1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured 99% Chimp DNA Similarity? Not!

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by ftacky, Sep 7, 2016.

  1. ftacky

    ftacky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    65
    Ratings:
    +28
    Religion:
    christian
    Since 2003, false claims by evolutionary biologists started cropping up in the popular media stating that the human genome and chimp genome are 99% identical, thus proving evolution. This falsely implied that a COMPLETE genome of both was compared. This is a false claim on so many levels:

    1) Genome mapping is only concerned with the protein coding sequences, estimated at between 1-4% of the entire genome. The remainder of the genome, much of which is considered to be "junk DNA" by many in the field, has not been completely mapped to date.

    2) What was actually compared between humans and chimps was ONLY the protein-coding sequences - which make up less than 4% of the total genome. The latest studies show it to be as low as 1% of the total genome.

    3) The comparison studies used mathematical algorythms rather than a direct genome-to-genome comparison which is considered too laborious at this time of technology.

    4) The algorythms have been constantly improved and tweaked since the initial studies to more accurately reflect a real comparison - by including indels for example. The 99% has slowly decreased in value. The 99% was initially downgraded to 98%, then 96%, then 85%, and the most current studies show 70% similarity. Do you see the trend?

    5) The initial studies back in 2003 also claimed that the genome of humans and bananas had a 50% similarity. This credulously implied that we, as humans, were 50% banana! Undoubtedly, this 50% number is also too high. Nonetheless, evolutionary biologists with PhDs were quick to jump on the bandwagon and started telling the public that we were actually one-half of a banana! So much for academic honesty.

    Nonetheless, the question remains: Why should humans have any genomic similarity with bananas and chimps, even small similarities? This is why:

    1) If we have no genomic similarity with bananas, we cannot assimilate (digest and absorb) bananas. We must have at least SOME genomic similarity with the things we eat, otherwise we would starve.

    2) All life on Earth is based on the same carbon/nitrogen/water-based system so we should expect some similarity. This should only make sense to any biologist.

    3) Even the Director of the Human Genome project has admitted:
    "...we were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
    Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute


    This whole situation should cause one to wonder about the ethics of evolutionary teachings by those who make exaggerated claims and misinform the public. This only goes to show:

    "Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

    For more info:
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40441/title/Human-Gene-Set-Shrinks-Again/
    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/fresh-look-human-chimp-dna-similarity/
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    27,624
    Ratings:
    +11,371
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    If there was any doubt about the link and similarities, the fossil record matched with what we do know about genome sequencing pretty much takes care of that. And if there's any group that has continually misinformed the public it's theists.

    Gotta go for now.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  3. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,703
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    Good info, most people don't dig behind the 99% headline. (not just regarding genomes!)

    Another point to bring up here.. I'm sure we could identify a > 95% rate of similarity between a 2016 GMC and Chevy SUV.
    This in itself does absolutely nothing, to suggest that one design accidentally morphed into the other, through entirely random blundering mistakes created when the blueprints were copied!

    this fact seems avoided in pop-science these days also, it would make life on Earth primarily 'pollution' based!

    oops :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. lovesong

    lovesong .little necromancer. .shaman in training.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,154
    Ratings:
    +1,636
    Religion:
    Polytheist & Occultist
    "Our cells function much in the same way as a banana's cells. Therefore god."
     
    • Like Like x 5
  5. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    44,695
    Ratings:
    +13,532
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Wow. They keep turning up. It would be funny if it were not a tragic testimonial of the failure of our educational systems.
     
    • Like Like x 13
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. Papoon

    Papoon Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    760
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Music
    Basically me and bananas want essentially the same thing - a quiet happy life near a tropical ocean.

    The only argument here is whether or not bananas actually want anything ... But since no-one speaks banana we can't ask.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
  7. Rick O'Shez

    Rick O'Shez Irishman bouncing off walls

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    13,049
    Ratings:
    +4,900
    Religion:
    Guinness
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 9
    • Funny Funny x 2
  8. Laika

    Laika Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    6,876
    Ratings:
    +6,436
    I'm in agreement in so far as popular science journalism and publishing often misrepresent or over simplify scientific studies. In that sense- I think you have a point and the 99% figure is just a good headline that overlooks the science behind it.

    But as regards the human genome... I'd have to look it up. My knowledge in that area consists of "it exists" and maybe some really vague basics. At a guess, new information meant that the figure needs to be revised- not that it makes "every man a liar."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    27,624
    Ratings:
    +11,371
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    Here's from the "Genetic Literacy Project" that does state due to comparative studies that we do share roughly 99% of our DNA with chimps: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....enes-with-chimps-can-dna-explain-differences/

    Here's from The Smithsonian Institute that says much the same as above: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

    Here's from "Scientific American" that says much the same: http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/

    Here's from Science Daily that uses the figure "over 90%": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm

    I think my point is rather obvious, and when I see someone using "Answers In Genesis" as a supposed reliable source, then I think we know where the poster is coming from and why.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Parsimony

    Parsimony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,003
    Ratings:
    +888
    Religion:
    Christian
    I really want to know where those 85% and 70% figures came from.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8,450
    Ratings:
    +3,694
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    You don't need advanced biology to notice that us and chimps are related. You just need to go a zoo and have a look.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    27,624
    Ratings:
    +11,371
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    I certainly didn't see them in the sources I cited.

    BTW, it ain't the first time I've seen creationist books/websites/tracts come up with some pretty "interesting information", let me tell ya. Many of them just have to know they're lying and/or distorting, but I guess if the do it in the name of "God" that this makes it all fine and dandy. I grew up in a church that taught about "evilution", as it was called, and I'm so happy I did the research and left that anti-science place.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    21,126
    Ratings:
    +7,682
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    I'm dying to know, aside from metaphoric use, why creationists consistently like to use inorganic "examples" thinking it reflects organic evolutionary processes.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. ftacky

    ftacky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    65
    Ratings:
    +28
    Religion:
    christian
    This is why we have to question the genome comparison studies:

    1) Some sections of human/chimp DNA are similar and some sections are very very different. So it all depends on which section of DNA you are comparing:

    "One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species' DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand.

    1a) DNA sample sizes used for human/chimp DNA comparisons was very small in comparison to the total genome:

    "In the first place, the sample of 779 kilobase pairs is small, and the variation between the different BACs is large."

    (Ref: Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

    Note: the sample of 779 kilobase pairs is indeed small compared to the total human genome which is estimated at 3 billion base pairs. In other words, out of the 3,000,000,000 base pairs which they could have compared, they only compared 779,000 base pairs or 779,000/3,000,000,000 = 0.00026 or 0.026%. And we call that a comparison?

    And if some DNA sections showed more than a 20% sequence divergence (per PNAS article above) why didn't they make a headline with that statistic?

    Is it wrong to ask these questions?

    "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called..." 1 Timothy 6
     
    #14 ftacky, Sep 8, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
  15. ftacky

    ftacky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    65
    Ratings:
    +28
    Religion:
    christian
    Size of the human genome reduced to 19,000 genes
    Date:
    July 3, 2014, Science Daily
    Summary: "A new study updates the number of human genes to 19,000; 1,700 fewer than the genes in the most recent annotation..."

    Just saying, if they are REDUCING the total number of genes every year by significant amounts, what does that say about the original mapping process, much less a comparison with chimps?

    I am a skeptic by nature, and when i see this, I am not exactly filled with confidence in the original studies. If anyone else is fine with all of this and doesn't want to ask the difficult questions, that's up to them. But for me, I need a little more evidence and validation. Just my 2 cents...

    Just like some church-goers ask questions at church and some don't. The doubts i have about the human/chimp comparisons are valid to me. If you don't want to question the studies, that's ok too...
     
    #15 ftacky, Sep 8, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
  16. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,092
    Ratings:
    +14,861
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    When I read your posts @ftacky I can almost feel my IQ dropping.... ... not to worry though, I can shed a few points and still be an entertaining conversationalist. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    39,425
    Ratings:
    +3,014
    I watch my fellow man walk by and sometimes....
    I can't help but think the word.....ape
    sometimes....gorilla
    sometimes ....primate

    and then the low level conversation begins

    (not [email protected])
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    39,425
    Ratings:
    +3,014
    like the press operator I knew....Henry...

    short legged
    heavy gut sagging forward
    spine followed
    shoulders back
    thick forearms

    gorilla
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Parsimony

    Parsimony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,003
    Ratings:
    +888
    Religion:
    Christian
    That does not help your case unless you can actually tell us what percentage of the total sequence those "few regions" comprise. Can you provide us with a link to any peer-reviewed study (not fringe studies) putting the nucleotide sequence similarity between chimpanzees and humans at less than 94%? That is the lowest I ever recall seeing it at.
     
  20. ftacky

    ftacky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    65
    Ratings:
    +28
    Religion:
    christian
    The study I referred to above is from the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). See my post above. So this is a "fringe" study? To who?

    Does anyone else here believe the National Academy of Sciences is a fringe organization? If so, what makes it fringe?

    Here is a brief description: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private non-profit organization in the United States. The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which also includes the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the National Academy of Medicine and the National Research Council.

    I do question the methodology of the study though.

    They compared 0.026 % of the total genome to get a 95% similarity number.

    Is anyone going to ask the question "Why didn't they compare 100% of the genome?" This is the elephant in the room which is being ignored.

    Here is one answer: As of today, there is no 100% complete mapping of a chimp genome with which to compare.
     
    #20 ftacky, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
Loading...