Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical

On Aug 14, 1:39 pm, Zucadragon <Z...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:58 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:41 am, 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?
Ray
The point is that when a number of genomes are sequenced, they form a
clear nested hierarchy - one which matches the nested hierarchy of
morphology.

The only testable explanation for this is common descent via
modification. Other explanations, such as a computer simulated virtual
reality, or a trickster god creator, are not testable.

Kermit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, evolution-did-it.

We don't see how similarity adds up to evolution.

You are assuming similarity means evolution. This assumption is
atheistic. A vastly superior interpretation of similarity is that the
same indicates the work of one Mastermind.

Ray

Not really, because you have a problem.

A "one Mastermind" has no limitations, you would not "expect" to find
these results. With a "one Mastermind" you could have any result.


This comment tells us that you have misunderstood.

One Mastermind or Director requires just the opposite: result
limitations. Biodiversity must portray a recognizable signature that
corresponds to the concept of Mastermind-Director; that is, a pattern
of design or commonality where one can conclude that this is the work
of the concept. We find this signature in the scientific concept
called "nested hierarchies." If evolution by *undirected* natural
processes were true, nested hierarchies would not exist. What would
exist is a signature of dishevelment, chaos, or, like you said, "any
result." The "logic" of evolution, that the concept of "undirected"
produces a signature pattern, is inverse or perverted.

Evolution though, actually predicts that the similarity exists, but not
only that, but predicts where it exists. So it is falsifiable, it is
testable, is it observable.


By any scheme dependent upon sound logic, admitting that a pattern of
similarity to exist in any slice of biodiversity falsifies the
existence of an *undirected* process.

Your idea, the "a Mastermind did it" sadly enough, has no predictive
powers, you can not predict how much of a similarity will be expected
between species, because to you, they are all magically created.

The concept of Mastermind is seen in nature: it explains why you "see"
connectedness (= evolution-common ancestry). The same is an illusion.

In the same sense, is a "a Mastermind" unfalsifiable, because any result
can be called correct.


As I explained briefly above, this is not true.

You fail Ray.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We disagree, Dragon.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
    ... about the percentage difference between the chimp and human genomes. ... John continued to ... Medicine in Saint Louis, MO, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis ... We don't see how similarity adds up to evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
    ... talking to anyone about evolution, is what number to use when talking ... about the percentage difference between the chimp and human genomes. ... Medicine in Saint Louis, MO, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis ... (which I referenced in the thread to John). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
    ... about the percentage difference between the chimp and human genomes. ... Medicine in Saint Louis, MO, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis ... (which I referenced in the thread to John). ... We don't see how similarity adds up to evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
    ... talking to anyone about evolution, is what number to use when talking ... about the percentage difference between the chimp and human genomes. ... Medicine in Saint Louis, MO, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis ... (which I referenced in the thread to John). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human and chimp genomes are 96% identical
    ... about the percentage difference between the chimp and human genomes. ... We don't see how similarity adds up to evolution. ... A "one Mastermind" has no limitations, you would not "expect" to find these results. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading