Bryan College prof defends 98% chimp-human DNA identity

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 30, 2011

Epigenetics, Genetics}

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

Bryan College prof defends 98% chimp-human DNA identity

Here, at Bryan College of all places, evolutionary biologist Todd C. Wood argues that “The Chimpanzee Genome is Nearly Identical to the Human Genome” (CBS Annual Conference Abstracts 2011). (In the famous Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee (1925), Bryan defended the law he’d recommended, to make it illegal to teach that.) It’s also widely known to be wrong and may not even matter if it were true.

Here’s a rabbi’s take on the folly: The genes you share with a banana.

See also: Born again evolutionary biologist critiques Gauger-Axe paper

Comments

Well Elizabeth, it's pretty obvious that you're familiar enough with Todd Wood and his educational background and scientific qualifications to tell us that he's not an evolutionary biologist and that he's a "YEC baraminologist," and that he's "outstandingly honest," so it is not unreasonable for us to expect that you also know that he has a BS in biology and a PhD in Biochemistry? See my post @6. Are you claiming you were ignorant of those facts? Or were you aware of those facts yet chose not to state either one or both of them in your comments about Todd Wood in your @2? Do you think the "outstandingly honest" Todd Wood would do to you what you did to him? See my example at 14/15. There's no reason to think that you know every single fact about Todd Wood, so there goes that little red herring. Why must you resort to such red herrings? Don't they divert attention from what's relevant? Why yes, they do. That's the point of a red herring! So it is in fact a reasonable inference that you had in your possession other knowledge about Todd Wood which you chose not to mention, but could have. Don't hold your breath waiting for that retraction. It could happen, but right now it's not looking very likely. So far, what reasons have I been given to think that what I said is false? You found it offensive because it impugned your integrity?Mung_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Lizzie, why bother? Please move ahead with the blog you've said you're setting up so those among the banned and the moderated can join the discussion. URL please?Pedant_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

junkdnaforlife:
Attention, ladies and gentleman of the Jury: For those that think Mung’s claims against Liz are baseless, and for those others who think Liz is a psuedo-liar, I refer you to to this thread: https://uncommondescent.com.....omplexity/ Follow the conversation from post 1-9, and act as juror, and judge for yourselves. Is this an act of unwarranted Liz trolling? Or does Mung have basis to infer that Liz may be less-than-honest?
Whether Mung infers from the conversation you cite, or from any others here, that I am "less-than-host" is a different issue (though important to me). What Mung said here was that I was being "selective with the truth" by not giving some information that he apparently thought I should have given, in order to be fully truthful, about Todd Wood. He will not tell me what that information is, and he will not confirm that his point was merely that there are more than two facts in the world about Todd Wood and that I did not give them all (naturally). Indeed, as you yourself imply, his remark on this thread impugns my integrity (you, like I, infer that he is adding this example to his roll of lack-of-honesty indictments). I have asked him support or retract his accusation, or, failing either of those, to make it clear that the words "selective with the truth" were not meant pejoratively. He has not done so. The only trolling I can see is of me by Mung.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Alternatively, confirmation that it was a totally pointless remark, not intended to cast any aspersions on my personal integrity, and that you meant merely to make the observation that I had not, as is perfectly reasonable, given Todd's entire life history. Either will do, Mung. But select one.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

OK, Mung, I take it you are not going to support your accusation that I was "selective with the truth". In that case I look forward to your retraction.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Harfen:
Todd Wood is obviously not an “evolutionary biologist” as he does not accept that paradigm and has chosen to work outside of it.
ok. so what? I never said he was one or disputed the claim that he was not one.
All of his work attempts to explain biology within a YEC framework, and he publishes his work in YEC journals. This is apparent to anyone who reads his work or his blog. If anybody is a “YEC baraminologist” then clearly he is.
Not did I say he wasn't a YEC, nor did I say he did not publish on the topic of baraminology.
Mung, I fail to see your point. You responded to Elizabeth Liddle’s statement that “Todd Wood is not an “evolutionary biologist”. He’s a YEC baraminologist.” This statement is perfectly accurate and there is nothing at all selective about it.
Did Todd Wood get his degree in baraminology? As a scientist, what is his educational background? Perfectly accurate would imply that they left nothing out of relevance about Todd Wood, including his educational background and degrees. None of which is in baraminology, afiak. And of course there was something selective about both statements. They were, for example, selected from numerous other statements about Todd Wood. Statements that could have been made but were not. The claim that there is nothing selective about them is absurd on it's face.Mung_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Mung owes Lizzie an apology. Here’s what Todd Wood said on his blog on August 27, 2010:

From the link that Elizabeth provides, I see these references for papers published by Todd Wood:
And here's what I wrote:
If someone were to say that Todd Wood is a YEC baraminologist I would not disagree with that person nor call them a liar.
So you both have quite missed the point. Good job. Elizabeth Liddle:
Oh, and Mung, I’m still waiting….
That makes two of us. You're half way there. Why stop? Here, let me remind you where you left off: So the person who said you were not an evolutionary psychologist would be telling the truth. What about Person B's statement that you are an atheist blogger, children's book author, and musician?Mung_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Attention, ladies and gentleman of the Jury: For those that think Mung's claims against Liz are baseless, and for those others who think Liz is a psuedo-liar, I refer you to to this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/last-eukaryotic-common-ancestor-facilitates-multi-cell-complexity/ Follow the conversation from post 1-9, and act as juror, and judge for yourselves. Is this an act of unwarranted Liz trolling? Or does Mung have basis to infer that Liz may be less-than-honest?junkdnaforlife_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

So, can anyone tell me what Todd Wood did wrong, when he arrived at that 99% figure? Oh, and Mung, I'm still waiting....Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Born: "Correct me if I’m wrong, but are not even the ‘coding’ regions of DNA now found to be far different than the 99% similar myth that Darwinists originally led people to believe?" I believe so. Contemporary work seems to have taken a bite out of that number as well.junkdnaforlife_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome: Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." http://www.mendeley.com/research/estimating-the-prevalence-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-folds/bornagain77_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

junkdnaforlife, Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not even the 'coding' regions of DNA now found to be far different than the 99% similar myth that Darwinists originally led people to believe??? notes: Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content," showing "extraordinary divergence" where "wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.",,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html#more further notes: This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 'ORFan' genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science that has such dramatic implications for man! Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true. If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because they were not found in other supposedly related species, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins: A survey of orphan enzyme activities Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona Excerpt of Proposal: Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358868 Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced: Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166bornagain77_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Mung, you accused me of being "selective about the truth"
You just have to admire how selective about the truth Lizzie can be when she wants to be.
Please tell me what you think I should have said about Todd Wood, or retract your accusation that I was being "selective about the truth".Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

FWIW I’m not an evolutionary psychologist. Any more than Todd Wood is an evolutionary biologist.
So the person who said you were not an evolutionary psychologist would be telling the truth. Congratulations, you're half way through the example.Mung_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Frost: First of all the “98%” only applies to the coded regions of DNA not the uncoded DNA obviously. Har-1 gene. (Human accelerated regions) A chimp and a chicken, separated by 300 million years of evolution differ by 2 base pair substitutions. However, a chimp and a human, separated by 6 million years, differ by 18 base pair substitutions. The HAR regions were also once thought to be junk dna. It is in much of these no-coding regions that humans and chimps differ profoundly. Research finds 'unique human DNA'
The analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were just two differences between the versions found in chickens and chimps. However, there were 18 differences between the chimp version and the one found in humans - which scientists say is an incredible amount of change to take place in a few million years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4797257.stmjunkdnaforlife_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Frost122585:
This is the same old garbage they have always been pushing to confuse the sheep.
Except that in this case "they" is a Young Earth Creationist who is not an evolutionist.
First of all the “98%” only applies to the coded regions of DNA not the uncoded DNA obviously.
No, this is not obvious.
Secondly, the body plans for creatures does not exist in the DNA itself.
Well, yes, it does. That's why, if you mess with the DNA you get a messed up body plan. Although you can also get a messed up body plan by interfering with the cell signalling that accesses the DNA database.
This means we have vast differences beyond what dNA can explain.
Well, not really. DNA is a database that is accessed by the cells, but protocols by which it is accessed are themselves coded, at least partially, in DNA. But you are right, IMO to be skeptical of DNA as the source of everything that makes organisms what they are. I do recommend watching this: http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/
They can talk about hox genes all they want, and yet no matter how to mutate them you do not get new functional body plans.
But you do get new dysfunctional body plans which does rather strongly suggest that DNA codes for body plans! And indeed, we share a great deal of body-plan similarity with chimps.
Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Mung? Support or retract, please.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

FWIW I'm not an evolutionary psychologist. Any more than Todd Wood is an evolutionary biologist.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

From the link that Elizabeth provides, I see these references for papers published by Todd Wood: Wood, T.C. 2002a. A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae). TJ 16(1):15–25. Wood, T.C. 2002b. The AGEing process: rapid post-Flood, intrabaraminic diversi?cation caused by Altruistic Genetic Elements (AGEs). Origins 54:5–34. Wood, T.C. 2005a. A creationist review of the history, geology, climate, and biology of the Galápagos Islands. CORE Issues in Creation 1:1–241. Wood, T.C. 2005b. Visualizing baraminic distances using classical multidimensional scaling. Origins 57:9–29. Wood, T.C., and D.P. Cavanaugh. 2001. A baraminological analysis of subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae) and the origin of biological complexity. Origins 52:7–27. Wood, T.C., and D.P. Cavanaugh. 2003. An evaluation of lineages and trajectories as baraminological membership criteria. Occasional Papers of the BSG 2:1–6. Wood, T.C., and M.J. Murray. 2003. Understanding the Pattern of Life. Broadman & Holman, Nashville, TN. Wood, T.C., P.J. Williams, K.P. Wise, and D.A. Robinson. 1999. Summaries on camel baraminology. In Robinson, D.A. and P.J. Williams (editors), Baraminology ‘99: Creation Biology for the 21st Century, pp. 9–18. Baraminology Study Group. Wood, T.C., K.P. Wise, R. Sanders, and N. Doran. 2003. A re?ned baramin concept. Occasional Papers of the BSG 3:1–14. But perhaps he's not a "True Baraminologist"(tm)! ;)NormO_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Perhaps an example. Person A posts that Elizabeth Liddle is an evolutionary psychologist and posts a link to a paper on a prototype of a biofeedback system designed to treat dyslexia by improving heart-rate variability. Person B posts that Elizabeth Liddle is not an evolutionary psychologist. Elizabeth Liddle is an atheist blogger who plays music.
Mung, you accused me of being selective with the truth. I asked you a straight question: what did I not say that you think I should have said?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

THANK YOU for referring to Mr Wood as an 'evolutionary biologist'. As someone who used to read his blog almost daily, I found it very difficult to believe he was what he claimed to be.Blue_Savannah_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Or perhaps, an atheist blogger who writes children's books.Mung_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Perhaps an example. Person A posts that Elizabeth Liddle is an evolutionary psychologist and posts a link to a paper on a prototype of a biofeedback system designed to treat dyslexia by improving heart-rate variability. Person B posts that Elizabeth Liddle is not an evolutionary psychologist. Elizabeth Liddle is an atheist blogger who plays music.Mung_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

This is the same old garbage they have always been pushing to confuse the sheep. First of all the "98%" only applies to the coded regions of DNA not the uncoded DNA obviously. Secondly, the body plans for creatures does not exist in the DNA itself. This means we have vast differences beyond what dNA can explain. They can talk about hox genes all they want, and yet no matter how to mutate them you do not get new functional body plans. So the idea that 98% of coded region DNA proves common ancestry and rules and common design, is just a bunch of hog wash.Frost122585_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

So, Mung, what is it that you think I should have said that I did not say? You seem to agree with what I said. So what else should I have said?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Mung, I fail to see your point. You responded to Elizabeth Liddle's statement that "Todd Wood is not an “evolutionary biologist”. He’s a YEC baraminologist." This statement is perfectly accurate and there is nothing at all selective about it. Todd Wood is obviously not an "evolutionary biologist" as he does not accept that paradigm and has chosen to work outside of it. All of his work attempts to explain biology within a YEC framework, and he publishes his work in YEC journals. This is apparent to anyone who reads his work or his blog. If anybody is a "YEC baraminologist" then clearly he is.Harfen_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

If someone were to say that Todd Wood is not an evolutionary biologist I would not disagree with that person nor call them a liar. If someone were to say that Todd Wood is a YEC baraminologist I would not disagree with that person nor call them a liar. I did not say Elizabeth was lying, only that she was being selective with the truth. It's what she didn't say but could have, or should have. It's called integrity.Mung_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Joseph: Read it again, and look for his comments on alignment - i.e. the lining up homologous sections "side by side".Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Cut the snark Mung, please. If you disagree with something I have said, or want to make a correction, do so. But please stop this drip drip drip of suggestions that I am a liar. I think that Todd would self-identify a baraminologist rather than as a evolutionary biologist. Baraminology is the framework within which he works, not evolution. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm If you want to check, feel free to ask him. He's very diligent about responding to questions.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Mung owes Lizzie an apology. Here's what Todd Wood said on his blog on August 27, 2010:
Over the past decade, I've published literally dozens of baraminology studies, more than I can even keep track of anymore. Until this year, I had been formally criticized for only a single study: the horse study from 2003. Apparently, no one gave a hoot about putting all the grasses in a baramin or all the seals in a baramin. But expand the human baramin beyond what "mainstream" creationists (which of course are no more qualified to comment on paleoanthropology than I) accept, and suddenly there are four responses describing my work as "reckless" or condemning baraminology altogether. If anyone's overreacting, it ain't me.
Pedant_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply