Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
graph

A statistical comparison of two human genomes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a previous post I provided a statistical test to compare chimpanzee and human genomes. As you can read there, the post generated a very interesting discussion among the readers, and it seemed to me that the general feeling at the end was that my statistical method for performing genome-wide comparisons might have some merit, after all.

One reader suggested applying an identical test in order to compare two human genomes. That sounded like a very good idea to me, so I downloaded another human genome dataset from NCBI and performed a test.

For the benefit of readers, I’ll briefly recapitulate the simple comparison algorithm used in my previous test. 10,000 different sequences, each composed of 30 consecutive DNA bases (possible values: A, T, G and C) were randomly selected from chromosome N of genome A. A search for a matching pattern was then performed on the corresponding chromosome N of genome B. A pattern match was deemed to occur only when all 30 base pairs coincided perfectly – in other words, the head-to-head comparison between these DNA sub-strings was not relaxed, as occurs in many other tests in evolutionary comparative genomics. The total number of pattern matches found for that particular chromosome was then recorded. All chromosomes were tested in a similar fashion. Readers can view the latest results in the table and chart below, and compare them with the earlier results for the chimpanzee vs. human comparison.

As expected, the number of pattern matches was always significantly greater when comparing two humans than when comparing a chimpanzee with a human. As the chart above clearly shows, the number of matches in human vs. human comparisons was quite stable, ranging from 9507 to 9705 (chromosome Y is the sole exception, with 8989). However, the same did not hold for chimpanzee vs. human comparisons, where the values were much more scattered.

Finally, the average number of pattern matches per chromosome, shown at the bottom of the table, was very different in the two cases: 9616 for human vs. human comparisons, but only 6173 for chimp vs. human comparisons. The average number of patterns without a match for human vs. human comparisons was (10000 – 9616) = 384, or in percentage terms, 384/10000 = 3.84%. The average number of patterns without a match in human vs. chimp comparisons was (10000 – 6173) = 3827, or in percentage terms, 3827/10000 = 38.27%, which is almost ten times greater.

So the bottom-line question is: if, as many evolutionists say, chimpanzee and human genomes are 99% identical, how “identical” are two human genomes?

Comments
"But DrREC 25.9% is the number you should get when you compare ANY two random genomes together." NOT for the 30-bp metric. Anything more than ~4% difference will yield a score of 0. By the way, this 25.9% is a nt to nt metric that assumes a 1 out of 4 chance of matching, adjusted for composition bias. In reality, longer alignments are required for the 'matches' we're talking about, so scores will go to 0-or no alignment. Again, the sequences are public-please do try it yourself! "So does that mean if I were to use your ’24? correction factor’ on a daffodil genome, that matches human genomes to 25.9% then it would then give the ‘Correct’ reading of 98.9% identity." Human-daffodil homology is probably significantly higher than that-but NOT for the 30bp metric, which will give almost no matches. You're applying the correction for the 30bp metric to a non-30 bp metric, which yeah, gives silly results. "Why DrREC, that’s just so special. Not that I don’t appreciate your ‘creative accounting/math skills’" I'm just providing the correction factor for niwrad's metric. It is really clear that increasing string length will increase mismatch. For example, if we used a search of over 1000 bases, and demanded 100% identity for a match, than most humans would have 0% homology to any other human, given our 0.1% differences! I'm not the one being 'creative' here, just providing the correction factor to mathematics that could otherwise be creatively, ahem, interpreted.DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
DrREC, this has me scratching my head at the sheer absurdity of it all. You actually stated this: ''“However just for curiosity I did such complete test between chimp and human and obtained an overall percentage of matching of 25.9%,” And correct it by dividing by 24, that is 1.079% different, or 98.9% identity.'' But DrREC 25.9% is the number you should get when you compare ANY two random genomes together. So does that mean if I were to use your '24' correction factor' on a daffodil genome, that matches human genomes to 25.9%, then it would then give the 'Correct' reading of 98.9% identity. Why DrREC, that's just so special. Not that I don't appreciate your 'creative accounting/math skills', but How about we look at a little more rigorous math to see what neo-Darwinism is up against to 'fix' JUST a single beneficial mutation within the hypothesized human lineage??? Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs. http://www.detectingtruth.com/?p=66 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 further notes: "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci God by the Numbers - Charles Edward White Excerpt: "Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 2^1000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10^301. 10^301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate. Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=2 Indeed, math is not kind to Darwinism in the least when considering the probability of humans 'randomly' evolving: In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA Along that same line: Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas - El Pasobornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
DrREC, (with sledge hammer, using the Fit, DAMN YOU, FIT!!! method of science to arrive at his desired conclusion),,, but of coarse DrREC, what else should I expect from a man who fully endorses the extreme bias of this following study; 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, and that very well may directly code for proteins, 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! 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. DrREC perceives himself to be the fact of the matter, 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 In fact it turns out that the authors of the 'kick the ORFans out in the street' paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358547 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/17135166 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 ,,, So DrREC, since similarity evidence is taken away from you, do you now want to go back over the fact that you have no foundation in science to begin with for your neo-Darwinian conjectures???bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
DrREC, (using the Fit DAMN YOU FIT!!! method of science),,, but of coarse, what else should I expect from a man who fully endorses this following study; 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, and that very well may directly code for proteins, 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! 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. But DrREC fully endorses the method in post number 20 calling it 'reasonable'; Well regardless of how reasonable DThis 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, and that very well may directly code for proteins, 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! 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. DrREC perceives himself to be the fact of the matter, 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 In fact it turns out that the authors of the 'kick the ORFans out in the street' paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358547 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/17135166 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
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Sorry, I looked at the wrong number. If we take: "However just for curiosity I did such complete test between chimp and human and obtained an overall percentage of matching of 25.9%," And correct it by dividing by 24, that is 1.079% different, or 98.9% identity.DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
"i.e. Just who gets to choose which parts of the genome to consider and why??? i.e. My exact point is that neo-Darwinists are EXTREMELY biased as to exactly which parts of the genome they will consider and which points they won’t.,,, Not an answer you want is it??? TOO BAD!!!" Umm...as Nirwad states: "The test is purely statistical, it doesn’t take into account moves, introns, orphans and any functional concept." He didn't game the data before his alignment, and the corrected 30bp metric gives 98.4% identity between chimps and humans. There are different values out there-very high if we align only ORFs (this is where a 99+% comes from-when that was the only data available-lower if you count different numbers of transposons and deletions and such as mismatches. I've seen values for a total nt to nt comparison that come up with something like 96%. I've explained twice now why the values that get to 70% or lower are just wrong. The chimpanzee genome draft was built using a human scaffold. Initially, a large percentage of sequences (at low coverage) could not unambiguously be assigned--usually because they were repeat sequences that could match multiple places. These unmatched bits have dropped with more sequence, and better placement. Any way you pick and choose, the similarities are very high. And if you use a consistant process (even the 30bp metric!), the difference will increase with phylogenetic distance. This is more significant than the absolute number!DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
i.e. Just who gets to choose which parts of the genome to consider and why??? i.e. My exact point is that neo-Darwinists are EXTREMELY biased as to exactly which parts of the genome they will consider and which points they won't.,,, Not an answer you want is it??? :) TOO BAD!!!bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Indium, but of coarse I have no bearing for you because it is not a answer you want to hear, but regardless of the answer you want, let's take a closer look and see that it gets worse for you. If we use dmullenix example here, '‘And if you compared sections that were one base pair long, your test would report that on the average, every 100th section had a mismatch and human and chimp DNA were thus 99% identical.’ We find dmullenix to completely miss the point for niwrad did exactly this test and found; 'If you with “side by side comparison” mean a pair-wise comparison of the chromosomes that would have no functional meaning because, for many reasons, the functional portions of a genome are never aligned with the similar functional portions of another genome. However just for curiosity I did such complete test between chimp and human and obtained an overall percentage of matching of 25.9%, which is almost exactly what the theory states. See my previous post, where I try to explain why genomic similarity is a very tricky and debatable issue.' But of coarse you will cry foul, but the point is that the exact test dmullenix specified gives a 25.9% readingbornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
BA: Whatever you link here in your usual fashion, it has no bearing on the argument of dmullenix. It´s a fact that the procedure devised by niwrad is rather pointless if you don´t correct your output values with respect to the length of the strings you compare. So you completely miss the point. Whatever the real difference is, niwrads method can only be used to determine it if the effect of the length of the strings is taken into account.Indium
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
"The problem is with your test. The bigger the sections of DNA that your compare, the more likely the sections are to contain a mismatch and the lower the similarity between chimp and human DNA it will report." Which isn't to say it doesn't work. It seems efficient and consistant. It is just necessary have to have a correction factor-dividing the 30bp metric by 24 gives the real percent mismatch. I mention this in post 2 in this thread. It is pretty easy to derive why you'd divide by 24-but the most straightforward demonstration might be to generate test genomes with 0.1, 1, 2, and 3 percent difference. The results will be about 2.4, 24, 48 and 72% difference on the 30 bp metric. I think a 4% mismatch will give nearly 0% similarity. Without the correction, the 30bp metric amplifies dissimilarity compared to regular matching,DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
dmullenix you state; 'And if you compared sections that were one base pair long, your test would report that on the average, every 100th section had a mismatch and human and chimp DNA were thus 99% identical.' This simply is not true, in fact as has been pointed out several times on this very thread. the only way that neo-Darwinists have been able to hood-wink the general public that we were 98.8% genetically similar is by ignoring vast swaths of DNA that did not match similarity. notes: 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 Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/ Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 etc.. etc...bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Thank you bornagain77 and niwrad- Interesting.Joseph
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
niwrad, suppose chimp DNA was 99% identical to human DNA. That would mean that on the average, one in every 100 base pairs wouldn't match up. Further, assume that the mismatched base pairs are randomly spread throughout the DNA. If you were comparing 100 base pair sections of DNA, almost every section would have a mismatch and your test would say that there was almost no simiilarity between chimp and human DNA. If you were comparing 50 base pair sections of DNA, then on average, every other section would have a mismatch and your test would report that chimp and human DNA varied by 50 percent. If you were comparing 25 base pair sections of DNA, on average every fourth section would have a mismatch and your test would report that chimp and human DNA was 25% different. And if you compared sections that were one base pair long, your test would report that on the average, every 100th section had a mismatch and human and chimp DNA were thus 99% identical. The problem is with your test. The bigger the sections of DNA that your compare, the more likely the sections are to contain a mismatch and the lower the similarity between chimp and human DNA it will report.dmullenix
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
ellazimm you may find this recent post from Dr. Hunter interesting: From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html Dr. Hunter then goes on to cite an exact example of this 'theology of Darwinism',,, cited from a Darwinists writing on human genome, no less, which ties in very nicely with niwrad's overarching subject for this thread. Oblivious to this context Farrell continues: But it’s even more problematic, Rice argues: the very structure of the genome itself—not just the mutations—is inconsistent with the idea that the genome, or the human body, or the world was directly designed by an external agent. The human genome is full of stuff that interferes with the use of genetic information to produce healthy and functional enzymes and bodies. First, consider the fact that only about 1 percent of human DNA codes for those enzymes. About 68 percent of the DNA consists of non-coding DNA that is between the genes, and about 31 percent of the DNA consists of non-coding DNA that is inside of the genes. This is, at best, a clumsy system, because whenever a cell divides, all of this DNA is copied, not just the DNA that the cell will use. In addition, since each gene is broken into little “exon” fragments by a large amount of internal “intron” DNA, the genetic information must be spliced together in order to be put to use. That is, to get a functional enzyme, the genetic information from lots of exon fragments has to be cobbled together. If it works, there is no problem, but the whole system is so cumbersomely complex that it often fails. Not only are many genetic diseases caused by mutations in the genes themselves, but many genetic diseases are caused by (or also caused by) failures of the cell to deal properly with the non-coding DNA and the splicing.bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
BA77: Re: Lynn Margulis . . . I don't know if solace is the right word . . . I find her ideas very interesting. I too suspect she is finding her ideas/cause in too many places. Not to say that what she's proposing DOESN'T happen, probably not as much as she thinks it does. Worth following though. And, as you point out, she's not answering some of your questions. I think I'm seeing the environment information issue more clearly now, thanks! I THOUGHT he was answering the question of where the information in the genome comes from in a different way. I know I've been frustrating to deal with but I really do have a better picture of what ID is really saying. Thanks again for taking the time.ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
ellazimm, I've noticed that you seem to take comfort in Margulis’s points, which I believe are related to symbiosis, but the criticism I've seen leveled against here is that she is merely pushing the 'information problem' back a step by 'shuffling around' existing information, and she, like neo-Darwinists, never fully engages the question of 'Where does the information come from in the first place?' As well, to your question on Dr. Dembski, though I'm surely out of my league here, from what I can tell Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks have considered information coming from the 'source of the environment', as is reflected in this quote; "LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information": Excerpt: Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms. http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,i.e. I believe Dr. Dembski is clearly stating that 'IF' Darwinian evolution occurred then the information needed to accomplish Darwinian evolution had to be built into the system.,,, Yet as far as observational science goes, the 'environment', has never been observed adding information over and above what was already present in a parent species, as is clearly illustrated by the fitness test which has never been passed by Darwinian processes, and as well as illustrated by Dr. Behe's recent survey, and somewhat illustrated by Dr. Sanford's work on Genetic Entropy: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086bornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Sorry, sorry, I was responding to BA77. DUH!! I really do apologise. I must be tired. Thank you for your time BA. If you ever come to visit York, England I'll buy you a few pints of one of our finest ales. Promise. G'night!ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Upright: Genome size is a real puzzle. Thank you for responding. I think a design response has to be tentative at this point. Certainly the materialist view is provisional. Darwinian expectations would probably be: it happens, sometimes you gain lots of extra junk along the way, sometimes you don't. But . . . Obviously a huge genome entails a certain amount of added resource spending, just to reproduce it for every cell. And if much of the genome is transcribed then . . . I've read some info about the energy expenditure involved but clearly more work needs to be done. Surely, at some point, the size of the genome alone would be selected against. Unless there's some info therein which needs to be preserved. Have you ever thought how lucky we are to be around at a time when these questions are not only being examined but have a chance of being answered? Not only I am glad I was not born before tea but also that I am alive during a great explosion of knowledge. A Cambrian era of awareness? Thanks again for a stimulating day. I'll be thinking about some of the things we discussed today for quite awhile and that is a very good thing. Especially some of Lynn Margulis's points . . . Night all!ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
ellazimm, (said the spider to the fly) but anyways,,, I look at the varying genome sizes more generally, and perhaps someone with more expertise can give you a better more detailed answer,, but anyway for what its worth,,, ,,,As mentioned previously, the chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is 'more evolved' than us humans, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical 'evolutionary progression' to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma ,,, Thus contrary to Darwinian expectations of information being merely a 'emergent' property of various configurations of material particles there is no uniform progression to be seen from the sizes of genomes that would conform to this expectation of neo-Darwinism, whereas from an engineering perspective there are several reasons for why information may need to consolidated in one instance or to be more spread out in another instance. And depending on the level of 'perfection' to which the system is engineered, we should expect these considerations, which clearly we are not fully aware of yet, to be played out in excruciating detail!bornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
KF: Yes, that is clearly a major point, no question. I think the way the research has to go is first showing that small steps are achievable and then moving on to combinations. It will all take time. As I just mentioned in another thread, I'm kind of intrigued by the things that Lynn Margulis has attempted to establish. As a possible explanation for punctuated equilibrium, her hypotheses just might bridge some gaps. Thank goodness I should be around for a few more decades yet. I just might be lucky enough to see some of these deep questions answered! KF, you think about these things a lot . . . do you think Dr Dembski allowed for the flow of information from the environment to the organism? I can't imagine that is the case myself.ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
EZ: remember it is not just one protein in isolation that renders the verdict but he set of proteins involved in life. Yes, a 113 AA protein is within the search resources of the undirected cosmos, but when you look at the hundreds of co-ordinated proteins for life to work, the cumulative total is well beyond the threshold. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
BA77: I just want to note that I did try and honestly address your points as much as I've had time for but I've still got no response from you regarding the ID perspective on the wildly varied genome sizes found in nature. I admitted that I've got nothing new to add to the debate in support of my point and that you've heard it all before. And I've said many times that I really want to understand the stand that ID takes on certain issues. Which is why I'm here asking questions and NOT just making up responses based on my perceptions and bias. You frequently parade the fact that Darwinists can't and won't answer certain questions. Please be honest and acknowledge that there are some questions you can't or choose not to answer. I haven't got an agenda. I'm not a troll. I think we'd all benefit from understanding each other better.ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
bornagain77 #77 ... [!] Yes. It depends on the fact that the probability is 1/4 = 25%. To be precise it would be 25% only if the four signs A, T, G, C were identically probable and they are not. The theoretical value is 26%. By the way thank you for your massive engagement and contribution to my posts in particular and to the UD posts in general.niwrad
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
niwrad, does the 25.9% matching have something to do with this fact? --- Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking. Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7). Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038bornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
niwrad could you help me understand this; However just for curiosity I did such complete test between chimp and human and obtained an overall percentage of matching of 25.9%, which is almost exactly what the theory states.bornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
BA77: You're very welcome. You should here my material on conservative politics! :-)ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Joseph #61
Has anyone ever done a complete side by side comparison of a human and chimp genome? And if not does anyone know what they are waiting for? Or do they not care what the real % difference is?
If you with "side by side comparison" mean a pair-wise comparison of the chromosomes that would have no functional meaning because, for many reasons, the functional portions of a genome are never aligned with the similar functional portions of another genome. However just for curiosity I did such complete test between chimp and human and obtained an overall percentage of matching of 25.9%, which is almost exactly what the theory states. See my previous post, where I try to explain why genomic similarity is a very tricky and debatable issue.niwrad
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
HA HA HA; 'I agree, the fossil record is far from complete. Which is why it’s considered only one thread in the rope supporting common descent with modification. Several biologists have even said that descent could be established without any fossils whatsoever.' HA HA HA Thanks for the laugh :) "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 ellazimm,,,Man evolutionary science is easy, when any evidence is contrary to your hypothesis, just chuck the evidence, and rearrange all the remaining pieces to confirm your preferred presupposition. Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience evanescence - lies - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRkbornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
And later in the same review: "Even if we assume that DNA contains Complex Specified Information (CSI), this does not answer the question: what real-life mechanism could produce CSI? Dembski concludes that natural law plus chance cannot explain information content in DNA. Is that true? To find out we must distinguish between two questions: 1. is there a natural mechanism that creates the very first information (= origin of life)? 2. can natural selection and mutation increase information content of DNA? Biologists don't know all the details of the solution of the first question: the origin of life. The simplest free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 468 genes. This would exceed Dembski's boundary of 500 bits, I guess. Could this evolve gradually? We need data and experiments. Now the second question. Although Dembski tries to escape a positive answer to the second question, he finds himself saying: "selection introduces new information" (p177). Dembski also seems to accept that information can flow from the environment to an organism, thereby increasing the organism's information content. Both statements contradict his main thesis that natural processes cannot generate CSI. On other pages he is so attached to the Law of Conservation of Information ('Only Information begets Information', p183) and the belief that CSI cannot be generated by natural processes, that he is forced to believe that CSI existed before the origin of life: CSI could be 'abundant in the universe' and 'CSI is inherent in a lifeless universe'. This amounts to free-floating ghostly information in space, which is too far removed from down-to-earth biological science. The whole idea that information in DNA has any meaning outside living organisms is caused by pushing the information metaphor too far. The information in DNA is meaningless outside the cell. Just like the instructions in software do not have any meaning outside the very specific hardware environment in which they are executed. Further Dembski believes in 'discrete insertions of CSI over time in organisms' (p171). In that case I prefer Fred Hoyle's panspermia theory, which is as unearthly but closer to observational science."ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
I was trying to find stuff about design and genome length and found a review of Dr Dembski's Intelligent Design by Gert Korthof wherein he states: "Dembski defines Complex Specified Information, CSI, as "any specified information whose complexity exceeds 500 bits of information" (p166). Chance cannot generate CSI. However he didn't translate that into a concrete DNA sequence length. I did not find it in his book. If he consulted Yockey he would have noticed that the cytochrome-c family of genes (113 amino acids, 339 bases long) has an information content of 233 - 373 bits. This is clearly lower than 500 bits. So although cytochrome-c undoubtedly contains information, it does not classify as CSI. So cytochrome-c is not an example of design and could be generated by chance according to Dembski's criterion. This is a rather unexpected result. I don't doubt Yockey's calculation. Yockey made the most detailed calculation that can be found in the literature. Dembski knows Yockey's book. It has far reaching consequences for Dembski's design concept that cytochrome-c is not CSI. Because many genes have the same information content as cytochrome-c and many genes are below the 500 bits boundary. Thus many genes would not classify as CSI and would not be designed. Histone-H3 is just above the boundary (505 bits). The largest known mammalian gene, the dystrophin gene, contains 79 pieces (exons), is 2.4 Mb (Million bases) long, encodes a protein of 3685 amino acids and if the sequence is specified, it certainly must be designed. However Dembski did not mention any gene by name. The only concrete claim Dembski has made is: "the CSI of a flagellum far exceeds 500 bits" (p178), but there are about 50 genes involved in a flagellum. Why not claim that the human genome (estimated size: 3,2 billion base pairs; estimated number of genes: 30,000 - 40,000 25) far exceeds 500 bits? Why stop there? If there are now a standing diversity of 100 million biological species and each had a hundred thousand genes and genes in each species were at least slightly different from genes in all other species, then, not counting molecular diversity within species, the number of genes on planet Earth is 10 trillion. Dembski's problem is: what units do we use? a piece of DNA? an exon? a gene? a gene family? a functional group of genes? a whole genome? all genomes on Earth?"ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply