Are We Really 98% Chimp?

[Ogner]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Doesn't matter. For example, humans and other apes have different numbers of chromosomes. But one human chromosome matches precisely with two chromosomes found on other apes, right down to the remains of telomers precisely where the fusion occurred. I mentioned the vitamin C gene in all apes which is broken, but most similarly broken among apes with all other mammals in an outgroup.

And of course, we can check the idea that genetic similarity indicates common descent by testing it on organisms of known descent. Always works.

One highly-conserved molecule in all living things is cytochrome C. Nevertheless, there are small differences in the molecule among living things which occurred by mutation in parts of the molecule that did not adversely affect its activity. Not surprisingly, the phylogeny obtained by the number of amino acid differences nicely matches evolutionary phylogenies obtained by other evidence.

 

Turns out, genetics confirms Darwin's predictions very well.

 

I understand your arguments, but they don’t convince me that genetics confirms evolution. You point to chromosome fusion, the "broken" vitamin C gene, and similarities in the cytochrome C molecule as evidence of common descent. But I see it differently. The fact that one human chromosome matches two chromosomes in apes could be part of a designed system—similarity doesn’t necessarily mean humans evolved from apes; it could be a shared "template" across different creations. The vitamin C gene, which you call "broken," might have another purpose we don’t yet understand—science often discovers functions for things once thought useless. As for cytochrome C, its similarity across all living things with small differences could be a sign of a unified design, not evolution—like an artist using similar colors for different paintings, but the paintings themselves are distinct. You say tests on organisms with known descent confirm evolution, but I believe DNA similarity is better explained by intelligent design, where the 13–19% difference between humans and chimps shows we were created distinct from the start, not evolved from a common ancestor.

[Ogner]

1 hour ago, timf said:

How would one differentiate between assuming that commonalities prove descent as opposed to commonalities proving a single designer?

The similarity in DNA may point to a single Creator, but the 13–19% gap makes evolution mathematically impossible. Even the knowledge we have about DNA supports intelligent design, while there’s not enough evidence to prove evolution. We understand only 2% of sequenced genes, but we don’t know the language of DNA, meaning we don’t grasp its "words" or the meaning of its "story." The very fact that genes have been sequenced already suggests intelligent design. It’s like a book in an unknown language: you don’t understand the text, but you see it’s not a random jumble of letters—it’s an ordered set of words. It’s logical to conclude the book has an author. At this level, it’s clear that God wrote the genetic code like a programmer writes programs—each one separately, not one "evolving" into another. While a programmer might reuse old code for a new program, the 13–19% difference shows that humans and monkeys are two independent "programs" created by the same Creator.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

I understand your arguments, but they don’t convince me that genetics confirms evolution.

Observed evolution confirms evolution.    Genetics confirms common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.

2 hours ago, Ogner said:

The fact that one human chromosome matches two chromosomes in apes could be part of a designed system—

Which brings up the question why there would be two sets of broken telomeres right where the fusion would have happened.    No, that just isn't a plausible doctrine.

2 hours ago, Ogner said:

The vitamin C gene, which you call "broken," might have another purpose we don’t yet understand—science often discovers functions for things once thought useless.

It's idenfiable as the same gene that actually works in other animals.    It is true that such broken genes are often evolved to form new genes or to regulatory functions.   But so far, the GULO gene has not done that.

2 hours ago, Ogner said:

As for cytochrome C, its similarity across all living things with small differences could be a sign of a unified design, not evolution

If so, it's hard to see how see how animals of widely diverse "design" have more similar cytochrome C than others with more similar "design."    And seeing as we can check genetic similarity with organisms of known ancestry, the fact that such differences always sort out by ancestry pretty much settles the question.

2 hours ago, Ogner said:

You say tests on organisms with known descent confirm evolution, but I believe DNA similarity is better explained by intelligent design,

It comes down to evidence.   And evidence confirms common descent.   Evolution, being directly observed, is not at issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, timf said:

How would one differentiate between assuming that commonalities prove descent as opposed to commonalities proving a single designer?

We could find organisms of known descent and see if they showed genetic commonalities to the exclusion of other organisms.    It's been done.   And genes did indeed indicate common descent.

3 hours ago, Ogner said:

 I believe my analogy holds,

I showed you the math.   And there would have been over a thousand times more mutations than needed to account for the differences between humans and chimpanzees:

Most of us have about 60 mutations found in neither of our parents.    

https://www.livescience.com/33347-mutants-average-human-60-genetic-mutations.html

So let's suppose a population of 100,000 individuals.   That would be about 6,000,000 mutations per generation.    Let's say a generation time of 25 years.    Over 3,000,000 years, (approx time since diversion of chimps and humans) then 120,000 generations.   So about 720 billion mutations, about 1200 times the needed number to match today.   Of course natural selection would trim out any that turned out to be actually harmful.    Most,as you probably know, don't affect survival measurably.   Your math is at fault now.   And of course, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't merely random.   

[Who me]

A comparison and evaluation of the reports of drawers analysis  shows that at most there is only 33% similarity between humans and chimps.

See:-https://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-literature

[Ogner]

59 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

We could find organisms of known descent and see if they showed genetic commonalities to the exclusion of other organisms.    It's been done.   And genes did indeed indicate common descent.

I showed you the math.   And there would have been over a thousand times more mutations than needed to account for the differences between humans and chimpanzees:

Most of us have about 60 mutations found in neither of our parents.    

https://www.livescience.com/33347-mutants-average-human-60-genetic-mutations.html

So let's suppose a population of 100,000 individuals.   That would be about 6,000,000 mutations per generation.    Let's say a generation time of 25 years.    Over 3,000,000 years, (approx time since diversion of chimps and humans) then 120,000 generations.   So about 720 billion mutations, about 1200 times the needed number to match today.   Of course natural selection would trim out any that turned out to be actually harmful.    Most,as you probably know, don't affect survival measurably.   Your math is at fault now.   And of course, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't merely random.   

 I appreciate your calculations, but they don’t refute my analogy. You calculated that over 3 million years, there could be 720 billion mutations, which is 1200 times more than needed for the 400–600 million differences between human and chimp DNA. But your calculations are overly simplistic. You assume all mutations are unique and accumulate linearly, which isn’t the case. Many mutations overlap or cancel each other out, and most don’t get fixed in the population due to natural selection and genetic drift. Plus, you’re not accounting for the fact that the 13–19% difference includes not just point mutations but also insertions, deletions, and chromosomal rearrangements, which take far longer to fix.
My analogy with the Bible still holds: a 13–19% difference is like removing all four Gospels or even the entire New Testament. It’s not just about the number of letters—it’s about the meaning. Even if there are "enough" mutations in quantity, that doesn’t mean they automatically create the right changes in the "meaning" of DNA—its biological functions. We still don’t understand the "language" of DNA, as I said: we know the "syntax" (nucleotide sequence), but not the "semantics" (regulation) or the "plot" (functions). So, counting mutations alone is like counting letters in the Bible without understanding its text.
 

[Retrobyter]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In the case of humans and chimps, almost everything already existed long before humans and chimps diverged.    The Krebs Cycle. for example,  is remarkably constant for all living things on Earth.   

Evolutionary lineages are indicated by homologies, not analogies.     Hence humerus, ulna, radius etc. for mammals showing common descent, rather than wings legs or fins, which exist in various analogous forms.   Think whales, bats, horses, humans for homology, and bats, birds, dragonflies, and flying fish for analogy.    Homology indicates common descent; analogy does not.

Shalom, @The Barbarian.

OR, the Krebs Cycle and what APPEAR to be "evolutionary lineages" are simply a COMMON DESIGN used by the Creator.

I'm a computer programmer, and programming itself has "evolved," since the 1980s (when I started). At first, it was 1's and 0's and programming in machine code.

Then, programmers, seeing patterns to what they consistently entered, developed early computer languages, such as ForTran, BASIC, and COBOL.

Later as programs became longer and computers got faster and new peripherals were invented or enhanced, more languages were developed, such as Pascal, RPG, and C.

C itself was modified several times as it grew. C became C+, then C++ and Java, then C#, each adding new characteristics to the programming language based upon LIBRARIES of code! As each new nuance to the language was added, such as functions, classes, and objects, the libraries were expanded, always to make the programming more readily accessible to the programmer in compact units.

Today, "kids" (young adults: teens and tweens) are learning Python, but I'm sure that there are even more sophisticated programming languages used by others, especially if they are proprietary systems.

One might see this as a form of evolutionary development; however, the LIBRARIES and initial coding HAS NOT CHANGED since its first development, because computers still use binary: "on" and "off," "0's" and "1's."

DNA is code, and it is the most sophisticated code we've seen to date! It controls the systems and "peripherals" we have in our various bodies. However, the basic code first developed has not changed. Plants use the Krebs Cycle, too, especially at night, when photosythesis "sleeps."

The fact that there are many chromosomes and code sections that are seen in other plants and animals doesn't "prove" that they are RELATED! It's just part of God's LIBRARY of reusable code that do the things that God wanted to happen in each new "kind" or "family/genus/species" that He created. Why "improve upon perfection?" Change was only necessary for the organisms to ADAPT ("evolve") to various environments..

According to the written record, He made ALL land-dwelling animals and mankind, male and female, on a single day of Creation:

Genesis 1:24-31 (KJV)

24 And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind":

and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. 26 And God said,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion  over (Hebrew: וְיִרְדּוּ = "vyirdduw" = "and-be-superior-to") the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

29 And God said,

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat":

and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

(The events that are listed in chapter 2 are simply a detailed account of this sixth day.)

Technically, 'וְיִרְדּוּ = "vyirdduw",' which comes from 'רָדָה = "raadaah",' means "to-tread-upon," but this was said before the Curse from Adam's disobedience; so, it was not said as though to cause death or pain in any way, merely "to dominate, to control, and be superior to" the animals, in much the same way as a caretaker in a zoo or animal hospital would be dominant over the animals that are in his or her charge, and the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, created on the FIFTH day, were included within that control.

Furthermore, long periods of time are often ASSUMED without evidence, but when evidence is used, these "long periods of time" are deduced upon erroneous readings from dating methods that are NOT well understood, despite their claims otherwise.

ALL dating methods are susceptible to the same logical restrictions:

1. We DON'T really know how fast the decay rate is or even if that decay rate is truly hyperbolic and/or susceptible to variations in the rate;
2. We don't know how much of the parent element or the child element were present at the time when the rock was made or organism died;
3. We don't know if there was any leaching or contamination of the elements during the time that the decay process was occurring, and
4. NO SUCH LONG TIME PERIOD or the associated decay process has been observed to occur! So, we have an inability to date certain materials, like sedimentary rocks, directly.

See, so much of the secular worldview has been built upon assumption after assumption, that it's like the proverbial "house of cards!" Pull one "card" out, and the whole "house" comes crashing down! (Or, should, if it weren't supported by pure "accepted thought.") Right now, the whole flimsy structure is supported by the sheer NUMBERS of those who ASSUME this theory to be correct, even without a shread of evidence!

 I know that this is simply my view and opinion on the topic; however, it really BOTHERS me that brilliant minds aren't at least QUESTIONING the whole structure of the secular worldview, based upon GOOD evidence that doesn't support the "accepted thought."

[Ogner]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Observed evolution confirms evolution. Genetics confirms common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.

Which brings up the question why there would be two sets of broken telomeres right where the fusion would have happened. Нет, это просто неправдоподобная теория. No, that just isn't a plausible doctrine.

It's idenfiable as the same gene that actually works in other animals. It is true that such broken genes are often evolved to form new genes or to regulatory functions. But so far, the GULO gene has not done that.

If so, it's hard to see how see how animals of widely diverse "design" have more similar cytochrome C than others with more similar "design." And seeing as we can check genetic similarity with organisms of known ancestry, the fact that such differences always sort out by ancestry pretty much settles the question.

It comes down to evidence. And evidence confirms common descent. Evolution, being directly observed, is not at issue.

 

You said scientists see evolution, like when bacteria change, and this confirms common descent. But they only see that "letters" in DNA change, and they call it a mutation, thinking it’s random. I believe it could be programmed by the Creator so living things can adapt. Scientists don’t know the "language" of DNA: they understand only 2% of DNA, and 98% is a mystery. They don’t know the "words" or the "story"—how it all works together. Without that, they can’t prove the changes are random and not part of a program. It’s like seeing letters change in a book but not knowing what the book says because the language is unknown.

You mentioned the chromosome fusion with "broken" telomeres, saying it proves evolution, not design. But it could be part of a system the Creator made—we just don’t understand why it’s like that. You brought up the "broken" vitamin C gene, which doesn’t work in primates, and said it hasn’t gained new functions. But that doesn’t mean it won’t—maybe we haven’t found them because we don’t know the "language." You said cytochrome C confirms evolution because its similarity matches ancestry. But I think it shows the Creator used similar "tools" for different creations, even if they look different.
 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

You said scientists see evolution, like when bacteria change, and this confirms common descent.

No.   Scientists see a change in allele frequencies in populations, and note that this often leads to improved fitness and even speciation.    That's evolution, and it's an observed fact.    Common descent has been confirmed by genetics, by numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record and by a host of other evidence.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

But they only see that "letters" in DNA change, and they call it a mutation, thinking it’s random.

Since quantum events often cause mutations those are indeed irreducibly random.    Natural selection, however, is the antithesis of randomness.   That was Darwin's great discovery.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

I believe it could be programmed by the Creator so living things can adapt.

IDers call it "front loading."    Creation of a universe in which such wonders can evolve.    And as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, God can use contingency just as surely as necessity to effect His will.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

It’s like seeing letters change in a book but not knowing what the book says because the language is unknown.

Since the function of DNA was made clear, we know how it works.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

. Without that, they can’t prove the changes are random and not part of a program.

Quantum events are truly random.   Would you like to learn how we know?   But as St. Tom says, that's not a problem for God.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

You mentioned the chromosome fusion with "broken" telomeres, saying it proves evolution, not design.

No, I'm pointing out that it demonstrates common descent of humans and other apes.   Evolution is easily proven by observation.    It's an observed fact, like gravity.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

But it could be part of a system the Creator made—

It is.  You just don't approve of the way He did it.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

You brought up the "broken" vitamin C gene, which doesn’t work in primates, and said it hasn’t gained new functions. But that doesn’t mean it won’t

Turns out, non-coding DNA is a normal source of new genes via mutation.    They can also evolved by mutation to other functions.

1 hour ago, Ogner said:

But I think it shows the Creator used similar "tools" for different creations, even if they look different.

That wouldn't explain homology.    There's no reason why whales should have the same limb bones we do; it's just that mammals have a basic set of structures that evolve to different uses.     Humans have some really inefficient structures, because we so recently evolved bipedal movement.   So humans have lots of problems with feet, knees, hips,and lower backs. 

One of the important clues for us is the fact that evolutionary processes are more efficient for complex problems than design.    Engineers are even copying evolutionary change to solve some of those problems.    It turns out that God once again knows best.

 

Edited March 27 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

ALL dating methods are susceptible to the same logical restrictions:

1. We DON'T really know how fast the decay rate is or even if that decay rate is truly hyperbolic and/or susceptible to variations in the rate;
2. We don't know how much of the parent element or the child element were present at the time when the rock was made or organism died;
3. We don't know if there was any leaching or contamination of the elements during the time that the decay process was occurring, and
4. NO SUCH LONG TIME PERIOD or the associated decay process has been observed to occur! So, we have an inability to date certain materials, like sedimentary rocks, directly.

1. We know from quantum mechanics how fast decay rates work, and even how thermonuclear level heat can speed them up a small fraction.    Not enough to make a significant change in the timeline, even if dinosaurs were using H-bombs.

2. The use of isochrons can tell us precisely how much original isotope was present.

3.This is true, which is why scientists have to be very careful to check the rocks they are examining; only some minerals are useful for such dating.

4. Sedimentary rocks, by their very nature, can't be accurately dated by radioistope methods.    They can be dated if they lie between two layers of igneous rock, of course.   It's notable that sedimentary deposits have been used to calibrate C-14 dating by testing lake varves which form annual pairs of layers in some lakes.