Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- From: Ron O <rokimoto@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 14, 11:53 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 10:47 am, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the questions I have had when arguing with creationists or in
talking to anyone about evolution, is what number to use when talking
about the percentage difference between the chimp and human genomes.
The conclusion, after a little research, is that the latest (and as
far as I know only) complete comparison between the two genomes shows
that they are 96% identical.
On talkorigins, I was referred to the Index of Creationist claims, the
extremely helpful resource compiled by Mark Isaak, and specifically
CB144. The response to the claim is that it is perfectly appropriate
to use the old 98-99% identical number. The response cites the
following paper in Nature by the Chimp Sequencing and Analysis
Consortium:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
However, the response in CB144 initially confused me, because it
mentions the 3% difference caused by indels, and yet seems to make no
use of that information. In a thread here on talkorigins, the ever
helpful John Harshman explained to me that in terms of evolutionary
distance, the 98-99% is correct, because in terms of evolutionary
events, the indels only make up 1/8 of the mutations, and are not as
significant in terms of real changes. However, I argued that when we
talk about comparisons, the public is thinking not in terms of
evolutionary distance, but in terms of laying the two genomes side by
side and counting all the differences, so the 96% number, used by the
creationists in CB144, is actually the one to use. John continued to
vigorously argue against this, as did Ron O.
My contention, however, is confirmed by the first paragraph in the
Broad Institute’s press release:
https://www.broad.harvard.edu/news/263
“The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of
humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share
perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international
research consortium reported today. Led by scientists from the Broad
Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, and the Washington University School of
Medicine in Saint Louis, MO, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis
Consortium reported its findings in the Sept. 1 issue of the journal
Nature.”
So when it comes to speaking to the public, the 96% number is the one
to use. And after this press release, we find references from the
NIH, National Geographic and Science Daily that use the 96% number
(which I referenced in the thread to John). This does not mean that
John’s arguments are without merit, of course. My point is that if
you want to say the genomes are 98-99% percent identical you should
use a qualifying phrase, such as, “In terms of evolutionary distance,
the genomes are almost 99% identical”. The Broad Institute’s press
release includes the following sentence. “The DNA sequence that can
be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent
identical.” So the “almost 99%” number is appropriately used with the
qualifying phrase, “that can be directly compared”.
Finally, I would like to thank everyone who responded to me in the
previous two threads I started on this question. Especially John
Harshman, whose quick (and sometimes fiery!) responses helped me to
understand, and goaded me to think and do a little research. Thanks
John!
GS
Let's assume that it is true, that said genomes are almost identical
(high 90s)----what is the point?
The point is clearly common design. Just like a man made factory such
as an auto manufacturing plant uses the same parts on many models, but
they are still different cars.
Too bad the evolutionist cannot see this.
The problem is that like looking at errors in copying manuscripts you
can search down and find an order to which copies were made before
others. It isn't just the chimp-human DNA comparison, but the
comparison between all vertebrates that allow us to look at the order
of creation (biological evolution). We can couple that with
morphological analysis, and the fossil record to fill it all in. The
DNA evidence tells us that all vertebrates are descended from one
ancestral cordate that doubled its genome (became tetraploid, one
known mechanism of speciation). It isn't just common design that you
can get out of the DNA. What do you think that evolution is? You
take an existing genetic template like that of a lobefin fish as it
existed hundreds of millions of years ago and you get a slightly
different one, but the changes are made to an existing template. We
can tell that fish were created before amphibians, amphibians were
created before reptiles, reptiles were created before birds and
mammals. That is why some of the bogus ID perps give lip service to
common descent. Anyone that doesn't is ignorant, stupid, and or
dishonest. They have to try to look half way credible to run the
dishonest scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ray-
.
- References:
- Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- From: Giant Sloth
- Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- From: All-seeing-I
- Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- Prev by Date: Re: Scientists Visit Cretionist Museum again
- Next by Date: Re: Wikipedia talk page on Natural Selection
- Previous by thread: Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- Next by thread: Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
