How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?

[gray wolf]

How then can you be spiritual. Do you believe in the soul?

[jerryR34]

 

There is a difference between understanding evolution and believing in it.  I'm saying if one is aguing against evolution, one should understand the science behind it.  Knowing how science says we share 98% of our genome with chimps is not saying that evolution is true, but it does say that you've made an informed decision.

So are you saying in your profile description that you don't believe in god or evolution, because if you are saying that you don,t believe in god then i am righ with you on that one.

 

the nonbeliever moniker was assigned to me by the admins.

[jerryR34]

Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution. It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge.

agree 100%

[Guest shiloh357]

 

"How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?"  I've asked this question several times to YEC proponents and have not gotten the right answer.  I believe, if you are going to debate science, you should understand the current consensus even if you do not believe it, otherwise how can you disprove it.  Most here do not believe we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, but do not understand what evolution actually states.  So, anyone have the answer?

Actually scientists do know that we humans share a common ancestor with chimps.

Know, they don't.  They know no such thing.   It is an assumption, not something they know.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings jerryR34,

              I don't believe we have met yet so "hi"',I am  Kwik & a better late than never"Welcome to Worthy"! I understand that you wish to "gauge" the knowledge of evolution from the folks here.............may I ask ,"why"? For what purpose & intention would this have for you? I realize you said that you often see straw men put up & torn down by those that do not fully grasp this "theory" but still I wonder what difference does it make to you,is it because you wish to debate & defend the theory ?

             So ,if you don't mind me asking.............what did you hope to achieve,gain,learn or dispute by coming to this Christian Forum?

                                                                                                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Enoch2021]

The OP is Non-Sequitur on steroids...but needs to be dealt with along with some other Non-Sequitur posts LOL

 

 

Well the first "99% Similar" fiasco came about by "reassociation kinetics" and extrapolations thereof.  This was the initial technique.... and has many flaws including throwing out data.

It was put forward Allen-Wilson and Mary-Claire King in 1975, Right after "Jive Talkin" from the Bee Gee's was released.

Cohen, J., Relative differences: the myth of 1%, Science 316:1836, 29 June 2007

 

The 97% fiasco (Still no 98%) was conjured from DNA Hybridization in the 80's along with "Walk Like an Egyptian" from the Bangles.

Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99–121).

 

DNA Hybridization is somewhat arbitrary and clunky.

Sarich et al; Cladistics 5:3–32, 1989.

 

 

Now for the meat......

 

“For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."
Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007.

 

Down to 77% right quick!!

 

And, Bear in mind....Even if humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross. And because ALL DNA contains the same 4 DNA bases any 2 Random comparisons of equal length will be pretty close LOL. 

 

Comparing and measuring base Pair Alignments in DNA is Tantamount to Measuring Lake Erie with a Straight Edge    You miss 99% of the Polyfunctional or 3 Dimensional Interactions of DNA.

 

Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)

 

The proven stability of the Y-chromosome compared to the rest of the human genome, combined with the large differences between human and chimp, is an insurmountable enigma for the human–chimp common ancestry paradigm.

 

“ … 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”

Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463: p. 538, 2010.

 

     :24:

 

 

You also need to review "Haldane's Dilemma".  For the final nail in this Chimp Fiasco Coffin.

 

We also share 50% of our DNA with Bananas.  Tobacco and Humans have 46 Chromosomes....are you saying that your great great great (Ad Infinitum) Grandfather was Hommo-Tobacco??

 

Just because the Lug Nuts from a Jeep fit on a Chevy doesn't mean they both "evolved" from a Tin Can 3 Billion Years ago Jerry.

 

[Enoch2021]

How then can you be spiritual. Do you believe in the soul?

 

 

You have to be a Immaterial Materialist, Obviously.

[Enoch2021]

Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution. It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge.

 

==============================================================================================

 

 

Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution.

 

An equivalent statement would be....many people rely on NBC rather than CBS for their daily news.  And??.........What's your point?

 

It's also an Ad Hominem (Fallacy) complete with Poisoning The Well (Fallacy).  The most disturbing aspect of this is.... I had already, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, spoke to you about this very issue....but, the paradigm must be upheld I guess.

 

 

It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge.

 

Take a Primer Course in What?? :  ..... 

 

1.  How to maintain "a priori" adherence's to fairytales in the face of common sense?

 

2.  How to delete or cover up data that opposes your Pre-Arranged outcomes?

 

3.  How to equivocate "Micro" and "Macro" evolution to to pathetically feign credibility with the former without explaining the latter?

 

4. How to assimilate AD-HOC Observations into the Paradigm without anyone noticing?

 

Some others?  I could go on for days....but there's other low-hanging fruit on the thread that needs to be dealt with.

[Enoch2021]

 

Actually scientists do know that we humans share a common ancestor with chimps. The theory of evolution dictates that through the process of natural selection we have slowly mutated from single celled organisms to where we are today. Evolution is not a direct process. Think  of evolution as more of a huge family tree than a direct linear line of your immediate family members. A mutation is a deformity. We can see these in people today. Most of the time these mutations are non beneficial, but sometimes depending on the creatures environment the mutation may help he creature with survival. This creature with the "superior genes" will be most likely to reproduce an pass  on it's genetic code. This process has slowly gone on on our plane for billions of years. Only in the past few million years have Chimps and other animals appeared on the earth. We humans back a long time ago had a common ancestor. Going back to the family tree analogy you could think of a chimp as humanity's distant cousin. We did not only come from apes though. We have many other ancestors. Depending on how far you look back in the timeline of life on earth. If you go back about 3.7 billion years ago you may find the first living organisms. All living means is a reproducing molecule so it wouldn't be anything extravagant but it would be enough.  On the other hand if you look at life today you see how diverse and beautifully complex life on earth is. We Are a result of that one reproducing molicule.

 

 

 

==========================================================================================

 

 

This whole post is one Unmitigated Train Wreck filled with NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.  It's....like a bedtime story.  I'll just take a few, can't be here all day:

 

Actually scientists do know that we humans share a common ancestor with chimps.

 

Really??  How so?  Can you show me ONE experiment that PROVES this?

 

The theory of evolution dictates that through the process of natural selection we have slowly mutated from single celled organisms to where we are today.

 

Have you heard the phrase: Baseless Presuppositional Nonsense before?

 

How did you get that FIRST Single Cell?

 

Define Natural Selection and explain in a Pre-Biologic context?

 

MUTATED??  :24:

 

Mutations are basically spelling errors in the Cell's Instruction Manual.  Can you tell me how you are going to get Feathers from Scales or a Flipper from a Leg with spelling errors.  Is it like misspelling Random Words in War and Peace and the Final Product is the Declaration of Independence?

 

Can you show a Beneficial Mutation?

 

And, If Mutations are Sooooo Beneficial and help us evolve.....why didn't Dick Dawkins and hoards of evolutionists hold Candle Light Vigils outside Chernobyl and Fukushima??

 

 

A mutation is a deformity. We can see these in people today. Most of the time these mutations are non beneficial, but sometimes depending on the creatures environment the mutation may help he creature with survival.

 

If most are a DEFORMITY...then how did that Single Cell survive in your above thesis?

 

Pierre Grasse  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

'This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.'  

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

'This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.'  

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

'The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.' 

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

This process has slowly gone on on our plane for billions of years.

 

Ahh yes, the Hero of The Plot.....Billions of Years.  Can you prove the Billions of Years.....Scientifically Speaking?  Give Scientific Evidence Please.

 

 

Only in the past few million years have Chimps and other animals appeared on the earth.

 

Did you just make this up?  First....Prove Scientifically "Millions of Years"??

 

“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”

Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

 

"All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted into a small box."  

Henry Gee PhD (Senior Editor, Nature) In Search of Deep Time  (2001)  p.202

 

 

Going back to the family tree analogy

 

 

Ahh yes, the tree.....if we could only imagine, eh?  This is Cladistics Nonsense where you arbitrarily place Similar and Non-Similar "Pheno" and "Geno"- Typical  ( )  organisms on a "Tree Diagram" and offer this as proof of something :24:

 

“As the theory of cladistics has developed, it has been realized that more and more of the evolutionary framework is inessential, and may be dropped. The chief symptom of this change is the significance attached to nodes in cladistics. In Hennig’s book, as in all early works in cladistics, the nodes are taken to represent ancestral species. This assumption has been found to be unnecessary, even misleading, and may be dropped.”

Patterson, C., Cladistics, The Biologist 27:234–240, 1980.

 

“But doesn’t the fact that organisms lend themselves to being arranged in nested hierarchies of polarized traits (that is, cladograms) itself prove that they evolved that way (or at all)? Hardly. Assuming evolution a priori, one could construct a cladogram that has an 18-wheel truck as its crown group, and which shows a clearly transition-filled, incremental appearance of ‘truckness’, beginning with the stem-group unicycle. Note also that the human, elephant, and bat is each highly-derived fish, just as an 18-wheel truck is a highly-derived unicycle. Such is the reductio ad absurdum of cladistic methodology.”

Woodmorappe, J,.Evolutionary cladograms and malevolent, strawman creationists: a review of Evolution: what fossils say and why it matters.  Donald R. Prothero, J, Creation23(3):39-43, 2009

 

 

If you go back about 3.7 billion years ago you may find the first living organisms

 

Really?  Can you explain this then.....

 

The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen Helium Ratio:

 

Basically if the the Sun is 4.5 Billion years old it ought to have brightened 40%.  In other words, the Sun is 40% Brighter today than when it formed.

When the first life "allegedly" appeared (3.5 Billion Years) it would have been @ 25%.

 

The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!!  This is no small issue because once ICED the Feedback Loop say's ALWAYS ICED!

 

and....

 

Geologists/evolutionists say that the Temp over that time has remained pretty much the same.  Can you say CONUNDRUM?

 

 

All living means is a reproducing molecule so it wouldn't be anything extravagant but it would be enough.

 

LOL LOL.

 

Can you show ONE DNA/RNA/ "Functional Protein" Spontaneously forming and can you please explain in a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) context?

 

One reproducing molecule would be enough to give you this.....

 

 

 

The AMAZING KINESIN........and Yes, it's walking 

 

 

Also Professor can you explain this Conundrum.....

 

 

"Functional Proteins" are the Quintessential Essence of Life........ you not only need the right Amino Acids they have to be in Precise Order (most biological proteins are between 250-400 acids in length) and to be "FUNCTIONAL" they have to be folded into their proper 3 Dimensional Structure or...you get a Football Bat.

 

What folds Proteins in Cells to get that 3 Dimensional Structure?....Chaperonins.  What are Chaperonins.....Proteins.

 

Question:  What folded the first Proteins without Pre-Existing Chaperonins?  Is it like the Space Shuttle giving Birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

 

 

Take your time....I'll be here for a while 

[jerryR34]

Blessings jerryR34,

              I don't believe we have met yet so "hi"',I am  Kwik & a better late than never"Welcome to Worthy"! I understand that you wish to "gauge" the knowledge of evolution from the folks here.............may I ask ,"why"? For what purpose & intention would this have for you? I realize you said that you often see straw men put up & torn down by those that do not fully grasp this "theory" but still I wonder what difference does it make to you,is it because you wish to debate & defend the theory ?

             So ,if you don't mind me asking.............what did you hope to achieve,gain,learn or dispute by coming to this Christian Forum?

                                                                                                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

My point?  I asked a simple science question.  Could have been answered in about 3 words, but since some feel some perceived threat from this science, we get bombastic posts like this:

 

The OP is Non-Sequitur on steroids...but needs to be dealt with along with some other Non-Sequitur posts LOL

 

 

Well the first "99% Similar" fiasco came about by "reassociation kinetics" and extrapolations thereof.  This was the initial technique.... and has many flaws including throwing out data.

It was put forward Allen-Wilson and Mary-Claire King in 1975, Right after "Jive Talkin" from the Bee Gee's was released.

Cohen, J., Relative differences: the myth of 1%, Science 316:1836, 29 June 2007

 

The 97% fiasco (Still no 98%) was conjured from DNA Hybridization in the 80's along with "Walk Like an Egyptian" from the Bangles.

Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99–121).

 

DNA Hybridization is somewhat arbitrary and clunky.

Sarich et al; Cladistics 5:3–32, 1989.

 

 

Now for the meat......

 

“For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007.

 

Down to 77% right quick!!

 

And, Bear in mind....Even if humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross. And because ALL DNA contains the same 4 DNA bases any 2 Random comparisons of equal length will be pretty close LOL. 

 

Comparing and measuring base Pair Alignments in DNA is Tantamount to Measuring Lake Erie with a Straight Edge    You miss 99% of the Polyfunctional or 3 Dimensional Interactions of DNA.

 

Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)

 

The proven stability of the Y-chromosome compared to the rest of the human genome, combined with the large differences between human and chimp, is an insurmountable enigma for the human–chimp common ancestry paradigm.

 

“ … 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”

Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463: p. 538, 2010.

 

     :24:

 

 

You also need to review "Haldane's Dilemma".  For the final nail in this Chimp Fiasco Coffin.

 

We also share 50% of our DNA with Bananas.  Tobacco and Humans have 46 Chromosomes....are you saying that your great great great (Ad Infinitum) Grandfather was Hommo-Tobacco??

 

Just because the Lug Nuts from a Jeep fit on a Chevy doesn't mean they both "evolved" from a Tin Can 3 Billion Years ago Jerry.

This is only necessary if science threatens your faith.