Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Animal Body. So What?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig
Humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar. Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less. A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. What is all the fuss about?  It seems to me that much of the fuss is accounted for by the fact that whether they are in the ID or the creationist camp, many theists have an adverse visceral reaction to the data, and for that reason they work very hard to discredit or downplay it. I once felt this way. But as John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The stubborn fact of the matter is that human bodies are very similar to chimpanzee bodies both morphologically and genetically. I have made peace with that fact, and to my theist friends who find the data troubling, I say calm down. Yes, you have an animal body that is more or less similar to the bodies of other animals. That your body is more similar to some animals – and in the case of the chimpanzee very similar indeed – is a fact of no great theological consequence, because you are not your body. Even if we were 99.999999999999% similar both genetically and morphologically to chimpanzees, it would not matter, because it is the difference that counts, and that difference is not a material difference. The difference is spiritual in nature, and because it is spiritual in nature material comparisons are not just misleading; they are completely irrelevant.

Paul wrote to his friends at Corinth: “I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” II Cor. 5:8. Who was going to be present with the Lord when Paul was absent from his body? Why, Paul of course. Paul understood that he, Paul, transcended his physical body, and one day he would be separated from that body. This dualism is nowhere more apparent than in Paul’s discussion of the never-ending war being waged within:

I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Romans 8:22-24.

I am not here arguing for any particular theory of how this dualism works out, such as Cartesian substance dualism or hylomorphism. My point is that scripture clearly teaches a distinction between body and spirit, and it is the spirit, not the body, that is of particular (indeed, eternal) consequence. Nor does the fact that I am conceding the similarity between the human body and the chimpanzee body mean I have conceded anything important to the materialists. I have an animal body. So what? Whoever said I didn’t? This does not necessarily imply common descent, much less Darwinian evolution. For purposes of the present discussion I am merely stating the obvious: I have an animal body, the Linnean taxonomic classification of which is:
Classification

As a theist (especially a Christian theist), I am not troubled by the fact that I have an animal body.  Yes, I am an animal, but I am not merely an animal. I have an eternal spirit, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Comments
wd400, You did an admirable job of avoiding the central questions. What is the objective basis of your beliefs? What is the objective distinction between your beliefs and Barry's beliefs? wd400:
The OP is about the belief that humans, and not other animals, have eternal spirits and uses scripture to support it.
So? wd400:
That’s fairly obviously a religious topic, no?
No. wd400:
I am indeed talkinag about personal subjective preferences when I say I don’t see much point in talking about people’s religuous beliefs. You are welcome to talk about them.
And you are welcome to not talk about them. And you are likewise weloome to declare that your decision is a personal subjective opinion you hold. Why is it binding on anyone else? Why is it not a religious belief?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
How does any similarity between two genomes prove common descent? I see it as a stronger case for common design through class inheritance. Just good old engineering.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
What do you mean so?Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Mapou:
I see no scriptural evidence nor logical arguments to support the notion that God has a non-physical body.
So?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Mung:
Given that no Christian believes that God is a physical being,
I'm a Christian and I believe that God and everybody else have physical body. Not necessarily the same type of physical matter as humans but physical matter regardless. I see no scriptural evidence nor logical arguments to support the notion that God has a non-physical body.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Mung, The OP is about the belief that humans, and not other animals, have eternal spirits and uses scripture to support it. That's fairly obviously a religious topic, no? I am indeed talkinag about personal subjective preferences when I say I don't see much point in talking about people's religuous beliefs. You are welcome to talk about them. Box, That's a different statistic. human-mouse are about 85% identical in the way human-chimp are 98%. prhean, I really have no idea what you are on about, I'm afraid.wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
wd400, Do you have an objective means by which to distinguish religious beliefs from non-religious beliefs, and do you have an argument as to why the former are unworthy of discussion while the latter are worthy of discussion? Or are you simply expressing your personal subjective preferences? I repeat, a person’s beliefs are just that, their beliefs. Including yours.Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
The stunning 98% similarity is only trumped by the .... mouse.
The 2.5-Gb mouse genome sequence reported on page 520, from the C57BL/6J strain, reveals about 30,000 genes, with 99% having direct counterparts in humans. [source: nature.com]
On a side note: Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. [source]Box
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Given that no Christian believes that God is a physical being, does it not follow that "in the image of God" says nothing about physical similarity or physical dis-similarity to any other species?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
OT: I looked around a little bit for a 'made in God's image' video, and found this from Tim Keller: You are my Friends - Tim Keller - sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyyqYa22Thw Being made in the image of God means, among other things, that we were not created to be in isolation.bornagain77
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
wd400, while I respect your beliefs, they are obviously your personal religious beliefs, and therefore not worth discussing. Why then do you persist in posting them here at UD rather than on some website devoted to the discussion of religious beliefs not worth discussing?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
wd400:
I don’t have much to say about the OP. As far as I’m concerned, everyone’s religous beliefs are there own and I don’t see much point in discussing them.
Where in the OP did Barry say his beliefs were "religious beliefs?" wd400:
I don’t have much to say about the OP. As far as I’m concerned, everyone’s religous beliefs are there own and I don’t see much point in discussing them.
A person's beliefs are just that, their beliefs. How did you decide that Barry's beliefs, as expressed in his OP, were "religious beliefs?" What other classifications of "beliefs" do you appeal to in order to justify your belief that they are not worth discussing? Why isn't your belief likewise a "religious belief" not worth discussing?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Well wd400, by even engaging in this thread you are using logic and reason (and information) to try to win people over to your atheistic point of view. Thus you are literally drenched, whether you admit it or not, in a thoroughly 'spiritual' exercise that cannot be reduced to mere material mechanism. Moreover, this 'spiritual' exercise of reasoning that you are using is among the most profound of differences between us and the animals. Thus, even though you constantly engage in 'spirituality' just by reasoning alone, I don't blame you for refusing to deal with this issue honestly. Darwin himself had a 'horrid doubt' about the subject:
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881
And indeed, Darwin's 'horrid doubt' has been hammered out. The 'convictions of man’s mind', as Plantinga has rigorously shown, cannot be grounded in the atheist's naturalistic worldview:
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/
As well wd400, since you are fond of your mathematical ability in population genetics, Berlinski has a apt quote that is relevant for you:
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
supplemental quote:
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
bornagain77
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
Well,ba, I don't have much to say about the OP. As far as I'm concerned, everyone's religous beliefs are there own and I don't see much point in discussing them.wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Let's say that the human genome and the chimp genome are EXACTLY the same except that 2% of the genes are expressed (on or off) differently. If there are 25,000 human genes then 500 would be expressed differently between humans and chimps. The probability of going from one species to the other would be two to the 500th power or, I think, about 10 to the 167th. So if evolution were purposefully moving from one species to the other and you had one gene expressed differently per generation to that end it would take 10 to the 167th generations to get there. I am trying to make this evolution thing more plausible but it still quite unlikely.prhean
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Arcatia_bogart:
The reason they have trouble with this is because it runs counter to the idea that they were made in god’s image.
And you're either ignorant or a liar. Imagine that. Which shall it be?Mung
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Wd400: "I don’t know what you think is subjective about alignment. But the point you seem to have missed is that the percent-alignable has gone from 80 to 90 without denting the percent-identical. The genomes are really similar, why people have such trouble with this I do not know." The reason they have trouble with this is because it runs counter to the idea that they were made in god's image.Acartia_bogart
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Well Moose Dr's case is far stronger than you pretend, but that is beside the point. The similarity is conceded by Mr. Arrington in this OP, for the sake of argument, so as to focus on, and make the case for the drastic differences in spirit. I don't blame you for ignoring it. It is not a minor problem for atheists. In fact, if you were honest with yourself and others on this point, the point would be devastating for your atheism. Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? - On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical - By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012 Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we'd be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false -- non-physical essences exist. But, what's their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can't be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we're just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all. http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012?offset=1&max=1bornagain77
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
BA, I didn't address the OP at all, just corrected Moose Dr's misunderstanding.wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
It is interesting to note that even though Mr. Arrington, for the sake of argument, conceded the point of similarity to Darwinists so as to make his overriding point for the spirit of man:
Even if we were 99.999999999999% similar both genetically and morphologically to chimpanzees, it would not matter, because it is the difference that counts, and that difference is not a material difference. The difference is spiritual in nature, and because it is spiritual in nature material comparisons are not just misleading; they are completely irrelevant. Paul wrote to his friends at Corinth: “I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” II Cor. 5:8. Who was going to be present with the Lord when Paul was absent from his body? Why, Paul of course. Paul understood that he, Paul, transcended his physical body, and one day he would be separated from that body.
,,, even though Mr. Arrington conceded the point of similarity to Darwinists so as to make his argument for 'differences of spirit', wd400 still refuses to address Mr. Arrington's argument on its merits, and still argues as if Mr. Arrington had not already conceded the point to him (and other Darwinists). Well, if wd400 were to ever honestly address the argument on its own merits, the way Mr. Arrington intended, i.e. address the drastic spiritual difference between man and animals, then wd400 would also be impressed at the gigantic spiritual chasm that exists between man and the other animals on the planet: No less than Ian Tattersall, emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History, expresses wonder at the stark 'spiritual' differences between man and apes,,,
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202
Further notes along this line;
Origin of the Mind: Marc Hauser - Scientific American - April 2009 Excerpt: "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind",,, http://www.wjh.harvard.edu?/~mnkylab/publications/rec?ent/mindSciAm.pdf Darwin's mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. - 2008 Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as "one of degree and not of kind" (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531 Young Children Have Grammar and Chimpanzees Don't - Apr. 10, 2013 Excerpt:,, He found further evidence for what many scientists, including Nim's own trainers, have contended about Nim: that the sequences of signs Nim put together did not follow from rules like those in human language. Nim's signs show significantly lower diversity than what is expected under a systematic grammar and were similar to the level expected with memorization. This suggests that true language learning is -- so far -- a uniquely human trait, and that it is present very early in development. "The idea that children are only imitating adults' language is very intuitive, so it's seen a revival over the last few years," Yang said. "But this is strong statistical evidence in favor of the idea that children actually know a lot about abstract grammar from an early age." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130410131327.htm
Even Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer of Natural Selection, who certainly had far more field work that Charles Darwin did, conceded, spiritually speaking, that "The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable",,,
"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russel Wallace - An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.
And it is also interesting to note that the exact place where Man most drastically differentiates from animals, i.e. in his ability to produce information, is the exact place where Darwinian evolution has failed to achieve empirical validation. i.e. the generation of information by purely material processes. It should not be surprising that the material processes of Darwinian evolution would be found to be grossly inadequate to generate 'transcendent information'. Information simply cannot be reduced to a material basis:
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician -(Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field. “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8 John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw
It also interesting to point out that the foundation of reality itself is found to be 'information theoretic' in its basis, not materialistic in its basis
John Wheeler (1911–2008) summarizes his life in physics - February 2014 Excerpt: "I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons. I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself. Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64. Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf Conversations with William Dembski--The Thesis of Being as Communion - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI
Thus the fact that the universe is 'information theoretic' in its basis, and the fact that the 'spiritual differences' that most drastically separate us from the animals, i.e. our ability to use and create information, both correspond, is striking confirmation for the Theistic claim that we are made in God's image: verse and music:
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Dive - Steven Curtis Chapman http://myktis.com/songs/dive/
bornagain77
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
I don’t know what you think is subjective about alignment.
In that case, don't leave us hanging like this. Put your money where your mouth is. Give us your objective definition of 'alignment' or at least the definition used by the researchers in those comparison studies.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
... and here's a YEC saying the same thing: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-4.htmlwd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
I don't know what you think is subjective about alignment. But the point you seem to have missed is that the percent-alignable has gone from 80 to 90 without denting the percent-identical. The genomes are really similar, why people have such trouble with this I do not know.wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
wd400:
A section is alignable if it can be aligned...
Well, thank you for that astute bit of worthless wisdom. But since you are content with beating around the bush (a sign that you have something to hide), I should again point out that the definition of 'alignment' is highly subjective and can be manipulated to favor one worldview or another.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
ppolish,
Soon the hominids will have their own tree segments. Shake those Apes off. Apes can have their own segment.
The visual imagery is hilarious! ;-) -QQuerius
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Most Evolutionist "Family Trees" show Gorilla/Chimp/Bonobo/Human. But my latest SciAm mag )received today) shows a Gorilla/Chimp/Bonobo/Human,NeandertalDenisovsan tree. Baby steps. Soon the hominids will have their own tree segments. Shake those Apes off. Apes can have their own segment.ppolish
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
A section is alignable if it can be aligned... highly repetitive sequences (which both genomes are full of) are very difficult to align so they're excluded. Now, you might think the "unalignable" bits are really different so should count as "zero percent identity", but that's not the case. When the first draft of the chimp genome was published ~80% of the sequences could be aligned to human, and those ~80% have ~98% identity. In the latest drat, 90% of the genome is alignable and the 98% identity stands. Adding the previously-unalignable sequences hasn't changed the result.wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
wd400:
You do not understand correctly. The ~98% figure is for all the align-able genome, not just the ~1.5% that encodes proteins.
In this is true, it's even worse than I thought. What is considered "alignable"? Are non-alignable code segments eliminated from the final statistics? This is subjective.Mapou
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Moose Dr,
The methods used to produce the 98% number appear to me to be predicated on the neo-Darwinian interpretation. If I understand correctly, the number is pretty much based upon comparing variation within matching genes between the two species. The methods ignore dna differences in the non-coding, or “junk” regions. If these “junk” regions are not, well, junk, then the 98% number is in significant error. If the 98% number is in significant error the neo-Darwinian position is seriously challenged.
You do not understand correctly. The ~98% figure is for all the align-able genome, not just the ~1.5% that encodes proteins. In fact the protein coding genes are a good deal more similar to the chimpanzee genome than other regions, which is one good reason to think the majority of the genome is junk (diverging along at the neutral rate, rather than being slowed by natural selection).wd400
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
This topic reminds of a quote from someone eminent that I once read. It goes something like this: "The spirit of a man in the body of a gibbon would not do much worse . . ." I can't find it online. Maybe someone else here remembers it. -QQuerius
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply