Re: Chimp/Human genome comparison and junk DNA

On Jul 23, 11:17 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:50:38 -0700 (PDT), in article
<c3e13922-5088-45d6-aae5-ecc41c4a7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Frank J
stated..."







On Jul 22, 9:40=A0pm, Andrew Cunningham <azier...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:13=A0pm, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 22, 2:46=A0pm, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 20, 2:08=A0pm, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:19=A0am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 18, 1:51=A0pm, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wro=
te:

In a discussion with a creationist, I got the following argumen=
t:"When
you sent me all that stuff about common descent proved by chimp=
/human
DNA code, that bothered me. But I learned that later, these
similarities were found in a deceptively small segment of the D=
NA, not
a major portion as it was presented. Furthermore, unique sequen=
ces
were abundantly found in so-called 'junk DNA' of both species, =
and
further, the supposed 'junk' was found to be very and uniquely
purposeful. Instead of admitting they were wrong, these later
discoveries have been either ignored or published under headlin=
es that
include the word or concept of 'disappointing."

Interesting how something can be ignored and published at the s=
ame
time...not that I believe what he described here ever happened.=
.

As far as I can tell the differing estimates are due to differi=
ng ways
of making the comparison. =A0As Mark Issac says in creationist =
claim
CB144: =A0"If you measure the number of proteins for which the =
entire
protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees=
are 29
percent identical (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). If you measure
nonsynonymous base pair differences within protein coding regio=
ns,
humans and chimps are 99.75 percent identical (Chimpanzee Seque=
ncing
2005, fig. 9). The original 98.4 percent estimate came from DNA
hybridization experiments, which measured (indirectly, via DNA =
melting
temperature) sequence difference among short segments of the ge=
nomes
that are similar enough to hybridize but with repetitive elemen=
ts
removed (Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Whatever measure is used, h=
owever,
as long as the same measurement is used consistently, will show=
that
humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (including the b=
onobo,
sister species to the common chimpanzee) than to any other spec=
ies."

Unfortunately, when arguing with a creationist, to use the 29% =
number
would result in derision. =A0One of the problems when debating =
with a
creationist, is that they tend to use complexity to dismiss
credulity. =A0For example, to start talking about "nonsynonymou=
s base
pair differences within protein coding regions" or "hybridizati=
on",
etc., things get difficult, especially when I myself am not cle=
ar on
all this.

Is the creationist correct that the comparison excludes junk DN=
A?
Does that make any difference? =A0Is there a source that explai=
ns all
this in terms laypeople can understand? =A0The main point is Is=
aak's
last sentence quoted above, and that this sort of comparison ca=
n be
done with other species as well.

I suspect that the last sentence of the creationist argument ab=
ove is
complete fabrication. =A0Any sources on that would be helpful.

Thanks,
GF

I apologize that this does not help on this particular argument, =
but
it might help you overall.

Whenever I read of someone debating a "creationist," my immediate
question is "what 'kind' of creationist?" If he/she thinks that l=
ife
is only 1000s of years old there's no point even discussing human=
/
chimp DNA because their Morton's Demon rejects nearly all of scie=
nce.
If he/she agrees that life has a ~4-billion year history, maybe t=
hen
you can stay focused. In that case the first thing you want to fi=
nd
out is that, if they have a problem with common descent - the
"biological comtinuity" itself, not just the mechanism for specie=
s
change - whether they have challenged Michael Behe on it. As you
probably know, he is one of the most cited sources by rank and fi=
le
creationists, even though he provides almost no comfort to them i=
n
terms of validating their particular history of life.- Hide quote=
d text -

- Show quoted text -

I do not hope to convince this particular creationist of anything.

And I don't expect you to. Not when they are trained to keep the
discussion on what is "weak" about "Darwinism," and away from their
particular alternative.

So, what "kind" of creationist? YEC? OEC (if so, old or young life)?,
"don't ask, don't tell" IDer.

Asking them about *their* alternative is only for the benefit of any
audience. Especially when the creationist gets evasive.

He does believe in the standard literalist interpretation of Genesis..
He will argue for a young earth, but says that it's possible the earth
is older, he just hasn't seen any evidence for it. =A0Actually, he
almost has a bigger passion against the scientific validity of
anthropomorphic global warming than evolution, because he's afraid the
liberals are taking over based on falsehoods. He's more passionate
about his right wing political beliefs than his religious
fundamentalism. =A0Since some of the AGW skeptic arguments use ice core
samples, which only make sense with an old earth, perhaps this caused
him to loosen up on the young earth idea a bit. =A0Also he's something
of a catastrophist, a big fan of Velikovsky. =A0One of our early
discussions involved his belief that all the whoolly mammoths were
quick-frozen. Also he's often difficult to figure out because his
explanations are very brief and obscure, yet expects anyone with half
a brain to know what he's thinking. =A0Only one thing is certain, if I
make a guess and try to pull his arguments together into something
coherent, he will declare my guess completely and totally wrong
without explaining how they *should* be understood. =A0One of the
aspects of his thinking that is interesting to me is the incompetence
with regard to logic and reading comprehension combined with a total
confidence that he is right, and his ideas are obvious if only people
would think for themselves. =A0Doesn't incompetence in a particular
endeavor usually result in a lack of confidence? =A0And if you disagree
based on logic and evidence, his rejoinder is that you don't
understand because you're caught up in the "religion" of evolution or
AGW. =A0No figure gets him more riled up than Al Gore, who he refers to
as the "high priest" of AGW.

You get the picture. =A0Maybe there's been a few similar characters on
this board?

=A0I
asked him what evidence would be convincing to him as far as evolut=
ion
and he couldn't come up with anything. =A0He said he would know it =
when
he saw it. =A0Ha! =A0No, I get interested in understanding evolutio=
n in
the context of discussions with creationists; it motivates me. =A0A=
s I
wrote elsewhere on this thread, the science itself is reward enough=
, I
just use the hopeless discussion as motivation. =A0But I like to ha=
ve
confidence in what I am saying, which requires knowledge and
understanding, which I don't have in this case yet.

Any non-technical sources on this subject that you know of would be=
of
interest to me. =A0Especially sources that make it clear that "junk=
" DNA
is being considered in the comparison.

GS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've just described nearly every creationist ever.

Not so. Most at the DI will plainly admit old earth and old life,
while many YECs will argue against an old earth (using cherry-picked
evidence), not just say they "haven't seen any evidence for it." And
an increasing number have learned to simply not let on how old they
think earth and life are, or whether they accept common descent.

As clumsy as that creationist is with defending his position (if he
hasn't seen any evidence for an old earth, he *certainly* hasn't seen
any for a young one) he does represent a "kind" that seems to becoming
more common - one that tries to have one foot in the big tent and one
foot out of it.

I'm having a little problem with the metaphor of the "big tent"
right now. When one puts "one foot out of it", where does one put
that foot? Somewhere out on the midway, next to the ferris wheel,
or on the merry-go-round? I think the better extension of the
metaphor might be "making a decision for one of the three rings
under the big tent".

In Ray's case it's on a banana peel.


--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying.."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chimp/Human genome comparison and junk DNA
    ... He will argue for a young earth, but says that it's possible the earth ... he just hasn't seen any evidence for it. ... foot out of it. ... I'm having a little problem with the metaphor of the "big tent" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... They have what they believe is evidence ... that the earth is young. ... and biological evolution. ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... >> rather than to a Biblical flood exposing people to radiation. ... > covered and protected the earth, and that this covering was destroyed at the ... >> geological processes are insufficient to have swept that evidence away. ... >>> Fossils don't form under normal circumstances. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... They have what they believe is evidence ... that the earth is young. ... and biological evolution. ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carlson is a day late and a dollar short
    ... T Pagano wrote: ... How do you explain satellites that stay in a geostationary orbit? ... if they must orbit the earth in accord with the geocentric model? ... Below is the state of the evidence produced so far. ...
    (talk.origins)