Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
This article is weak, poorly written, and pathetic.

The genetic similarities between great apes and humans are undeniable...unless, of course, you're in complete denial already.
 

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
One often hears arguments on forums that chimp DNA is 98.5% the same as human DNA.

Not really. Prior to the chimp genome draft, we had a wide margin of error. The estimate was about 97%, if memory serves, +/- 1.5%. The 98.5% figure was the highest conceivable estimate a few years ago.

Can this be true?

No. The chimp-human genome is about 96% similar, we now know.

It might depend on how one arrives at such a percentage.

That's true.

The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.



That article is out-of-date, and has been proven wrong by the chimp genome project--which, according to your source, "is just beginning."
 

Wessex Man

New member
Apparently(according to a poster on my old high school wall.) we share about 50% of our genes with bannanas.
 

Johnny

New member
Bob, you should be putting distance between you and this article as fast as you possibly can.

Your Article said:
But the human DNA sequence was just recently decoded. (It was published in the 16 February, 2001, issue of the journal Science.) Work on decoding the DNA sequence of chimps is just beginning. (See Monkey Business, in the Evolution in the News column in this issue.) How could they have been able to calculate the similarity of two sequences “decades” ago when neither had been decoded? How can they calculate it now when only one of them has been decoded? Did they just pull 98% out of the air?
They used DNA hybridization studies. Had the author actually read his own source, it says, "A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA." and "Paabo's group in Munich and Leipzig has sequenced a 10,156-base pair segment of DNA in the X chromosome of humans and chimpanzees, confirming again that they are about 99% similar. Now they're seeking differences in the expression of the identified genes in the brain and in the immune system." So no, 98% was not pulled out of thin air.
Article said:
Perhaps they compared the 46 human chromosomes with the 48 chimp chromosomes.
Wrong. The author should have read his source. If that was a serious suggestion, then it's one of the dumbest I've seen.

There is an almost identical bracket that holds the alternator in my truck with the proper tension against the fan belt! This bracket represents about 1% of the total mass of the cooler, but it is 98.5% similar to the bracket that holds the alternator in my truck. Not only that, the fan belts are virtually identical. (Both are cracked and liable to break at any moment.) The pulleys are identical too. There is less than 1.5% difference between an evaporative cooler and a truck!
Now what if, like his source's paper discusses, you did 100 random studies of random parts of the complete system, and all of them resulted in a about 1.5% difference?

This article is outdated as well. Bob, care to post the results of a complete base-by-base comparison?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Real Sorceror said:
Where are you bob? We just want to play.....

Me too.

The purpose of posting the article was to invite discussion concerning what it means when one gives a single number which supposedly says how similar something is to something else.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Granite said:
This article is weak, poorly written, and pathetic.

The genetic similarities between great apes and humans are undeniable...unless, of course, you're in complete denial already.

Bob in denial? Does a bear defecate in the woods? :think:
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
Me too.

The purpose of posting the article was to invite discussion concerning what it means when one gives a single number which supposedly says how similar something is to something else.

Why would you want a discussion? You have already made up your mind. :( We can't possibly have more similarities with chimps then any other animal. :kookoo: We were seperated independantly from the rest of the animal and plant kingdom. Although, wouldn't we expect to see much similarity based on your concept of a common designer? Couldn't the effects of a common designer look an awful lot like common descent?
 

Evoken

New member
It is time for The Chromosome Challenge!

This is from another forum:

Hello anyone else who doubts the validity of evolution:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Long long ago, in a laboratory far far away, scientists figured out that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes in their sperms and eggs, whereas humans only have 23. Therefore, these great scientists theorized that two of our chromosomes might have fused together sometime in the recent past (aka million years ago.). Their theory made 3 predictions:

1) One of our chromosomes would look like two of the chimp chromosomes stuck together.
2) This same chromosome would have an extra sequence in it that looked like a centromere. Centromeres are the things in the middle that microtubules grab onto to divide a pair of chromosomes during mitosis.
3) It would also have telomeres (ends) but in the middle - and they would be in reverse order. Sort of like this:

ENDchromosomestuffDNEENDchromosomestuffDNE

See the "DNEEND" in the middle? That's what two telomeres would look like if two chromosomes were stuck together.

Lo and behold, these theories were put to the test. To test prediction 1, know that chromosomes all have a unique banding pattern. A "fingerprint." To test 2 and 3, you need sequence data. Telomeres and centromeres have characteristic DNA sequences.

What did those scientists find:

hum_ape_chrom_2.gif


H=human, C=chimp, G=Gorilla, O=orangutan.

The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.
and

Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of the bases 5'TTAGGG running toward the end of the chromosome. Furthermore, there is a characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-telomeric region, the region just before the telomere. When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming (CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location.

So how about it, non-evolutionists? Here, staring you in the face is not only evidence that chimps are our cousins (they may explain your last family reunion) but also a clue as to how it occured: two chromosomes fused, which could have altered gene expression in ways to change body plans.

Happy refuting!

Bob b what do you think of this?


Valz
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Why would you want a discussion? You have already made up your mind. :( We can't possibly have more similarities with chimps then any other animal. :kookoo: We were seperated independantly from the rest of the animal and plant kingdom. Although, wouldn't we expect to see much similarity based on your concept of a common designer? Couldn't the effects of a common designer look an awful lot like common descent?

You presume too much.

Given that there are morphological similarities between chimps and humans, the question is why? And further if there are morphological similarities between chimps and humans does this have any bearing on why there are DNA similarities as well?

BTW, how many dissimilarities are there? (DNA bases)

And if there are dissimilarities in those DNA bases, then why are they there?

Does this mean that there was a feasible evolutionary pathway of small DNA changes, each being more favorable than the preceding state, thus allowing the slow and gradual morphing of one genome into the other?

And assuming the answer to the previous is in the affirmative, how long would population geneticists estimate such a morphing process would take?

IMHO, the main reason those committed to the evolutionary hypothesis believe that both chimps and humans have a common ancestor is that they have decided in advance that the alternative could not be true.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valz said:
It is time for The Chromosome Challenge!
This is from another forum:
Bob b what do you think of this?
Valz

I have seen this before (how could I not?).

One of the interesting things about the field of evolution is that whenever one "certain proof" is eventually shown to have been believed in error, another is advanced to replace it.

This is the nature of scientific research, and is particularly true in biology where such "proofs" are advanced prior to the time when research unveils the purpose or design of such a phenomenon.

At this point in time genomes have been and are being decoded in detail.

But already it is suspected that there is much more coded into genomes than merely recipes for proteins. Some have surmised that there may be an entire level of unknown system of coding that has yet to be discovered and understood, one that controls the protein "building blocks" and arranges them into feedback control mechanisms, as they certainly seem to be.

Only after the purpose is well understood will people be able to understand why the chimp sequence is similar to yet different than the one in humans.

In other words, creationists assume there is purpose in the design, as opposed to its being an accidental copying error of some sort, as evolutionists would automatically assume in accordance with their paradigm.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Valz said:
It is time for The Chromosome Challenge!

This is from another forum:



Bob b what do you think of this?


Valz
If what you posted was valid science it would seem to indicate that the chromosomes in question are THE genetic difference between Chimps and Humans (or at least the most important one. If this is so then all one would need to do to test the theory would be to take a fertilized Chimp egg and splice the appropriate genes together and see if a Human or something closer to being Human was the result.

How much would you like to bet on whether any such experiment would have a positive result?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

noguru

Well-known member
Clete said:
If what you posted was valid science it would seem to indicate that the chromosomes in question are THE genetic difference between Chimps and Humans (or at least the most important one. If this is so then all one would need to do to test the theory would be to take a fertilized Chimp egg and splice the appropriate genes together and see if a Human or something closer to being Human was the result.

How much would you like to bet on whether any such experiment would have a positive result?

Resting in Him,
Clete

What exactly would your criteria be for a "positive" result?

Fertile offspring?

A half chimp - half man?

Would ethical considerations allow us to conduct such an experiment?

What would you do with the resulting animal?
 
Last edited:

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
You presume too much.

Perhaps, but be assured that I feel the same about you.

bob b said:
Given that there are morphological similarities between chimps and humans, the question is why? And further if there are morphological similarities between chimps and humans does this have any bearing on why there are DNA similarities as well?

Why? Natural evolution sees it as common ancestry. Supernatural creation sees it as common design.

Morphological similarities may or may not mean genetic similarity. We know from empirical evidence that either case could be true. But again it comes down to a question of common ancestry or common design. I propose that even if morphological similarities are in line with genetic similarities that this does not in itself rule out common design. I suspect you agree with this.

bob b said:
BTW, how many dissimilarities are there? (DNA bases)

I don't know. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Wouldn't the dissimilarities be those things that cannot be considered similarities?

bob b said:
And if there are dissimilarities in those DNA bases, then why are they there?

If we look at this question in the light of both models (common ancestry and common design) we can possibly ascertain the likelihood of each model.

In the light of the common design model any dissimilarities can be be attributed to seperate and specific designs from the beginning, or they could also be attributed to diverging genetic llines from the original created species.

In the common ancestry model any dissimilarities can only be attribute to diverging genetic lines.

So both models can see diverging genetic lines as the cause for genetic dissimilarities. On the other hand if we attribute it to distinct design plans from the beginning we are left with a question as to how these distinct plans were designed. Can you answer that question?

bob b said:
Does this mean that there was a feasible evolutionary pathway of small DNA changes, each being more favorable than the preceding state, thus allowing the slow and gradual morphing of one genome into the other?

First off, evolution does not require that every genetic variation is immediately favorable. There could be genetic changes that are neutral in regard to reproductive advantage at first but then in the future become a reproductive advantage.

However, if one is open to natural causes as the explanation the likelihood that step by step changes allow for the morphing of one genome into the other is great. In some cases two or more phenotype steps may result from one change in the genotype.

bob b said:
And assuming the answer to the previous is in the affirmative, how long would population geneticists estimate such a morphing process would take?

I don't know. Can you tell me?

bob b said:
IMHO, the main reason those committed to the evolutionary hypothesis believe that both chimps and humans have a common ancestor is that they have decided in advance that the alternative could not be true.

I do not agree. The reason they do not entertain the supernatural as the cause is because there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural. Whereas on the other hand, there is empirical evidence for natural processes.
 

CapnFungi

New member
that 98 something % is only from the dna fragments after it has been spliced and diced. If you were to compare the entire Genome of Humans and Chimps you would come nowhere near that figure.
 

Evoken

New member
Granite said:
Idiotic, this entire thread.

Bob needs a clue.

It would be well for your to actually engage with what bob b presents, just calling it idiotic won't do. The more I see atheists "defend" Evolution, the more convinced I become that they are no different than fundamentalist when it comes to the theory.


Valz
 
Top