans than chimps are. YOU SUPPORT IT.
That was already done in the chimp genome paper.
"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
Nearly 1/3 are 100% identical at the amino acid level while the number of total mutations is 5 per gene.
Says the person who has been utterly incapable of showing that cat sequence is more like human DNA than chimp DNA.
"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the 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, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
I have shown you that quote multiple times now.
And when they are dissimilar, they are dissimilar by 1% or less, on average, between human and chimp genes.
You couldn't be farther from the truth.
My argument is that sequence is very important, and you are ignoring it. You are ignoring the nested hierarchy of both similarities AND DIFFERENCES. You are completely misrepresenting tables from papers, such as table 1 from the cat genome paper. You refuse to acknolwedge the observed differences between the human and chimp genomes, even though I have quoted it several times now.
I can't help it if you ignore reality.
Why is it that we always have to do your homework for you.
nested hierarchy is a pre-biased term that begs the question as it tries to prove the existance of something else.
That would be like me saying you reject creation and therefore are false. Well creation implies that it was created by a creator, and in a biblical way most of the time. So yeah you would naturally reject it and the Bible (as an athiest)
I didn't think you would want to prove me wrong, and it stands as so.
darwins tree of life proven wrong:
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
New Scientist says Darwin was wrong Pharyngula
It has not been proven wrong for the complex life that Darwin worked with and was describing.
but the while vasic premise fails.
secindly darwins other premises fail when specified complexity.
No, it doesn't. Complex life still falls into the nested hierarchy that Darwin predicted.
No, they don't. All we have is the unsupported claim that specified complexity can not evolve. Until it is supported, you have no case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?