Genetics Human evolution Intelligent Design News

Flash news!: 100 percent of our genome is identical to chimp genome ;)

Spread the love

Okay, not quite, but …

Chris Mooney tells us at Mother Jones that “You Share 98.7 Percent of Your DNA With This Sex-Obsessed Ape.” Presumably, the information follows on “The picture that terrifies creationists,” re human-chimp DNA comparisons.

Last time we heard about it, it was 98%, but never mind.

When it edges upward to “100 Percent of Our DNA With This Sex-Obsessed Ape,” what will become of Mooney’s story?

Is the point of his claims to constantly diminish the claimed figure but never quite get there? All he is really diminishing is the apparent value of the genome as a source of information about life forms. If he never quite gets to  100%, he still has a story.

What’s really significant for an assessment of critical thinking in our culture is how few of Mooney’s readers would be able to think that one out. To ask where exactly that leaves genetics.

In other news, Journalist wonders, why Creation Museum inspires rage, whole foods scams don’t (sky fell last night too, by the way)

also

Our moral and intellectual superiors ask, Can creationists be (allowed to be) scientists?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

8 Replies to “Flash news!: 100 percent of our genome is identical to chimp genome ;)

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    That reminds me; I need to go see that 98.7% replica of the Empire State Building that the bonobos made. Or, should I listen to the 98.7% of Beethoven’s Fifth that the Bonobo Orchestra will be playing tonight?

    Choices, choices…

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    actually, far from the 98% myth that seems to be irretrievably ingrained in popular Imagination,

    Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – Sternberg – 2009
    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/2.....think.html

    Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013
    Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....chromosome

    Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
    1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
    2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
    3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

    Moreover, Dr. Tomkins is working to provide a much more detailed picture of the drastic genetic differences between chimps and man:

    Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
    Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7
    More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7856/

    I expect Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins to be successful in finding dramatic differences, especially in regards to RNA (genetic regulatory) sequences, and also when factoring in the large percentage of unique ORFan genes (10 to 30%) which, I believe, he left out of his first study that reached 70% genetic (protein coding) differences.

    Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144632.htm

    Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story – 16 January 2013 – Helen Pilcher
    Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these “orphan genes” are high achievers (are just as essential as ‘old’ genes),,,
    But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn’t be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven’t-quite the opposite, in fact.,,,
    The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, “the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero”.,,,
    Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing.
    http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/w.....n_2013.pdf

    Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed ‘non-answer’ from Darwinists) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    This YEC creationist welcomes 100% likeness with primates.
    We do not have human bodies but are renting primate bodies for human beings SOULS made in Gods image.
    We are within the spectrum of creation.
    We have livers, hearts, butts, lips, ears because we are in a common blueprint of biology. A single equation .
    Yet because we are unique we could not have a body representing our true identity as a God image as it couldn’t be shown within a animal biology plan.
    So we were given the best body on earth for our needs.
    We are renting a body. We are using a ape construction.
    Physical separateness is irrelevant.
    In fact its probably post fall details that spin us away from 100%. Like colour, pain at childbirth, body issues, no hair etc.

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    Even if what Mooney sed was true (it ain’t), that should tell us that we are not the sum of our genome, meaning humans just don’t emerge due to the interactions of the genome.

  5. 5
    JGuy says:

    This crap is going to be fun to watch fall publicly. When/if anyone get’s the courage to publish ACTUAL whole sequences. One’s done without the use of evolutionary assumptions – i.e. no using human genome as a scaffold for chimp genomes and vice versa – the gennomes have to be sequenced seperately.

    Perhaps, just from this forum we could maybe collect enough donation to end this. The original cost to sequence the entire human genome costs a million time more than it would today. We could sequence an entire genome for about $1000 dollars today! Even better, it can be done in a few days.

    Then do an actual comparison of human and chimp genomes. And see who was actually right.. there’s a reason this isn’t published in the literature.

    Are evolutionists on this forum willing to put up money to fund such an experiment? You’ll definitely get the creationists money… I wonder why?

    So..what do you evo’s say?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....sequencing

    https://www.genome.gov/images/content/cost_per_megabase.jpg

    Another evolutionists claim is hitting it’s final half-life marker.

    Any takers? … “Bueller?… Bueller?… Bueller?”

  6. 6
    JGuy says:

    I should add that I don’t think 99% similarity would be proof of evolution in the first place. After all, one only needs to use comparative anatomy to make such a prediction. However, evolutionist require it to be very similar. For appearance, and to avoid a case of Haldane’s dilemma on steroids.

    Seems this myth has been perpetuated to simply give the appearance of evolution – even if poorly reasoned. So, seeing it dropped down to 75%-80% similarity will be like pulling back the curtain on the wizard.

    Exciting times.

  7. 7
    aarceng says:

    @bornagain77
    RE: Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013

    Tomkins was advised that the program he used had a bug and he repeated his analysis with a bug-free version and two others for comparison. He has revised the figure for DNA similarity to 80%.

    Still far less than 98-99%.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Thank you aarceng. I was made aware of that development late last year. Moreover since then, I’ve also learned that the dGRNs (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) and/or alternative splicing codes (the programming language that tells genes what to do) are ‘species specific’ between chimps and humans (and every other species).

    A Closer Look At Human/Chimp Similarities and Differences – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1134643976548534/?type=2&theater

    Alternative Splicing Codes are Species Specific
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UMbNM8V2b7mRzPJt05mlev3UO4SG1bMTV5wkNunezjY/edit

Leave a Reply