Human evolution News

Sun orbits Earth vs. Chimps are people too – the differences

Spread the love

At “At last, a proposed answer re 98% human-chimpanzee similarity claim, Mark Frank comments, quoting my  “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?

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.

Because it is a relationship, the calculations would work either way, especially centuries ago. That is what made the discussion so difficult.

As a rising tide floats all boats, it also enables pom pom science writers to make a living flattering the egos of those of us who come after this work was done.

So the intuition that the sun revolves around Earth is based on observation. The observation was later corrected when we learned more about the organization of the solar system.

Now contrast that with fatuous claims by science writers that humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees.

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.

Consider all the cutesy, artificial attempts to show that chimps have police forces or use abstract concepts. When one points out that this is blithering nonsense, the purveyors look shocked and announce that they are in the defiled presence of someone who wants chimps to go extinct in the wild.

No.

But I wouldn’t mind getting some facts straight before we discuss how best to preserve chimp colonies. Conservation always works better that way.

Would work better in genetics too, I expect. – O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

20 Replies to “Sun orbits Earth vs. Chimps are people too – the differences

  1. 1

    Now contrast that with fatuous claims by science writers that humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees.

    Not only isn’t it true but no information is likely to arise anywhere will show that it is true.

    You continue to conflate quantitative measures of genetic (genotypic) similarity with impressions of phenotypic similarities and differences. They are not necessarily proportionate.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Reciprocating Bill at 1, if my impressions (and everybody’s) are accurate, the measurements put forward to the public are not.

    It is either fraud or incompetence.

  3. 3
    George E. says:

    The problem is that the Earth has never been actually proven to move… so the Darwinists sort of have an argument. They can say, “Look, the Earth has never been proven to move, but everyone rightly accepts it as absolutely true and scientifically undeniable. So why can’t evolution be considered a scientific fact even though it has not been 100% proven yet?”

    (Of course, the objection could then be made that it hasn’t even been 5% proven.)

  4. 4
    wd400 says:

    Now contrast that with fatuous claims by science writers that humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees.

    That our DNA is 98% similar. Or, at least, that 98% of the bases in comparable sections of a human and chimps genome are identical.95% if you include indels.

    And it’s not fatuous so much as true. So where does that leave you intuition?

  5. 5

    News:

    if my impressions (and everybody’s) are accurate, the measurements put forward to the public are not.

    No, because you continue to conflate your impressions, which are responsive to phenotypic similarities and differences, with quantitative information regarding genotypic similarities and differences, which are not necessarily proportionate.

  6. 6
    Mark Frank says:

    Comment repeated because I initially made it on the wrong thread.

    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. 

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    Again the 98% similarity has been refuted. When the chimp and human genomes were compared side by side there was only about a 70% genetic similarity.

    Also it was intuition that said chimps and humans shared a common ancestor…

  8. 8
    wd400 says:

    The blog post you cited for that claim, Joe, was using the draft chimp genome and considering un-alignable sequences as having 0% identity.

    With the latest build of the chimp genome much more of the two sequences are alignable, and the precent identity in the alignable blocks remains stead-fast at 98.7% (if the unalignable sequences were very divergent, rather than just low quality and repeat-rich, you’d expect the number to go down as more of the genome is covered, this has not been the case).

  9. 9
    wd400 says:

    As for the genomes “side by side” — you are welcome to check them out for yourself:

    http://uswest.ensembl.org/Homo.....roglodytes

  10. 10
  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400, (even though there is very good reason to doubt the 98-99% figure), Ms. O’Leary’s overriding point has been that even if the protein coding regions, that make up approx. 2% of the genome, were 100% identical that would still tell us absolutely nothing about how the drastic anatomical differences between chimps and humans came about. As to a brief overview of those drastic anatomical differences, I touched on that here this morning here,,,

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-509732

    Let me give you an illustration wd400 since you seem to have such a hard time understanding this point Ms. O’Leary has been making the last few posts. I have two houses that are built out of exactly the same building material, but the two houses are drastically different in their architecture. Exactly what is directing the building materials to build drastically different houses? That the building materials are 100% identical is of no consequence to the primary question of how did such different houses get built in the first place.

    ,,, Perhaps Talbott can shed a little more light for you wd400:

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
    The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

  12. 12
    wd400 says:

    Joe,

    You mean the reference that explicityl states the calculation depends on an assumption that we now know, and I told you, doesn’t hold?

    “The key one here is that the parts of the chimpanzee genome that did not align to the human genome are different to the human genome”

  13. 13
    wd400 says:

    BA,

    Here’s what she said

    “…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.”

    Seems to me she’s taking issue with the genetics

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Far be it from me to read New’s mind, but perhaps she is taking issue with the elephant in the living room of genetics that is being (purposely?) ignored by Darwinists?

    i.e. exactly what is directing the construction of the drastically different houses?

    Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994
    As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length.
    http://www.jneurosci.org/conte.....8.abstract

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    https://vimeo.com/91322260

    Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

    Darwin’s Doubt narrated by Paul Giem – The Origin of Body Plans – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?l.....page#t=290

    Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM

  15. 15
    Acartia_bogart says:

    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.

    It did not require all the mathematics you mention to logically conclude that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun, and not that everything revolves around the earth. The mathematics only provided the details for each orbit.

    It was long known that the sun, moon and stars appeared to rotate around the earth. Based on that, it was logical to conclude that they circled around the earth. But there were a handful of stars (planets) that would appear to change direction. This alone was all that was required to change our thoughts about what was going on. A person could think it through without the use of mathematics at all.

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    wd400- Thank you. Looks like I have some homework to do…

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    A-B asserted,

    But there were a handful of stars (planets) that would appear to change direction. This alone was all that was required to change our thoughts about what was going on. A person could think it through without the use of mathematics at all.

    Exactly. Don’t forget the paths of comets. And the same goes for Darwinism. There are these nagging exceptions, genomes that seem to reverse direction, Haldane’s dilemma, body plans that appear suddenly in the fossil record, others that remain unchanged for scores of millions of years, and so on.

    Speaking of mathematics, after denigrating Michael Behe’s “voodoo magic pseudostatistics” as you put it, you were going to explain precisely where his calculations about malaria were wrong, since you say you’re a biologist and statistician:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-anyway/

    I thought Behe’s calculations were reasonable.

    -Q

  18. 18
    Joe says:

    wd400- the link you provided foe the ensemble was only for one chromosome- and just a section of that. I was referring to the entire genome, which, as far as I know has only been compared by Drs Buggs and Tomkins. Do you know of any other whole genome comparisons?

  19. 19
    wd400 says:

    The ensmble graphical broweser can only show ~ 1Mb at a time,but you can scroll/navigate the whole genome and see the alignment. If you want to see the whole thing at once ensmble let’s you get the text or the UCSC browser provides the complete alignment of the most recent build of the chimp genome:

    http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu.....vsPanTro4/

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    Thanks again- do you know of any peer-reviewed paper that shows the exact % difference between the two genomes?

Leave a Reply