99% Chimp DNA Similarity? Not!

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here's from the "Genetic Literacy Project" that does state due to comparative studies that we do share roughly 99% of our DNA with chimps: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....enes-with-chimps-can-dna-explain-differences/

Here's from The Smithsonian Institute that says much the same as above: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Here's from "Scientific American" that says much the same: http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/

Here's from Science Daily that uses the figure "over 90%": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm

I think my point is rather obvious, and when I see someone using "Answers In Genesis" as a supposed reliable source, then I think we know where the poster is coming from and why.

It always saddens me to see how much effort people will put into trying to debunk probably the best settled science that we have, and that EVERY authentic researcher in the biological and other relevant sciences basically agrees with. If Americans ever really do get dumbed down enough to accept the narrow, myth-based view of the creationists, I will lose hope for it continuing as a major world power at some point in its future.

Funny, I actually give more credit to the ancients -- I suspect if the writers of scripture had some of the brilliant knowledge that we were lucky enough to receive from Darwin, they would not have hidden from it but rather would have developed their views In direct consequence of it. I credit them with intellectual honesty, if not the latest and greatest scientific data. I cannot say the same about many (especially the Answers in Genesis folks) today.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Funny, I actually give more credit to the ancients -- I suspect if the writers of scripture had some of the brilliant knowledge that we were lucky enough to receive from Darwin, they would not have hidden from it but rather would have developed their views In direct consequence of it. I credit them with intellectual honesty, if not the latest and greatest scientific data. I cannot say the same about many (especially the Answers in Genesis folks) today.

"If I could only get the tools, the stimuli and
Molecules, frozen moments in time
I could be the archetype, a credit to the
Genotype, re-program your mind

But the storybook sages fill their pages
Hiding from the warming sun
Limitless distractions give no pause to distort a
Precious delusion

Did you see the moralist retort and raise his fist
"You can't make man a machine!"
I can see the edifice crumbling in foggy mist,
Razed by discovery

But the storybook sages fill their pages
Hiding from the warming sun
Limitless distractions give no pause to distort a
Precious delusion"

 

[metis]

It always saddens me to see how much effort people will put into trying to debunk probably the best settled science that we have, and that EVERY authentic researcher in the biological and other relevant sciences basically agrees with. If Americans ever really do get dumbed down enough to accept the narrow, myth-based view of the creationists, I will lose hope for it continuing as a major world power at some point in its future.

Funny, I actually give more credit to the ancients -- I suspect if the writers of scripture had some of the brilliant knowledge that we were lucky enough to receive from Darwin, they would not have hidden from it but rather would have developed their views In direct consequence of it. I credit them with intellectual honesty, if not the latest and greatest scientific data. I cannot say the same about many (especially the Answers in Genesis folks) today.

I agree. For the longest time, which was quite frustrating to me, the National Academy for the Sciences, which is the closest we get here in the States to having an official scientific organization (it is non-partisan and advises Congress and the President on scientific matters), didn't challenge creationism. However, when they noted that science test scores were significantly declining relative to so many other countries, they changed their mind and began to try and make sure that creationism isn't to be taught as science in a public school classroom.

 

[idav]

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.o%rg/genetics/fresh-look-human%chimp-dna-similarity/

I think there is a misplaced emphasis on the need to be 99% similar to chimps. The bonobo has shown to be just as close to humans. The important thing the genome shows is the primates are our long lost relatives, regardless of how close in DNA we are. The further back in time our ancestor link is, the further we get from 99% similarity.

 

[ftacky]

We must define the word "complete". To me, "complete" means comparing the "compete" human genome with the "complete" chimp genome. This was not done.

Nature (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
"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..."

Note: A COMPLETE catalogue of ALL differences? This is a lie. The comparison was done AFTER they removed significant differences between the two genomes - differences so significant that they could not be aligned side-by-side in the first place or where there was too much 'overlap'.

"Thus, by restricting our analysis to high-quality bases, the nucleotide-level accuracy of the WGS assembly is essentially equal to that of ‘finished’ sequence."
"“Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence”
"The combined alignments were chained and only best reciprocal alignments were retained for further analysis."

Note: they admit only using 'best-fit' sections of DNA for their analysis - aka cherry-picking the data to get the 'best' result, thus artificially increasing similarity between the two DNA sections. This, in turn, artificially increases overall similarity between chimps and humans.

Here is a brief explanation the article gives on how the chimp and human DNA sequences were 'screened' PRIOR to comparison (ref: Found under 'Supplemental Notes' of article):
"All alignments in the >90% and >60% categories were examined if the chimp scaffold spanned more than 1.5 times its counterpart in the human genome. When the offending supercontig only subsumed other supercontigs less than 1.5 kb, they were retained. For those that would completely overlap large contigs, the alignments were manually reviewed to determine if the alignment should be broken.
At this point scaffolds spanning a total of 2.85 Gb were anchored to the human genome sequence (excluding those in the random bins). All scaffolds that were completely overlapped by another scaffold based on the human position were then removed. Also removed were the smaller of two neighboring contigs when there was an overlap of 60% (based on human) between neighboring scaffolds. The total anchored sequence after these steps dropped to 2.74 Gb (2.41 Gb of actual contig length), or 88% of the total chimpanzee sequence."

Note: After artificially 'chopping and fitting' when attempting to align the chimp DNA and human DNA, only 2.41 Gb or 88% of the total chimp genome survived the process to be compared with the human genome. However, the human genome is approximately 3.1 to 3.2 Gb.

Assuming they were matching up the same number of Gb (2.41Gb) in each genome, then 2.41Gb / 3.2 Gb = .75 or roughly 75% of the human genome was used for comparison along with 88% of chimp genome.

Although the total Gb of each genome is slightly different in various studies, this shows that a COMPLETE comparison between the two genomes was not done. Unless we accept that 75% and 88% (human and chimp genome respectively) represent "completeness". Each of us will have to decide what we consider to be 'complete' for ourselves.

Think of it this way: If your boss says you will be 'completely' paid 75% of what you actually earn, will you be disappointed?

Bottom line: This heavily biased methodology brings us to the 99% similarity between humans and chimps. nice... It would be much more accurate to align both DNA side by side INCLUDING the 'gaps' and 'misalignments' to see the real difference.

Verse for the day: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3).
This verse tells us that we are about as inclined to search for God and a criminal is inclined to search for the nearest police department. In our natural state, nobody will seek God. If we ever find ourselves seeking God, it is because God is motivating us to do so. And when that happens, if we are wise, we will ride that tide as long as possible until we find God.

 

[ftacky]

Then we have the problem of CONTAMINATION:

(ref: Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases, PLOS-ONE, 2011):

"Using a primate specific SINE, AluY, we screened 2,749 non-primate public databases from NCBI, Ensembl, JGI, and UCSC and have found 492 to be contaminated with human sequence. These represent species ranging from bacteria (B. cereus) to plants (Z. mays) to fish (D. rerio) with examples found from most phyla. The identification of such extensive contamination of human sequence across databases and sequence types warrants caution among the sequencing community in future sequencing efforts, such as human re-sequencing."

"The danger in the propagation of errors in scientific discourse has been demonstrated in cases of both scientific fraud as well as incorrectly described or referenced experiments in reviews."

"Ten NCBI genome assemblies were found to contain human sequence (10.64%)...Over one quarter (28.5% of 42) of UCSC's assemblies were found to contain human sequence."

"The level of contamination found in these databases is significant and worrisome. Trace archive databases are often used in cross species analyses when whole genome sequences are not available or in the analyses of unassembled regions of genomes. With the advent of whole genome re-sequencing and other deep sequencing applications, assemblies are heavily relied upon for data mapping and analyses."
(ref: Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases, PLOS-ONE, 2011)

Bottom Line: We have to start screening chimp DNA databases for human contamination to see if some genome similarity is due to contamination or not.

 

[idav]

This, therefore, is not a COMPLETE comparison between the two genomes.

You don't need a complete comparison of your entire DNA to prove relationships. What your asking is to get the DNA of every human that ever lived. Talk about a tall order.

 

[ftacky]

The differences between humans and chimps is slowly being acknowledged by scientists:

(ref: Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry, Oxford Journals, 2007):

"For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions."
"Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree."


Differences between Human and Chimpanzee Genome are Bigger than Thought (ref: Dept. of Experimental and Health Sciences, upf.edu, 2009)

"During the last decade it was commonly accepted that humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, only differed by 1.24 % in our DNA sequences. This discovery shows that this figure is absolutely incorrect and, what is more, may be ten times higher. Nature magazine is to publish this important scientific discovery in a special issue on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth....big DNA fragments repeated many times along the genome that were difficult to distinguish until recently. As a result of this difficulty, these fragments were ignored and parts of the genome easier to individualise were studied, leading to a partial view of it.

 

[ftacky]

The aspect of Alternative Splicing (AS) of our DNA is the area of our genetics most likely to show the big differences with chimps but has been barely studied, much less compared to chimps.

Why is this important? Because this process can cause a similar gene to make a completely different protein. In other words, just because a particular gene is similar at the 'superficial' DNA level in both chimp and human, that doesn't mean much if the protein it produces is different.

(ref: Global analysis of alternative splicing differences between humans and chimpanzees, Genes and Development 2007)

"Alternative splicing is a powerful mechanism affording extensive proteomic and regulatory diversity from a limited repertoire of genes. However, the extent to which alternative splicing has contributed to the evolution of primate species-specific characteristics HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED. Using comparative genomics and quantitative microarray profiling, we performed the first global analysis of alternative splicing differences between humans and chimpanzees. Surprisingly, 6%–8% of profiled orthologous exons display pronounced splicing level differences in the corresponding tissues from the two species."

Note: The 6-8% does not represent a complete analysis of ALL exons for ALL genes of humans and chimps but only those they chose to study.


(ref: Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue transcriptomes. Nature. 2008)

"Through alternative processing of pre-messenger RNAs, individual mammalian genes often produce multiple mRNA and protein isoforms that may have related, distinct or even opposing functions."


(ref: Deep learning of the tissue-regulated splicing code, Bioinformatics 2014)

"Alternative splicing (AS) is a process whereby the exons of a primary transcript may be connected in different ways during pre-mRNA splicing. This enables the same gene to give rise to splicing isoforms containing different combinations of exons, and as a result different protein products, contributing to the cellular diversity of an organism (Wang and Burge, 2008). Furthermore, AS is regulated during development and is often tissue dependent, so a single gene can have multiple tissue-specific functions. The importance of AS lies in the evidence that at least 95% of human multi-exon genes are alternatively spliced and that the frequency of AS increases with species complexity."

Bottom Line: A huge number of protein coding DNA in humans is affected by AS. This aspect of our DNA has not been compared with chimps. Even so, we have been told we are 99% similar.

This misleading comparison is like: Someone says they are giving you a genetic map of the similarities between chimps and humans. However, what they aren't telling you is that there are numerous 'underground' pathways which are not mapped. These 'underground' pathways are what makes the real difference, not the superficial 'street-level' map they have given us.

Verse for the day: 2 Thess. 2: They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

 

[idav]

The differences between humans and chimps is slowly being acknowledged by scientists:

THe similarities are being acknowledged as well.
Chimps are faster and more accurate in memory.

Chimps and other primates are also self aware like humans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

*head, meet wall*

 

[Zosimus]

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.

If, by evolution, you mean that the frequency of alleles can change from generation to generation, then I agree with you.

If you have some other definition, then I probably don't agree with you.

 

[ftacky]

The article statement in post #45 above PROVES beyond all doubt that they DID NOT USE COMPLETE GENOMES of either chimp or human for the comparison.

It says: "All scaffolds that were completely overlapped by another scaffold based on the human position were then removed. Also removed were the smaller of two neighboring contigs when there was an overlap of 60% (based on human) between neighboring scaffolds. The total anchored sequence after these steps dropped to 2.74 Gb (2.41 Gb of actual contig length), or 88% of the total chimpanzee sequence."
(ref: Nature (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome).

After artificially discarding sections of both human and chimp DNA that didn't match up, the remaining chimp DNA was 88% of the total chimp genome and an even lower percentage of the human genome - possibly as low as 75% of the total human genome - were compared, NOT 100% of each genome as everybody was led to believe. This biased methodology GUARANTEES that the comparison will yield a very high percentage of similarity but in a very misleading way.

At this point, some people might reason that using 88% of the chimp genome is as good as using 100%. However, when we read articles claiming they compared a "complete" chimp and "complete" human genome, we all have to decide for ourselves if "complete" means 88% or "complete" means 100%.

What do you all think? Does 88% fit your standard definition of "complete"? Or does "complete" imply something closer to 100%?

Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they will die ..."

 

[sayak83]

We must define the word "complete". To me, "complete" means comparing the "compete" human genome with the "complete" chimp genome. This was not done.

Is was done for 94% of the Chimpanzee genome with constituted 98% of all the DNA information that was of high quality...i.e. devoid of precisely those kinds of contaminants you were complaining about in the other post. From the paper:-

"The draft genome assembly—generated from ~3.6-fold sequence redundancy of the autosomes and ~1.8-fold redundancy of both sex chromosomes—covers ~94% of the chimpanzee genome with >98% of the sequence in high-quality bases. A total of 50% of the sequence (N50) is contained in contigs of length greater than 15.7 kilobases (kb) and supercontigs of length greater than 8.6 megabases (Mb). The assembly represents a consensus of two haplotypes, with one allele from each heterozygous position arbitrarily represented in the sequence."
And hence they say
"Thus, by restricting our analysis to (these) high-quality bases, the nucleotide-level accuracy of the WGS assembly is essentially equal to that of ‘finished’ sequence."

You do not want to analyze those parts (about 6%) that do are not as accurately determined do you? Are you pinning your hopes that this 6% of the genome will reveal revolutionary differences?

Nature (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
"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..."

Note: A COMPLETE catalogue of ALL differences? This is a lie. The comparison was done AFTER they removed significant differences between the two genomes - differences so significant that they could not be aligned side-by-side in the first place or where there was too much 'overlap'.

"Thus, by restricting our analysis to high-quality bases, the nucleotide-level accuracy of the WGS assembly is essentially equal to that of ‘finished’ sequence."

The quote-mining is noted. The high quality bases cover 94% of all genome that they themselves say just a paragraph ago! Are you doing the quote mining, or are you copy-pasting from another lying creationist blurb?

"“Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence”

Ah! More quote mining!

Here is the entire paragraph


"
Nucleotide divergence

Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.

Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. "

Thus while 2.4 Gb (out of a total 2.9 Gb) align exactly, the overall divergence in alignment is 1.23%. This supports your case, how exactly? Strange you do not quote the very next sentence! Who is bending the truth now!

"The combined alignments were chained and only best reciprocal alignments were retained for further analysis."

Yet another isolated quote. Two seperate programs were used to make the alignment between human and chimp genes and only those sequences where the predictions of both programs were matched were retained. That is why they are only talking about 94% of the chimp genome. The other 6% were rejected through various quality filters!

"BLASTZ154 was used to align non-repetitive chimpanzee regions against repeat-masked human sequence. BLAT155 was subsequently used to align the more repetitive regions. The combined alignments were chained156 and only best reciprocal alignments were retained for further analysis."

Note: they admit only using 'best-fit' sections of DNA for their analysis - aka cherry-picking the data to get the 'best' result, thus artificially increasing similarity between the two DNA sections. This, in turn, artificially increases overall similarity between chimps and humans.

Absolutely false. See what they actually say above. You would know this if you read the line just before the paper. Have you read it, and if you have read it, why are you lying?

Finally let me quote from the supplementary section to show that the quotes above refer only to alignment methods and not to select how much was being studied

"Genome Alignment. We evaluated three independent methods for aligning chimpanzee contigs to human genome sequence. The first utilized BLASTZ (Schwartz 2003) to align and score non-repetitive chimpanzee regions against repeat-masked human sequence and BLAT (Kent 2002) to process the more repetitive regions. Alignment chains differentiated between orthologous and paralogous alignments (Kent 2003) and only “reciprocal best” alignments were retained in the alignment set.

In the second method, each contig was aligned to human sequence with a hashing procedure based on affine Smith-Waterman calculations for locally refining alignments without repeat masking (D. Jaffe and T.S. Mikkelsen, unpublished). Each alignment was assigned a confidence value based on alignment strength and frequency.

The last method split chimp contigs into 1 kb segments and aligned them to human sequence with BLAT. This step was followed by re-alignment using cross_match (P. Green, personal communication) to exploit base quality values and tagging of unique alignments. "

The supplementary section goes on to say that they chose the first method as it was found to be most reliable. The section also says after an exhaustive survey of this and many other details of the methods theys used

"
We estimate the genome coverage to be about 94%, based on comparison to 12 finished CHORI-251 BAC clones. These clones collectively comprise a total of 1,265,617 bases of sequence. Table S11 shows detailed information of these comparisons. Specifically, ARACHNE covers 1,186,774 bases, or 93.8% of the clones, while PCAP covers 1,189,836 bases, or 94.0% of the clones. "

Here is a brief explanation the article gives on how the chimp and human DNA sequences were 'screened' PRIOR to comparison (ref: Found under 'Supplemental Notes' of article):
"All alignments in the >90% and >60% categories were examined if the chimp scaffold spanned more than 1.5 times its counterpart in the human genome. When the offending supercontig only subsumed other supercontigs less than 1.5 kb, they were retained. For those that would completely overlap large contigs, the alignments were manually reviewed to determine if the alignment should be broken.
At this point scaffolds spanning a total of 2.85 Gb were anchored to the human genome sequence (excluding those in the random bins). All scaffolds that were completely overlapped by another scaffold based on the human position were then removed. Also removed were the smaller of two neighboring contigs when there was an overlap of 60% (based on human) between neighboring scaffolds. The total anchored sequence after these steps dropped to 2.74 Gb (2.41 Gb of actual contig length), or 88% of the total chimpanzee sequence."

No. This is a misunderstanding. This entire method was used to determine those sections that were exactly aligned. As has been said in the main paper

"
"Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.

Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. "

In short, while 88% of the genome was exactly align-able to the human genome, the degree of variation within the genome was based on the entire 94% of the genome that was considered to be good quality and was used for study. That variation is about 1% for single nucleotide changes and 4% if group insertion, deletions and replications are considered.

You have misunderstood the results completely. For what reason i do not know. The first paragraph of the paper says this explicitly

"Because the chimpanzee lies at such a short evolutionary distance with respect to human, nearly all of the bases are identical by descent and sequences can be readily aligned except in recently derived, large repetitive regions. The focus thus turns to differences rather than similarities."

Sections where these repetitions are present cannot be aligned in a global scale. These repetitions are 4% of the differences globally and cause this misalignment. See? Very clear.

 

[Zosimus]

Personally I don't see the point of this argument in the first place. Who cares whether chimp DNA is 99% 94% or 0.94% like that of a human?

 

[metis]

I do. It's called "studying".

 

[Zosimus]

I do. It's called "studying".

Well, maybe you could explain to me why the data are relevant and what conclusion you hope to draw from the data?

 

[metis]

Well, maybe you could explain to me why the data are relevant and what conclusion you hope to draw from the data?

We let the geneticists do that for us as that's their area of expertise. In anthropology, we then use their analysis when it comes to dealing with the genetic nuts & bolts. If there was any data to indicate that the basic ToE is scientifically impossible, they most assuredly would have told us that many decades ago.

 

[ftacky]

It always saddens me to see how much effort people will put into trying to debunk probably the best settled science that we have.

I invite you to contribute your own analysis to the Nature 2005 article. Why do you believe it? Stats, charts, etc. please.

I thank you in advance.

 

[ftacky]

We let the geneticists do that for us...

uh, well, that's not how a forum discussion works. As of now, only a few people are contributing their analysis of the study article. This thread is not meant to be a single pair discussion.

I'm still waiting for more input from the rest of you all....