99% Chimp DNA Similarity? Not!

[YmirGF]

The study I referred to above is from the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). See my post above. So this is a "fringe" study? To who?

Does anyone else here believe the National Academy of Sciences is a fringe organization? If so, what makes it fringe?

Here is a brief description: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private non-profit organization in the United States. The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which also includes the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the National Academy of Medicine and the National Research Council.

I do question the methodology of the study though.

They compared 0.026 % of the total genome to get a 95% similarity number.

Is anyone going to ask the question "Why didn't they compare 100% of the genome?" This is the elephant in the room which is being ignored.

Here is one answer: As of today, there is no 100% complete mapping of a chimp genome with which to compare.

I'm sure glad that you have brought this to our attention. Farking brilliant thinking, Ol' chap.

 

[ftacky]

Since some here seem to be 'believers' in the 95-99% similarity between chimps and humans, and assuming this is an easily verifiable scientific fact with tons of literature on the studies, would any of you 'believers' like to provide us with a "non-fringe" article specifically stating/claiming that ALL 3 BILLION base pairs of the COMPLETE genome of both chimps and humans were compared?

 

[HonestJoe]

Since 2003, false claims by evolutionary biologists started cropping up in the popular media stating that the human genome and chimp genome are 99% identical, thus proving evolution.

Do you have any primary evidence of professional evolutionary biologists specifically stating the entire genomes were 99% identical or that the similarity proves evolution? I guarantee no scientist has serious stated that “we are 50% banana”.

The main issue here, as with science reporting in general, it with how “journalists” assess, interpret and report complex and detailed technical research to produce short and simple news reports. Most of these people have little or no scientific background themselves and even those who do will rarely have recent experience in the specific fields in question. What they will have is a bias against technical detail and boring conditionals and a bias in favour of simple answers and headline-grabbing conclusions. You can’t read the news articles are conclude that’s what scientists are actually saying, even (especially!) when the articles start “Scientists say…”.

This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

It’s more than a little ironic that you bring up a Biblical quote in the context of exaggerated claims and misinforming the public. The fact is that your (or anyone else’s) religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the valid questions around reporting of scientific research and the wider public perception of science.

 

[metis]

Since some here seem to be 'believers' in the 95-99% similarity between chimps and humans, and assuming this is an easily verifiable scientific fact with tons of literature on the studies, would any of you 'believers' like to provide us with a "non-fringe" article specifically stating/claiming that ALL 3 BILLION base pairs of the COMPLETE genome of both chimps and humans were compared?

First of all, please deal with HJ's question first.

Secondly, what is your conclusion based on what you have posted in regards to human evolution? You cite the NAS, which strongly has taken the position that creationism is not only not scientific but also that it is dangerous to our educational system to be taught as science.

So, will you get to the point?

 

[Parsimony]

The study I referred to above is from the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). See my post above. So this is a "fringe" study? To who?

Does anyone else here believe the National Academy of Sciences is a fringe organization? If so, what makes it fringe?

Here is a brief description: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private non-profit organization in the United States. The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which also includes the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the National Academy of Medicine and the National Research Council.

I do question the methodology of the study though.

They compared 0.026 % of the total genome to get a 95% similarity number.

Is anyone going to ask the question "Why didn't they compare 100% of the genome?" This is the elephant in the room which is being ignored.

So the number isn't below 94% then, just as I suspected. So where did those 85% and 70% figures come from? I want to see the peer-reviewed article with those numbers.

Here is one answer: As of today, there is no 100% complete mapping of a chimp genome with which to compare.

The Chimpanzee Genome Project sequenced the chimp genome in 2005. To quote from the source:

"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution."

 

[Sapiens]

...The doubts i have about the human/chimp comparisons are valid to me. If you don't want to question the studies, that's ok too...

Its the old story, you are entitle to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So, by your own sources and admission, there's a very small percentage of our DNA that distinguishes us as distinctly human. Of that small percentage, a good majority of it is shared or similar with other organisms, including the great apes, and this somehow disproves Evolutionary Biology and the concepts of common descent?

Lol wut?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Since some here seem to be 'believers' in the 95-99% similarity between chimps and humans, and assuming this is an easily verifiable scientific fact with tons of literature on the studies, would any of you 'believers' like to provide us with a "non-fringe" article specifically stating/claiming that ALL 3 BILLION base pairs of the COMPLETE genome of both chimps and humans were compared?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...ing-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.genome.gov/15515096/200...inds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level/
In a paper published in the Sept. 1 issue of the journal Nature, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, which is supported in part by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), describes its landmark analysis comparing the genome of the chimp (Pan troglodytes) with that of human (Homo sapiens).

"The sequencing of the chimp genome is a historic achievement that is destined to lead to many more exciting discoveries with implications for human health," said NHGRI Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. "As we build upon the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, it's become clear that comparing the human genome with the genomes of other organisms is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our own biology."

"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set," said the study's lead author, Tarjei S. Mikkelsen of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Among the genetic changes that researchers will be looking for are those that may be related to the human-specific features of walking upright on two feet, a greatly enlarged brain and complex language skills.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.abstract
The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html

 

[Mickdrew]

Apologies, but evolution is a fact at this point. There is simply too much evidence to try and claim it is not true. The sooner you accept that, the better.

Or don't

I'm not here to convince you not to waste your time.

 

[ftacky]

So some of you believers in evolution believe we have been shown almost all - if not ALL - genetic evidence to be completely convinced that we are 95-99% genetically similar to chimps, correct?

I can actually see why some of you believe this...

Here is one common example of a flurry of articles we saw and continue to see on the subject:

Ref: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature (2005)
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a LARGELY COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF GENETIC DIFFERENCES that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor..."

So, this article basically claims a COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF ALL PERTINENT GENETIC DIFFERENCES, is this correct?

Questions:
Why do you believe these articles?

a) Is it because scientists with PhDs wrote it?
b) Is it because of the evidence they presented? If so, what evidence in particular? (please refrain from simply stating "all of it" or other vagueness, thank you).
c) Since the genome is commonly grouped into protein-coding, non-coding, and regulatory, which part of the comparison was MOST convincing to you?
d) any other?

I thank you for your thoughts and input in advance.


Verse for the day: Ecclesiates 9
For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. ...

Faith, standard definition:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
   synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · hope
   
   
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Apologies, but evolution is a fact at this point. There is simply too much evidence to try and claim it is not true. The sooner you accept that, the better.

Or don't

I'm not here to convince you not to waste your time.

While I agree that humans evolved, I do not agree with just calling it a fact and leaving it like a religious dogma. Evolution is a discovered fact, so every generation has to rediscover it and discuss it. Otherwise it will become nothing at all and will be trampled.

 

[Mickdrew]

While I agree that humans evolved, I do not agree with just calling it a fact and leaving it like a religious dogma. Evolution is a discovered fact, so every generation has to rediscover it and discuss it. Otherwise it will become nothing at all and will be trampled.

It's (as near as makes no difference) a scientific fact.
Only left out the qualifier cuz too many people use the "it's just a theory" argument.

 

[Parsimony]

So some of you believers in evolution believe we have been shown almost all - if not ALL - genetic evidence to be completely convinced that we are 95-99% genetically similar to chimps, correct?

I can actually see why some of you believe this...

Here is one common example of a flurry of articles we saw and continue to see on the subject:

Ref: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature (2005)
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a LARGELY COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF GENETIC DIFFERENCES that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor..."

So, this article basically claims a COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF ALL PERTINENT GENETIC DIFFERENCES, is this correct?

If I remember correctly, it was actually about 94% of the chimp genome. That’s still plenty enough.

Questions:
Why do you believe these articles?

a) Is it because scientists with PhDs wrote it?
b) Is it because of the evidence they presented? If so, what evidence in particular? (please refrain from simply stating "all of it" or other vagueness, thank you).
c) any other?

Because I have no reason to suppose that there is some giant conspiracy in the field of genetics where data for study after study was fabricated to show a 95-98% similarity between nucleotide sequences of humans and chimps. Please don’t tell me you assume there is a conspiracy...

Why won’t you tell me where you got the 70% and 85% figures? Were they not from a peer-reviewed study? I’m interested in this particular sentence of yours:

“and the most current studies show 70% similarity”

Since you say “studies” instead of just “study”, that means there must be more than one pointing to 70% similarity, right? So where are they? You didn’t just pluck that from thin air, did you? Which institution(s) performed the studies? What journal were the studies posted in? What was the year of publication?

 

[metis]

Faith, standard definition:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
   synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · hope
   
   
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Science works in evidence, not faith, so you're barking up the wrong tree when you use "spiritual apprehension" to do science with.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So some of you believers in evolution believe we have been shown almost all - if not ALL - genetic evidence to be completely convinced that we are 95-99% genetically similar to chimps, correct?

I can actually see why some of you believe this...

Here is one common example of a flurry of articles we saw and continue to see on the subject:

Ref: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature (2005)
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a LARGELY COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF GENETIC DIFFERENCES that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor..."

So, this article basically claims a COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF ALL PERTINENT GENETIC DIFFERENCES, is this correct?

There are a whole host of genetic differences between you and your parents. Do those differences mean that you aren't related?

Questions:
Why do you believe these articles?

a) Is it because scientists with PhDs wrote it?
b) Is it because of the evidence they presented? If so, what evidence in particular? (please refrain from simply stating "all of it" or other vagueness, thank you).
c) Since the genome is commonly grouped into protein-coding, non-coding, and regulatory, which part of the comparison was MOST convincing to you?
d) any other?

I thank you for your thoughts and input in advance.

My previous post, which you conveniently failed to respond to, shows some of the accepted evidence and data. What I've quoted shows which evidence and why. It is clear and not vague.
The summarized text that I've provided is consistent with other conclusions on the topic. They have all been peer reviewed and, as far as I know, have not been found to be faulty.

A follow up question for you would be why you have a problem with scientific consensus. I don't expect you to know everything that there is to know about the genetics and biology - we each have our own set of specific strength - but you attempt to deny something that is entirely factual. Why?

There are better arguments that you can make for your position, homogenizing your faith with the facts of the observational world around you, but you can't do that if you spend all of you're time trying to discredit genetic similarity.

 

[sayak83]

Since 2003, false claims by evolutionary biologists started cropping up in the popular media stating that the human genome and chimp genome are 99% identical, thus proving evolution. This falsely implied that a COMPLETE genome of both was compared. This is a false claim on so many levels:

1) Genome mapping is only concerned with the protein coding sequences, estimated at between 1-4% of the entire genome. The remainder of the genome, much of which is considered to be "junk DNA" by many in the field, has not been completely mapped to date.

2) What was actually compared between humans and chimps was ONLY the protein-coding sequences - which make up less than 4% of the total genome. The latest studies show it to be as low as 1% of the total genome.

3) The comparison studies used mathematical algorythms rather than a direct genome-to-genome comparison which is considered too laborious at this time of technology.

4) The algorythms have been constantly improved and tweaked since the initial studies to more accurately reflect a real comparison - by including indels for example. The 99% has slowly decreased in value. The 99% was initially downgraded to 98%, then 96%, then 85%, and the most current studies show 70% similarity. Do you see the trend?

5) The initial studies back in 2003 also claimed that the genome of humans and bananas had a 50% similarity. This credulously implied that we, as humans, were 50% banana! Undoubtedly, this 50% number is also too high. Nonetheless, evolutionary biologists with PhDs were quick to jump on the bandwagon and started telling the public that we were actually one-half of a banana! So much for academic honesty.

Nonetheless, the question remains: Why should humans have any genomic similarity with bananas and chimps, even small similarities? This is why:

1) If we have no genomic similarity with bananas, we cannot assimilate (digest and absorb) bananas. We must have at least SOME genomic similarity with the things we eat, otherwise we would starve.

2) All life on Earth is based on the same carbon/nitrogen/water-based system so we should expect some similarity. This should only make sense to any biologist.

3) Even the Director of the Human Genome project has admitted:
"...we were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute


This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

For more info:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40441/title/Human-Gene-Set-Shrinks-Again/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/fresh-look-human-chimp-dna-similarity/

I do not know what you are talking about.

http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint.../full/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094339

A draft sequence of the chimpanzee genome is now available, providing opportunities to better understand genetic contributions to human evolution, development, and disease. Sequence differences from the human genome were confirmed to be ∼1% in areas that can be precisely aligned, representing ∼35 million single base-pair differences. Some 45 million nucleotides of insertions and deletions unique to each lineage were also discovered, making the actual difference between the two genomes ∼4%.

The statement above is based on the full analysis of the entire genome of a chimpanzee and a human. Overall similarity is 96% and single nucleotide changes based similarity is 99%. These assessments have not changed in the years since the associated papers were published.

The 70% result is a complete rubbish analysis post in a pseudoscience creationist publication and is not accepted by anyone in science.

https://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/tomkins-70/

Basically if a specific section of the DNA has been replicated in, say the chimpanzee genome, the similarity has to be calculated after the proper sections have been re-aligned.

So for example suppose in two copies of a book, a typo has caused an entire sentence to be pasted twice, the proper alignment of between the equivalent sentences can only happen when an appropriate blank has been placed in the original manuscript where the copy has the added repetitive sentence. Not doing this and then saying "LOOK the sentences do not match" is ridiculous.


Example:-
Sun is bright. Rose is red. Sea is blue. Cats eat fish. Cats eat fish. Cats eat fish. Cows give milk. Bats fly at night. Babies are cute....
Sun is bright. Rose is red. Sea is blue. Cats eat fish._______________________Cows give milk. Bats fly at night. Babies are cute....

 

[bobhikes]

You don't need advanced biology to notice that us and chimps are related. You just need to go a zoo and have a look.

Ciao

- viole

Really and yet people still think ethnic differences mean we are not related. Don't figure.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm dying to know, aside from metaphoric use, why creationists consistently like to use inorganic "examples" thinking it reflects organic evolutionary processes.

That's the point of an analogy- using a different example to illustrate the point

Product designs are successfully replicated to the extent that their designs out compete inferior ones, just like organic replicators.

fundamentalist evolutionists often point to similarities of design as being evidence of Darwinism- purely in and of themselves, this analogy merely points of that fallacy.

Similar designs customized for niche environments, are at least as much a trademark of ID

 

[metis]

Similar designs customized for niche environments, are at least as much a trademark of ID

Except that in order for there to be "intelligent design", there has to be objective evidence that such "intelligence" actually exists, and blind belief is certainly insufficient in establishing that.

 

[Wu Wei]

like the press operator I knew....Henry...

short legged
heavy gut sagging forward
spine followed
shoulders back
thick forearms

gorilla

I work with this guy

But then he works with me