Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

[bob b]

Thanks Bob, for that interesting article. Does this mean that since you have read this article, your are now "informed"?

It apparently means that you have not had time enough to dream up a "good story" to explain it.

I'm really disappointed in you.

By now you should have been able to dream up a good story as to how God gave us a metaphorical story (as he did in Genesis) regarding the proper meaning of the Gospels.

Certainly no sane person (such as all scientists) would believe literally that Jesus was born of a virgin (how silly), was God in the flesh (are you kidding), rose from the dead (scientifically proved impossible), performed miracles (yawn) and all that other religious crap. Bishop Spong "aced it" when he declared that the only part of the Apostle's Creed that was true was that "Jesus Christ suffered on the cross, died and was buried". God teaches us things in parables that are not meant to be taken "literally" by primitive religious fanatics like right-wing Christian fundamentalists who oppose such eminently practical and humane things as universally available sex among all consenting creatures, abortion of subhumans like fetuses and right wing Republicans (and perhaps deformed, ill or ugly and decrepit infants or oldtimers), etc.

After all, animals are 99% (rounded) human too. Animals eat their young. Why can't we?

 

[hatsoff]

I'm saying that DNA is entirely too complex to have arisen by chance no matter how much time is alloted for it to happen

What makes you think that?

and that there seems to be no reason for DNA to be the exclusive language of life other than there having been a single intelligent author.

If all life evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors, then there's your reason.

 

[hatsoff]

By the way, I find it interesting how Bob consistently ignores my arguments--not just in this thread, but in general. He has in the past said that my arguments were essentially worthless. I wonder if that's how he deals with most of those who encroach upon his preconceived notions.

 

[bob b]

What makes you think that?[DNA being too complex to arise by chance]

Common sense?

If all life evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors, then there's your reason.

Clete seems to prefer a better answer, one that some apparenty feel is beneath their dignity.
----

BTW, how come nobody spotted the trick which started the opening posting of this thread?

(My wife gives me heck when I tease friends by saying something "far out" with a straight face and then waiting to see how long it takes for them to tumble that I am pulling their chain)

The title of this thread derided the concept that chimps were 98.5% human, but the opening sentence switched to asking if chimps had 98.5% similarity in DNA.

So far nobody seems to have noticed my ploy. Guess it was too subtle.

Either that or there is a widespread belief that DNA alone is what makes us human.

 

[Johnny]

If this is so then it should be possible to make a Chimp with however many chromosomes we want, right? As long as all of the genes are present and active we could splice our hearts out and potentially end up with a Chimp with one single chromosome or millions of them each with only one gene. The limit being only the number of genes and our splicing expertise.

I'm not sure on this one. In theory, it shouldn't matter so long as mitosis is still possible.

If so, I would like to know how you know that gene sequences on separate chromosomes do not have some different instructional difference than the same sequences on a single chromosome.

If the base sequence doesn't change, the same protein product will result.

Wouldn't the issue of the number of chromosomes speak at least to some degree to this notion that Chimps are 98% genetically human? By my math 24/23 is 95.83%, assuming that is that having 23 chromosomes is somehow superior to having 24.

The comparisons that have been made usually involve the actual sequences. In other words, >96% of our genetic sequences are identical.

 

[Clete]

What makes you think that?

Because its not possible.

If all life evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors, then there's your reason.

No. Evolution says that things go from simple to complex not from nonexistent to so wildly complex that it defies comprehension. The existence of DNA as well as all the wildly complex systems which are present in even the most "primitive" of life forms is proof positive that they very simply could not have evolved.

Is it proof that they were created? No. Proof of that would require several other steps but it definitely elliminates Evolution as a rational option.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnny]

Either that or there is a widespread belief that DNA alone is what makes us human.

Good topic for discussion. For empirical science, the answer is yes--DNA is what utlimately makes us human. For those of us who have faith, the answer is that DNA is only half of the equation.

 

[Clete]

If the base sequence doesn't change, the same protein product will result.

How do you know this?

First of all it isn't just the creation of protiens that that DNA controls. It also controls what that protein does and how it does it and when.

DNA is definitely a language. How do you know that a particular sequence doesn't mean one thing in one context and something else in a different context. How do you know that chromosomes do not provide some "contextual" meaning that would be absent if the sequences were all on the same chromosome?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnny]

The existence of DNA as well as all the wildly complex systems which are present in even the most "primitive" of life forms is proof positive that they very simply could not have evolved.

What if a viable pathway could be shown?

 

[Johnny]

How do you know this?

Because I know how transcription and translation work. (Edit: sorry, that sounded rude. I meant to convey that knowing the process is why I can confidently state that). More than that, though, this can be empirically tested. Genes produce the same product regardless of context.

First of all it isn't just the creation of protiens that that DNA controls. It also controls what that protein does and how it does it and when.

DNA only controls the creation of proteins. DNA is in charge of creating the protein's amino acid sequence, and thus its ultimate function. Nonetheless, this is simply rewording the fact that DNA controls the creation of proteins.

How do you know that a particular sequence doesn't mean one thing in one context and something else in a different context. How do you know that chromosomes do not provide some "contextual" meaning that would be absent if the sequences were all on the same chromosome?

Again, if the functional unit is in tact (i.e. from the enhancer regions upstream to the stop codon), the exact same functional protein will result. This can and has been empirically tested. It is textbook genetics. This is why human insulin can be produced from e.coli. The insulin gene is spliced from human DNA and inserted into bacterial DNA. The bacteria then expresses the human protein.

 

[Evoken]

...but it definitely elliminates Evolution as a rational option.

How? Complexity can certainly evolve, ever heard of cooptation and scaffolding? What about gene duplication and differentiaiton which leads to an increase of information?


Valz

 

[bob b]

Good topic for discussion. For empirical science, the answer is yes--DNA is what utlimately makes us human. For those of us who have faith, the answer is that DNA is only half of the equation.

Perhaps less than half:

DNA Is a Code Operated by Another Code 02/17/2004

The discovery in the 1950s that DNA stored a coded language was amazing, but recently a new level of complexity has come to the awareness of biochemists. Apparently, another code determines which DNA genes will be opened for expression and which should be suppressed.
The Feb. 14 issue of Science News1 describes the history of the discovery of the so-called “histone code.” These are patterns of “tails” attached to the histones around which DNA is tightly wrapped. Within the last eight years, scientists have been discovering that the histones do not merely spool the DNA, they regulate which genes get expressed.
The pattern of acetylation and methylation on the histone tails appears to form a code that is heritable through cell divisions. Compared to the well-known DNA genetic code, “A histone code may be much more complex,” writes John Travis. Shelley Berger (Wistar Institute) exclaimed, “There are all kinds of sites [on histone tails] that can be modified. The possibilities for a code are quite enormous. It’s not going to be a simple code.” After summarizing the literature, Travis concluded, “With such designer histones, it seems that researchers are on their way to having in their hands all the words of the histone code. But, it may still be a stiff challenge to figure out what those words mean.”
For a previous story on the histone code, see 11/04/2002 headline, “Cell Memory Borders on the Miraculous.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1John Travis, “Code Breakers: Scientists tease out the secrets of proteins that DNA wraps around,” Science News, Vol. 165, No. 7, Feb. 14, 2004, p. 106.

Evolutionary biologists had their hands full explaining the origin of the DNA-protein language, and now this. As usual, there is no description in the article about how this code might have “emerged” through an evolutionary process. There is only the following quip, that not only fails to explain the code’s origin, it adds another problem: apparently the code has not evolved at all: “From species to species, he [C. David Allis, U. of Virginia] notes, these tails are nearly identical, implying that they are important to the cell. ‘Nature has held these things constant for a reason,’ says Allis.”

Certainly. Give me a working histone code in the beginning, or give me death.

So maybe DNA is not all there is to it after all. Stay tuned for the next bombshell.

Ain't science wonderful?

 

[hatsoff]

Common sense?

Saying "common sense" implies there's an obvious answer. If there is, I don't see it. I doubt any exists, obvious or otherwise.

Clete seems to prefer a better answer, one that some apparenty feel is beneath their dignity.

It's not about dignity or preferences. Clete posited evidence which is in favor of evolution, which he claimed was in opposition to evolution. The question is, why would he post such--forgive me for being blunt--illogical arguments?

BTW, how come nobody spotted the trick which started the opening posting of this thread?

(My wife gives me heck when I tease friends by saying something "far out" with a straight face and then waiting to see how long it takes for them to tumble that I am pulling their chain)

The title of this thread derided the concept that chimps were 98.5% human, but the opening sentence switched to asking if chimps had 98.5% similarity in DNA.

So far nobody seems to have noticed my ploy. Guess it was too subtle.

Either that or there is a widespread belief that DNA alone is what makes us human.

I had spotted the inconsistency and assumed it was just a simple error in language, so I never mentioned it.

 

[hatsoff]

Because its not possible.

I know you think it's impossible, for you already said as much. I'm asking why you think that.

No. Evolution says that things go from simple to complex not from nonexistent to so wildly complex that it defies comprehension. The existence of DNA as well as all the wildly complex systems which are present in even the most "primitive" of life forms is proof positive that they very simply could not have evolved.

Is it proof that they were created? No. Proof of that would require several other steps but it definitely elliminates Evolution as a rational option.

I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but you're making claims without evidence or reasoning. How is DNA--or anything else in existence--proof against evolution?

 

[noguru]

It apparently means that you have not had time enough to dream up a "good story" to explain it.

Why would I have to dream up a story? Would that be just to please you? I have no nagging need to have all the answers regarding the natural world. So some DNA has a different effect in males and females. I suspect it has something to do with the X and Y chromosomes. What do you think? If all DNA had the same effect there would be no physiological gender differences. How exactly does this support your model?

I'm really disappointed in you.

You don't say.

By now you should have been able to dream up a good story as to how God gave us a metaphorical story (as he did in Genesis) regarding the proper meaning of the Gospels.

I have explained my views on this many times to you. I am not responsible for your slow learning. Perhaps, you could hire a tutor.

Certainly no sane person (such as all scientists) would believe literally that Jesus was born of a virgin (how silly), was God in the flesh (are you kidding), rose from the dead (scientifically proved impossible), performed miracles (yawn) and all that other religious crap. Bishop Spong "aced it" when he declared that the only part of the Apostle's Creed that was true was that "Jesus Christ suffered on the cross, died and was buried". God teaches us things in parables that are not meant to be taken "literally" by primitive religious fanatics like right-wing Christian fundamentalists who oppose such eminently practical and humane things as universally available sex among all consenting creatures, abortion of subhumans like fetuses and right wing Republicans (and perhaps deformed, ill or ugly and decrepit infants or oldtimers), etc.

There is no empirical evidence that supernatural miracles occurr. Any belief in such can only be attributed to faith for an honest person. I myself have faith that this occured. I know damn well that my belief in this cannot be supported by any empirical evidence.

After all, animals are 99% (rounded) human too. Animals eat their young. Why can't we?

What? So know you think we should behave like animals? How utterly absurd. You need to stop looking to biology for moral lessons or to prop up your faith.

 

[bob b]

How? Complexity can certainly evolve, ever heard of cooptation and scaffolding? What about gene duplication and differentiaiton which leads to an increase of information?
Valz

You left out "emerge" and "converge".

You might want to take a gander at this:

The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm

 

[Clete]

DNA only controls the creation of proteins.

How do the systems in a cell know how to do the complex things that they do if not via the information encoded in the DNA?

 

[Clete]

How? Complexity can certainly evolve, ever heard of cooptation and scaffolding? What about gene duplication and differentiaiton which leads to an increase of information?


Valz

But DNA didn't evolve, Valz. That's just the point. It makes no difference how far back you go, even the simplest of life forms from which we all supposedly evolved have the same exact sort of complex DNA contained within them that we do. Sure, there less information in simpler life forms but not because of the DNA is any less complex but only because the organism doesn't take as much information to maintain and reproduce itself. DNA just popped into existence out of nowhere via some magical blind happenstance. That's not evolution, that's magic. And DNA is only one of perhaps thousands of irreducibly complex natural systems that evolution has no way of accounting for. Evolution is a myth. It's a religion, pure and simple. What's really ridiculous is that the followers of the religion of Evolution that are always the first to accuse "unbelievers" of burying their heads in the sand.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Evoken]

And DNA is only one of perhaps thousands of irreducibly complex natural systems that evolution has no way of accounting for.

But Evolution can account for Irreducible Complexity, the subject isn't an issue really. See this article...

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dunk.cfm

Now, personally I believe that the cooptation and scaffolding ideas and the proposed pathways are HIGHLY speculative and almost leading to the mythical, they also seem to lack rigurous empirical testing. Most seem to think that by just proposing the pathway it is enough to disprove IC, because all it takes is to imagine a solution and not just actually put it to the test or finding evidence to support it. This is one of my main issues with Evolution right now.

Evolution is a myth. It's a religion, pure and simple. What's really ridiculous is that the followers of the religion of Evolution that are always the first to accuse "unbelievers" of burying their heads in the sand.

Why? Because there are (just as in any science you choose to look at) some gaps in our knowledge about some things? Or because there are some apparent dilemas (that as is usual in science are resolved as further research is done)?


Valz

 

[hatsoff]

But DNA didn't evolve, Valz. That's just the point. It makes no difference how far back you go, even the simplest of life forms from which we all supposedly evolved have the same exact sort of complex DNA contained within them that we do. Sure, there less information in simpler life forms but not because of the DNA is any less complex but only because the organism doesn't take as much information to maintain and reproduce itself. DNA just popped into existence out of nowhere via some magical blind happenstance. That's not evolution, that's magic. And DNA is only one of perhaps thousands of irreducibly complex natural systems that evolution has no way of accounting for. Evolution is a myth. It's a religion, pure and simple. What's really ridiculous is that the followers of the religion of Evolution that are always the first to accuse "unbelievers" of burying their heads in the sand.

Evolution is not a religion. Rather, it is creationism which is faith-based. Evolution is neither a myth, but rather a proven scientific principle, accepted by all but a few fringe experts--who, by the way, likely base their disagreement on religious beliefs.

As for DNA, it is not irreducibly complex. IC is a discredited idea posited by Christian scientists, probably in some kind of effort to cast their religion in a better light. That we don't know exactly how it came to be doesn't rule out a natural explanation.