At last, a proposed answer re 98% human-chimpanzee similarity claim

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 5, 2014

Genetics, Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From this comment (by Gordon Davisson, in response to this post):

In other words, I’m agreeing with Denyse here:

BUT claimed 98% similarity due to a common ancestor (a claim that hundreds of science writers regularly make, in support of common descent) *undermines anything else they have to say on the subject.*

I do not know how to put the matter more simply than this: A person who does not see the problem is not a credible source of information.

He responds:

…just disagreeing about which side is not credible. Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science.

No. Absolutely not.

One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science.

Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands.

In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

JLAfan2001 list some examples which he believes nails the case down for common ancestry. Let's look at the failings of each and see how they fail to support common ancestry: ERVs –
The definitive response on ERV’s and Creation, with Dr. Jean Lightner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feHYEgzaGkY Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEOe2E0Euc Sternberg, R. v. & J. A. Shapiro (2005). How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110: 108-116. Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - 2006 http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract. Retrovirus in the Human Genome Is Active in Pluripotent Stem Cells - Jan. 23, 2013 Excerpt: "What we've observed is that a group of endogenous retroviruses called HERV-H is extremely busy in human embryonic stem cells," said Jeremy Luban, MD, the David L. Freelander Memorial Professor in HIV/AIDS Research, professor of molecular medicine and lead author of the study. "In fact, HERV-H is one of the most abundantly expressed genes in pluripotent stem cells and it isn't found in any other cell types. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133930.htm Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012) Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011 Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case. per Uncommon Descent - there are many studies suggesting non-random and preferential positioning of retrovirus sequences. This kind of data refutes the claims of re-used ERV sites having to be an ‘amazing coincidence’ if not by common descent. Perpetually mobile footprints of ancient infections in human genome http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579398004785 Although not available for HERVs at this point, the results for other retroelements demonstrate that transcriptionally active genome regions might be preferred targets for retrovirus integration and that the site selection during retroposition can be influenced by many factors A good example of retroelement–host interaction gives the study of de novo insertions of Ty1 and Ty3 yeast retrotransposons that are analogues of endogenous retroviruses. Most of the integration sites were found clustered upstream of the genes transcribed by RNA polymerase III. There were identified `hot spots’ containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically. A recent study of the de novo retroviral integration demonstrated also preference for scaffold- or matrix-attachment regions (S/MARs) flanked by DNA with high bending potential. Integration specificity of the hobo element of Drosophila melanogaster is dependent on sequences flanking the integration site http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1003712619487 We analyzed the integration specificity of the hobo transposable element of Drosophila melanogaster. Our results indicate that hobo is similar to other transposable elements in that it can integrate into a large number of sites, but that some sites are preferred over others, with a few sites acting as integration hot spots. Large-scale discovery of insertion hotspots and preferential integration sites of human transposed elements http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/1515.full We first discovered that most TEs insert within specific ‘hotspots’ along the targeted TE… Finally, we performed a global assessment to determine the extent to which young TEs tend to nest within older transposed elements and identified a 4-fold higher tendency of TEs to insert into existing TEs than to insert within non-TE intergenic regions. Our analysis demonstrates that TEs are highly biased to insert within certain TEs, in specific orientations and within specific targeted TE positions. TE nesting events also reveal new characteristics of the molecular mechanisms underlying transposition. Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences - per plos - Chromosomal regions rich in expressed genes were favored for HIV integration, but these regions were found to be interleaved with unfavorable regions at CpG islands. MLV vectors showed a strong bias in favor of integration near transcription start sites, as reported previously. ASLV vectors showed only a weak preference for active genes and no preference for transcription start regions. Thus, each of the three retroviruses studied showed unique integration site preferences, suggesting that virus-specific binding of integration complexes to chromatin features likely guides site selection. ERVs are known to have highly targeted insertion points, even in different species, in separate infections. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv0Qj7mAW10 Integration of retroviral vectors - 2012 per science direct Several members of the retrovirus family show distinct pattern for preferential integration into the host genome.
bornagain77_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

African origins – nope
Recently, discoveries of early human remains in China and Spain have cast doubt on the 'Out of Africa' theory, but no-one was certain. The findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggest that modern man did not originate in Africa as previously believed, but in the Middle East. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341973/Did-humans-come-Middle-East-Africa-Scientists-forced-write-evolution-modern-man.html#ixzz39duInQIJ "From the most recent data, it is now accepted that anthropoids originated in Asia," said Jean-Jacques Jaeger, a paleontologist at France's University of Montpellier, who wrote an accompanying commentary in Science. "But when did they immigrate into Africa?" Jaeger said. "This is still a point of hectic debate." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1017_051017_egyptprimates_2.htmlSilver Asiatic_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

What would convince some at UD that common ancestry is the best explaination for what we observe? ERVs - nope Chromosome Fusion 2 - nope Biogeography - nope DNA similarities - nope Population genetics - nope fossil record - nope Fox Pr gene - nope African origins - nope morphology - nope Embryology - nope Lab experiments - nope What convinces some at UD that creation is the best explaination? Bible - yes That is all.JLAfan2001_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Neandethal & Erectus are Hominids that walked the Earth along with Sapien. All three diverged from "Great Apes" long ago. Not great apes themselves if you "split" instead of "lump" Our nearest cousins went extinct not that long ago. Chimps are cool and all, but understanding our Homo cousins and the nature of their demise is much more important/interesting. I did not see the recent "Rise of Planet of the Apes" movie. How did Hollywood turn Apes into Hominids? Radioactivity? Experiment gone haywire? Evolution?ppolish_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

One of the greatest examples of intuition leading people astray is natural selection. It is so simple and so obvious that it has to be true. We have numerous examples of people here right now on this thread who believe it explains evolution. Nearly everyone in the general public nods their head in agreement when it is explained. The only problem is that it isn't true in the sense that it has never led to anything meaningful. So we have living breathing examples in our midst who have been led astray by their intuition.jerry_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Mr. Frank had a mistaken impression re chimps & humans, true. But all of us make mistakes or have gaps in our knowledge, so I don't see the point in beating up on him. And I think he is correct in observing that our intuitions sometimes lead us astray. If scientific observation contradicts our intuition, that does not necessarily mean our intuition is wrong -- science gets things wrong, too -- but at least we should consider the evidence.anthropic_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

The title of this science-based and really interesting and informative article by the title of 'How Related to Chimps are we Really?' link http://diggingupthefuture.com/2014/08/02/how-related-to-chimps-are-we-really/ I believe says it all. I have read most of the above comments with great interest and people have posted great links and references and ideas about this whole issue, I think this article will help move the discussion on a great deal.cosmicrabbit_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank is just upset because most of his claims atre unscientific nonsense.Joe_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, you were corrected of your fallacious claim in 23 by me at 25.,,, An apology for being wrong in your claim, and a thanks for being corrected, would be the normal response from someone who was genuinely interested in the truth of a matter. Why is it that you don't react normally???bornagain77_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Frank counts on his readers not to know (or notice, especially if they were educated in an entirely unjustified sense of intellectual superiority) one thing: Prior to the development of calculations and instruments over the past half millennium, there was no way of determining the relations between sun and Earth accurately.
My you are getting worked up about this one. Please don’t make assumptions about my motives. I wasn’t counting on anything. I was simply pointing out that this piece of advice
One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims.
is wrong. I happened to refer to the intuition about the Sun going round the earth. In the comment above Gordan made the same point and listed many other examples which demonstrated that intuitions are often wrong. You differentiate the 98% similarity case from my example (and presumably the others) on the grounds:
Not only isn’t it true but no information is likely to arise anywhere that will show that it is true. Because all observation is against it, not for it.
I am sure many people said similar things about numerous other things that were assumed to be intuitively obvious e.g. that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, that a heavy object falls faster than a light object, that if two events happen at the same time that is an objective fact independent of who is observing it and so on. What you are doing is tantamount to repeating “I am right because it is obvious”. As it happens the specific statement you found intuitively obviously false was a very poor candidate. It was not “are chimpanzees are very similar to men” but “the 98% similarity figure” which is a measure of genetic similarity not overall similarity. To say that “no information is likely to arise anywhere that will show that it is true” and “all observation is against it, not for it” is just amazing. Genetics is hard and not at all easy to observe. Mark Frank_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

@AB
Bull mastiffs and Chihuahuas have much greater phenotypic differences than humans and chimps but, genetically, they are essentially identical. But I haven’t heard anybody disputing their genetic similarity. That is only because their genetic similarity does not call into question anyone’s religious beliefs.
You know how species work, right? Your false analogy suggests you don't. How many chimp/human mating-fests end up in viable offspring, Bogart? Though I enjoyed your arrogant ad hominem at the end there, punctuating such a sophomoric argument. It really displays your vainglorious character.TSErik_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Here is a comment I made a couple months ago about the differences between the chimp and human genomes. It is mainly about a review of chimp and human genomes in terms of control mechanisms.
The most interesting thing about the Meyer book was his emphasis in the latter part of the book on this non-genomic control of development. There may be a hunt for structure of the information for this as there was for DNA 60 years ago. And when they find it, the form may be so strange that it will be hard to interpret. When they found DNA they already had primitive digital codes to relate it to. Who knows what the structure will be that controls development and how it varies from species to species. John Garvey has on his site a discussion about what makes human unique. It primarily references a paper by a population geneticist David Wilcox. Here is the Wilcox paper http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/belmont2013/papers/ASA2013Wilcox.pdf One of the things it says is that the regulatory nature in the human genome is extremely more complex than the next species. Here is a quote:
What shall we say about the genes which make us human? We and chimps share 96% to 99% of our protein coding sequences. Why are we different? Not the 1.5% of our genome that codes for proteins but the 98.5% that controls their production. Literally, no other primate lineage has evolved as fast as our lineage has during the last 1.5 million years, and it’s all due to unique changes in our control genome. At least 80% probably more of our “non-coding” genome is also transcribed, starting from multiple start points, transcribed in both directions, with overlapping reading frames of many sizes and a whole spectrum of alterations, producing a whole zoo of ‘new’ types of RNA control elements – piRNA,siRNA, miRNA,sdRNA, xiRNA, moRNA, snoRNA, MYS-RNA, crasiRNA, TEL-sRNA, PARs, and lncRNA. Most of these unique RNA transcripts – and there are thousands, if not millions of them – are uniquely active in developing human neural tissue – uniquely active compared to their activity in chimpanzees, much less other primates or mammals. It is the new epigenetic world
We are only a short way there to understanding what is happening. And all this appeared by chance?
So look to other things besides the coding sequences. We may have the same building blocks but how are they assembled is the real issue.jerry_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

hi joe. actually there is no such a tree even among chimp-human-orange: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.htmlmk_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

I provided a reference that states the two genomes are only 70% similar. This was after both genomes were sequenced and compared side by side. See comment 16. OK so Gordon's claim of a nested hierarchy is refuted. There isn't any evidence that organisms are a sum of their genome so genetic similarity is meaningless. Not only that the chimp genome is not as similar as once thought. It may be only 70% similar. And given the mutation rates there just isn't enough time to account for that big of a difference anyway. As for intuition- it is only a biased intuition which says humans and chimps share a common ancestor.Joe_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.humbled_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

BA77 #25:
One difference in sexual reproduction of chimps and humans is that human males are ‘hydraulic’ in their arousal and chimp males are ‘mechanical’ in their arousal,,, i.e. male chimps have an actual bone to achieve erection. Needless to say, giving a step by step account of the transition from mechanical to hydraulic reproduction, whilst maintaining reproduction all the time, is an extremely difficult task to imagine.
The fact that humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas may shed some light on this problem.Box_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

The novel War and Peace may share 98% of its ‘words’ with a pocket Dictionary. What should we conclude?Heartlander_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank you state @ 22:
I am not a developmental biologist but I guess the differences between man and chimp are mainly down to faster development of the brain in infancy.
And in that 'guess' you would be completely wrong. First off, the 99% similarity figure was derived by a method that produced biased sampling:
Geneticist Jeff Tomkins vs. Evolutionary Biologist who got laughed off stage - August 12, 2013 Excerpt: Tomkins described the origin of the fallacious comparison as a myth that got started in reassociation kinetic methods of comparison in the mid-1970's prior to the advent of modern sequencing techniques (like Illumina and Solexa). Reassociation kinetics was a technique where fragments of chimp and human DNA were mixed in the same chemical soup, and the DNAs that were reasonably similar would pair up, hence we got a biased sampling! https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/icc-2013-geneticist-jeff-tomkins-vs-evolutionary-biologist-who-got-laughed-off-stage/
But leaving that biased 99% sampling aside for the time being, even King and Wilson, who were the original source for this 1% myth, point out that chimps and humans 'differ far more than sibling species in anatomy':
In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn't we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning: “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).” King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems. David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion - Page 162&163 Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson - 1975
In terms of sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different:
The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009 Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html
One difference in sexual reproduction of chimps and humans is that human males are 'hydraulic' in their arousal and chimp males are 'mechanical' in their arousal,,, i.e. male chimps have an actual bone to achieve erection.
Ian Juby's sex video - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM
Needless to say, giving a step by step account of the transition from mechanical to hydraulic reproduction, whilst maintaining reproduction all the time, is an extremely difficult task to imagine. In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. - per Physorg
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
Thus Mr. Frank contrary to your false belief that 'the differences between man and chimp are mainly down to faster development of the brain in infancy', the anatomical differences between chimps and humans are, in reality, drastic. Moreover, as Berlinski pointed out,
King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems
And in that 'guess' they were found to be correct.
Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Jeffrey Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/
Yet, finding that development Gene Regulatory Networks are 'orders of magnitude' different between chimps and humans is extremely problematic for Darwinists since changing the developmental Gene Regulatory Network is 'always catastrophically bad':
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html
The reason why changing the development Gene Regulatory Network is 'always catastrophically bad' is explained by Dr. Nelson in the following video:
Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Thus where Darwinian theory most needs plasticity in order to be viable as a hypothesis, i.e. in developmental gene regulatory networks, is the place where it is found to be least flexible. Yet, it is in these developmental gene regulatory networks where 'orders of magnitude' differences are found!,,,bornagain77_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

God likes to 'scatter the proud in the imagination of their hearts'. The discovery of the cosmic 'fine tuning' is one example, the matter, 'all over bar the shouting;' settled science, its implication being inescapable, except for the malcontent bitter-enders, who won't have it, of course, although that was predictable. He's saying to those mbe's, 'Now you see it!' (the close similarity.) How long before he definitively says to them: 'Now you don't!' Not that that would impress them, of course. They'd go into their very own 'superposition'(!), refusing to collapse the wave function, pending God's letting them have their own way!Axel_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

#21 Andre I am not a developmental biologist but I guess the differences between man and chimp are mainly down to faster development of the brain in infancy. This article (which I just Googled) seems to address it. I imagine that speeding up development like this does not require a large genetic change. Does that answer your question? I am not sure what you were getting at.Mark Frank_{August 6, 2014
August
08
Aug
6
06
2014
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Gordon 17, you stated that "As I understand it (while the genomes are known, I’m not that familiar with the detailed results), there are around 35 million single-base differences between the Human and chimp genomes, and another 5 million indels (sections that’re missing from one of the two genomes)." Question: How long would it take for the mutations necessary to take place and become fixed in a primate population?anthropic_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank & all skeptics alike I have a challenge for you..... Instead of explaining the similarities between humans and chimps, can you make the effort to explain the differences? I would really like your point of view and insights on the differences, from an evolutionary narrative explaining the similarities is really easy, now put that wonderful mind of yours to good use and give us the explanation on the differences! I await your acceptance of this challenge with great enthusiasm!Andre_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

So what if chimps and humans are genetically related? Does that prove Darwinian evolution? I think not.Mapou_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Re #18 I see Gordan made the same point much more completely at the same time.Mark Frank_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims.
At one time there was a widely shared intuition that the sun went round the earth. Do I have to produce a list of intuitions that science has found to be wrong?Mark Frank_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science.
No. Absolutely not. One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science.
Yes, one should absolutely discard (or at least modify) your intuitions when they conflict with the evidence. Intuition is what tells us that the Earth is stationary, that solid matter is solid (not mostly empty), that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, that it is impossible to sail downwind faster than the wind, that adding heat to an object will always increase (not decrease) its temperature (link), that if you throw an object at a wall with two separate holes, it might go through one or the other but not both (link), etc, etc, etc. If you do enough science, you'll learn not to trust your intuition too far. Intuition can be very useful as a starting point for your thinking about a given subject, but it should never be where you stop thinking. So, let's take a closer look at your intuition vs. the 98% figure. You speak of "intuitions formed from experience", but do you really have any experience with how much genetic change is needed to produce a given phenotypic effect? And as for the 98% figure... we've now sequenced both genomes, so there's not a lot of ambiguity left. As I said before, there are a variety of ways of counting the differences, though. As I understand it (while the genomes are known, I'm not that familiar with the detailed results), there are around 35 million single-base differences between the Human and chimp genomes, and another 5 million indels (sections that're missing from one of the two genomes). If you use my #5 counting method that gives a difference of 1.3% (or 98.7% similarity). On the other hand, if you use my #4 method (where indels count proportional to their length, rather than as single differences), you get around 5% total difference (or 95% similarity). Does 95% similarity fit your intuition any better? If so, please realize that it's the same result, just reported in a different form so the number looks smaller. If the form the data is reported in makes a significant difference to whether you accept it or not, then you're doing something seriously wrong. (BTW, before you get too excited that those indels contain exciting new information that could explain the differences... my understanding is that most are either deletions, or duplications of pre-existing sequences.)Gordon Davisson_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Hey News (and Acartia_bogart) The following is an article that tells you how the 99 or 98% figure was reached: 99%? 95%? 87%? 70%? How Similar is the Human Genome to the Chimpanzee Genome? And it will also tell you about other estimates-Joe_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Actually, it has been refuted in peer-review*. And the only way chimps are related to us is via a common design. BTW imagination is not evidence. *95% similarity- and that is also too high.Joe_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Joe: "Geez, the 98.x% similarity has been refuted in the peer-reviewed journals. And any and all similarity can be accounted for via a common design. Actually, it hasn't. But even if it has, all it has done is moved the bar. Chimps and Bonobos, regardless of how you measure it, are still more closely related to us than any other animals. Why does that upset some people? Let's face it. The creationists (IDists) will object to anything that suggests that humans were not created as the apex species on earth. Personally, I blame it on insecurity and lack of imagination. But what do I know?Acartia_bogart_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Geez, the 98.x% similarity has been refuted in the peer-reviewed journals. And any and all similarity can be accounted for via a common design. No one knows what makes a human a human nor a chimp a chimp. And there isn't any evidence that organisms are a sum of their genome, ie the DNA does not determine the type of organism.Joe_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply