[_ Old Earth _] A DNA poll question.

[ikester7579]

The pole question in more detail: What I am looking for is an honest answer about what everyone was taught about the DNA comparison between us and chimps. Knowing that the claim is over 90% the same, has anyone been told what number that comparison is of?

Example:
1) 5% of 100 = 5
2) 5% of 1000 = 50
etc....

So the question is: How many were told the number that the percent claimed was? so without looking it up, just answer yes or no.

It would seem that when it comes to the DNA comparison between us and chimps. Science cannot make up it's mind. The percent difference just keeps changing.

Example: These will be yahoo seaches.

95%: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dna+95 ... t500&x=wrt

96%: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dna+96 ... t500&x=wrt

97%: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dna+97 ... t500&x=wrt

98%: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dna+98 ... t500&x=wrt

99%: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dna+99 ... t500&x=wrt

And it is even implied at 100%: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dna+10 ... t500&x=wrt

 

[jwu]

It would seem that when it comes to the DNA comparison between us and chimps. Science cannot make up it's mind. The percent difference just keeps changing.

How about different definitions being used there as an explaination?

Base pair identity will give a lower number than gene identity (which allows for minor modification without counting the genes as different)

However, among your lists i had a hard time finding any mainstream science websites mentioning the 97%, 98%, 99% and 100% figures - these were pretty much mostly creationist websites, AnswersInGenesis, DarwinIsDead, CreationOnTheWeb.

Most science websites were found using the 96% figure.

Particularly your accusation that it's implied to be "100%" comes from *drumroll* AnswersInGenesis and Freerepublic.com, both creationist publications. But even that then goes on and tones this down to percentages in the high nineties instead of leaving it at that implication:

The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

Among your searches i didn't find any pro evolution website which implied the 100% figure, and even the pro-creation ones presented more specific numbers merely a sentence later.

 

[peace4all]

hehehe. I love it. Using creationist theory, claiming that as evolutionary fact, and then saying evolution is wrong.

Its like me saying "The bible was written first in german, so therefore, the bible is wrong because german wasn't around when the bible was written"

 

[ikester7579]

O I see. Attempts to derail the thread lol.

I guess not even the evolutionists know what the percent number is.

Example: 4% of what number are we so close to chimps by? I was never taught this in school. I was only told 4% difference, no number was ever given. Had to research it to find out. I wonder why science is actually afraid to admit to what the answer is, which would actuallt tell of the actual difference between us and chimps.

Example: 4% of 100 is not the same number in difference as 4% of 56 trillion.

I guess evolution is like selling used cars. To sell a used car, you don't tell all that is wrong with the car to the customer. And that's why the car sells man sells cars. And is the same reason the percent number (4% of what) is never mentioned.

 

[jwu]

It's the very first link on google if you search for "comparison human chimp genome base pairs".
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005 ... chimp.html

I guess not even the evolutionists know what the percent number is.

Had to research it to find out.

Don't you contradict yourself there? How can you find something out by research which we supposedly don't know?

However, did you consider that there may be good reasons why you weren't taught this at school? Such as these two genomes not being completely sequenced (which happened only recently) when you were in school so that a full comparison could not be made, only extrapolations based on small samples? Or that the actual number of base pair differences is irrelevant unless placed in context to the overall size of the genome, which is done exactly by the percent figure?

And what do you suggest is wrong with the actual number?

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm
This article, again easily found by googling "human chimp genome comparison" sheds some more light on the different percent figures - if only the shared genes are considered, then there is 99% base pair identity, if insertions and deletions are added, then there is 96% identity - i.e. insertions and deletions are responsible for 3% of the differences, base pair changes cause roughly 1% of the changes.

This also falls in line with the number of base pair changes - the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, 4% difference means 120 million base pairs. 1% is 30 million, and a figure of 35 million base pair difference is given by the studies. The additional 5 million are probably just the result of a figure of 1.17% being rounded down to 1% for the articles.

 

[Poke]

Evolutionists point to the perported 98-ish percent similiarty of human and chimp DNA, as if to say "See, told you, humans evolved from chimps!" ("Evolution doesn't say humans evolved from chimps." Whatever.)

Humans evolved from mice, I tell you! Humans share 98-ish percent of their DNA with mice. http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articl ... 3102.shtml

Wouldn't there be about a 1000 times as many generations separating humans from mice than humans from chimps? Yet, humans are nearly equal distant to mice as to chimps.

Because chimps are so much more physically similar to humans than mice, I would expect a greater difference with mice, but to invoke evolution to explain this difference is not parsimonious. The genetic deferences reflect the physical differences, not Evolution.

Because chimps and humans were made by the same creator, and humans and chimps, and mice, share the same food chain, have bodies that work according to the same biochemical laws, all have red blood and two eyes, you should expect a high degree of similiarity, even without Evolution.

Still, even a percent or two differences represents millions of differences, a mountain Evolution can't climb. How hard is it for Evolutionists to find even one "good" mutation in a species in a hundred observed generations, even assuming that there is a viable path between chimps or mice and humans?

 

[jwu]

Humans evolved from mice, I tell you! Humans share 98-ish percent of their DNA with mice.

98% of the genes have counterparts, but that does not translate to 98% base pair identity.

One of the articles which i linked is about the actual base pairs:

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.

Because chimps and humans were made by the same creator, and humans and chimps, and mice, share the same food chain, have bodies that work according to the same biochemical laws, all have red blood and two eyes, you should expect a high degree of similiarity, even without Evolution.

A common designer scenario however cannot account for things like ERVs.

Still, even a percent or two differences represents millions of differences, a mountain Evolution can't climb. How hard is it for Evolutionists to find even one "good" mutation in a species in a hundred observed generations, even assuming that there is a viable path between chimps or mice and humans?

Actually, in case of a sample with bacteria, a beneficial mutation rate as high as 12% has been observed directly. OF course, this isn't as high in humans, but there evidently are plenty of beneficial mutations

Moreover, one doesn't need beneficial mutations - neutral ones are just fine, and the majority of them is neutral.

Using 15 years for one generation and 6 million years since the speciation, 150 mutations have to become fixed per generation. This is roughly the usual mutation rate - every human has about that many mutations compared to his parents.
However, evolution isn't limited to these 150 mutations per generation, but it can work with the mutations of millions of individuals. If there are 10 million individuals, then only one out of ten million mutations has to become fixed in the population. That's not unrealistic, is it?

 

[Poke]

A common designer scenario however cannot account for things like ERVs.

This is a new line of evidence, and typical of new evidence over the past century, it does appear to lean in favor of Evolution (presumably because Evolutionists control the natural science fields). Also typical of evidence over the last century, as more knowledge comes in, these proofs of Evolution collapse (presumably because Evolution is false).

It will probably turn out that most of these ERVs aren't what they appear to be.

Actually, in case of a sample with bacteria, a beneficial mutation rate as high as 12% has been observed directly. OF course, this isn't as high in humans, but there evidently are plenty of beneficial mutations

Many of the purported beneficial mutations in bacteria actually decrease overall fitness and don't do well in the wild, or these changes turn out DNA transfered from other bacteria.

Using 15 years for one generation and 6 million years since the speciation, 150 mutations have to become fixed per generation. This is roughly the usual mutation rate - every human has about that many mutations compared to his parents.
However, evolution isn't limited to these 150 mutations per generation, but it can work with the mutations of millions of individuals. If there are 10 million individuals, then only one out of ten million mutations has to become fixed in the population. That's not unrealistic, is it?

Regardless of the rate, mice and chimps still share substantially the same number of genes, 98.x%, with humans, in spite of magnitudes of difference in opportunity for new genes to appear. (Yes, mice are much different than chimps, compared to humans and this is reflected in the greater difference of the base pairs.)

For a positive mutation to spread through a whole population, the non-mutants have to die off. But, non-mutants have lots of children. So, for even one mutation to become fixed, it requires the deaths of many times the number of animals as the number of the size of the population, which is accomplished over maybe hundreds of generations, to eleminate the non-mutants. But, these non-mutants might otherwise be mutants with another positive mutations, but they still must die and take positive mutations with them, if the first mutation is to succeed. The upshot of this is, in spite of the mutation rate you suggest, not even a couple thousand mutations could become fixed in your scenario.

 

[Solo]

Exerpt from

ESSAY ON CARPENTER GENES
Why Darwinian Evolution Is Flatly Impossible
by Lloyd Pye

• What all this means, of course, is that everything we think we know about how life develops on Earth is flatly wrong. It means all of our “experts†are totally mistaken when they tell us that Darwin’s theory of gradual mutations has led to the development of all species of plants and animals on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwinism cannot work now, it has never been able to work, and the time has come for its supporters to stop their intellectual posturing and admit they need to go back to their drawing boards to seek a more plausible explanation for what is surely life’s greatest single mystery.

No matter how high evidence was stacked up against evolution in the past, Darwinists could always slip through the "...it COULD have happened..." loophole. As long as genetic mutations and slight physical changes (microevolution) were evident, interspecies transitions (macroevolution) had to be accepted as at least plausible. Not any more. In five brief pages, this article closes the Darwinian loophole, and evolutionary science will never be the same! -David Summers, Publisher/Editor

Retrieved from http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Carpenter.htm

 

[ikester7579]

Don't you contradict yourself there? How can you find something out by research which we supposedly don't know?

If we did not know, how was the percent figured out before we knew?

 

[peace4all]

so Solo.

What acredited scientific agency, has proof that goes against evolution theory? I don't wnat any "southern babtist college of why evolution is wrong" papers. Actual evidence. Research. Something.

Fromt eh link u posted, All the excuses the author gave for darwin being wrong, can be directly applied to Religion in general. Besides the fact that , Religion requires no logic or resaearch, or attempt at understanding, to use.

 

[Solo]

so Solo.

What acredited scientific agency, has proof that goes against evolution theory? I don't wnat any "southern babtist college of why evolution is wrong" papers. Actual evidence. Research. Something.

Fromt eh link u posted, All the excuses the author gave for darwin being wrong, can be directly applied to Religion in general. Besides the fact that , Religion requires no logic or resaearch, or attempt at understanding, to use.

Well peace4all, you are once again walking the path of biased ignorance in making your jump to conclusions. The ole boy who wrote this article will probably convert you to his belief system. I think that he is wrong, of course, just as I believe that you are wrong in your understanding of the origins of life, the earth, and the heavens.

Here is the link to the author who wrote this article. He is definitely not a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists know better.

http://www.lloydpye.com/

: : :

 

[ikester7579]

Besides the fact that , Religion requires no logic or resaearch, or attempt at understanding, to use.

Really? So you could preach a sermon without any study or research? I'd like to see that.

Example: Let's say you preached on creation. What would you say without research? Folks, it's a parable-myth. You may go home now. LOL

Let's say you were going to preach on the back ground each person who wrote the books of the bible. What would you say without research and study? Folks, God's word is not true, and it has been rewritten so many times, how could it be true? You may go home now.

How long would you keep your job as a pastor?

I'd like to see you replace Billy Graham. Think you could do the same job without research?

Also, science never requires truth. Only degrees in percentage because an actual absolute is not obtainable where questionable theories run rampant.

 

[ikester7579]

It's the very first link on google if you search for "comparison human chimp genome base pairs".
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005 ... chimp.html

I guess not even the evolutionists know what the percent number is.

[quote:c037e]Had to research it to find out.

Don't you contradict yourself there? How can you find something out by research which we supposedly don't know?

However, did you consider that there may be good reasons why you weren't taught this at school? Such as these two genomes not being completely sequenced (which happened only recently) when you were in school so that a full comparison could not be made, only extrapolations based on small samples? Or that the actual number of base pair differences is irrelevant unless placed in context to the overall size of the genome, which is done exactly by the percent figure?

And what do you suggest is wrong with the actual number?

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm
This article, again easily found by googling "human chimp genome comparison" sheds some more light on the different percent figures - if only the shared genes are considered, then there is 99% base pair identity, if insertions and deletions are added, then there is 96% identity - i.e. insertions and deletions are responsible for 3% of the differences, base pair changes cause roughly 1% of the changes.

This also falls in line with the number of base pair changes - the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, 4% difference means 120 million base pairs. 1% is 30 million, and a figure of 35 million base pair difference is given by the studies. The additional 5 million are probably just the result of a figure of 1.17% being rounded down to 1% for the articles.[/quote:c037e]

The human body is made up of 50-100 trillion cells. The genetic code affects every cell in the human body. So what is 4% difference in the code, is also 4% difference in all the cells that are controlled by the same code.

So 4% of 50-100 trillion cells is a much larger number than evolutionists are willing to admit to. And is the same reason this number is never given on the pages where evolution is the main subject being pitch for selling to the public.

Why the wide range in cells count? Like the percentage difference of opinion, no one can seem to make up there mind about how many cells, on average, the human body has. I saw numbers that ranged from 50-75-100 trillion. I guess science has turned into a guessing game. To keep evolution true, a wide variance of answers is needed so when actual evidence emerges. It can always be said that one guess was close. :roll:

 

[jwu]

So 4% of 50-100 trillion cells is a much larger number than evolutionists are willing to admit to. And is the same reason this number is never given on the pages where evolution is the main subject being pitch for selling to the public.

4% of 50-100 trillion copies of the same DNA still boils down to the same number of differences.
The number of cells doesn't matter in the slightest.

If i take a sheet of paper and write something on it, and then another sheet of paper is filled with 96% of the same text and 4% other things, and i photocopy all these a few trillion times, has the actual number of differences changed or not?

Why the wide range in cells count? Like the percentage difference of opinion, no one can seem to make up there mind about how many cells, on average, the human body has. I saw numbers that ranged from 50-75-100 trillion. I guess science has turned into a guessing game. To keep evolution true, a wide variance of answers is needed so when actual evidence emerges. It can always be said that one guess was close.

Because a range is more accurate than an average as it limits the deviation.
And how would one measure an average anyway without knowing the number of cells in every human on the world? The samples are limited, and if you base it on 6' tall and well fed (or even overweight) Europeans or Americans then you get different numbers than if you base it on Asians which are smaller in average, or underweight people who live in an African drought zone. And should one only include adults or children as well?
Humans simply do come in different sizes, so a range is just appropiate. Things don't always come down to a single number which is right for everything.

Besides, no-one actually counted the number of cells - it's based on extrapolations from smaller samples. Since extrapolations are subject to errors, it is even required to give a range in which the actual result is most probable to be found.

And the accuracy of estimations of the number of cells in a human body don't even have anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution or the evidence which supports it.

Your argument is nothing but empty rhetorics.

 

[maranatha_man]

It's a bit interesting that in-and-of-itself the poll "questions" are almost unintelligable, and the person initiating the poll can't even spell "poll" :o

 

[ikester7579]

It's a bit interesting that in-and-of-itself the poll "questions" are almost unintelligable, and the person initiating the poll can't even spell "poll" :o

I spelled it wrong just for your agravation. I see it worked. :

 

[ikester7579]

Your argument is nothing but empty rhetorics.

And your answers end up being empty excuses that are workarounds designed as a stalling tactic. And I have to answer my own questions because it seems no one knows, or they would rather me answer it, so it can be implied that I lied. Unwilling to commit to an answer is like a political dodge. I guess not only has science delved into religion, but political ploys seem to be the agenda as well.

 

[jwu]

And your answers end up being empty excuses that are workarounds designed as a stalling tactic.

So of what part of your question did i not explain why it is meaningless or why no single figure can be given? Do you realize that not everything can be boiled down to a single number which is right in all circumstances?

And I have to answer my own questions because it seems no one knows, or they would rather me answer it, so it can be implied that I lied.

I guess you're referring to the genetic drift thing - it was you who accused me of having made up that term when a simple google search could have shown otherwise. It demonstrates a "i don't know that, therefore it doesn't exist/is false" attitude on your side.

 

[maranatha_man]

It's a bit interesting that in-and-of-itself the poll "questions" are almost unintelligable, and the person initiating the poll can't even spell "poll" :o

I spelled it wrong just for your agravation. I see it worked. :

You did it just for "me" personally, huh??
..and I'll have to suggest you have a (limited, perhaps) criminal background and likely problems with impulsive lying behavior and fraud perpetration as well...

I suppose you spelled "agravation" wrong as well, just for my aggravation. :

Let me also point out that this type of behavior casts serious doubt on the stuff you present, with claims of being "evidence" or data, as well. :