Jimmy Higgins

Humas and Chimps, not 98% alike, only 95%
Details, details. In any case, I was wondering if anyone knew how this page was representing the information it was giving. Thanks.

MyKell

I don't know why this is being posted on a
"Christianity.com" website. The author himself says:
Now, I always thought that the comparison between great apes and humans, and for that matter all species among each other, was according to the coding sequences of the genome. Now in this article, the author initially says:
Now I suspect that transposable elements, retrovirus abundance, and gene expression is different among humans. You can't compare two species together regarding their genetic material unless you take into consideration the sequence that is roughly 100% identical within one species. Otherwise, you and I will probably be less than 98% genetically different.

The use of the "indels" is not very impressive. We get that all the time when lining up proteins and nucleic acids to compare sequence homology of proteins between humans, mice, and rats. Protein function, most of the time, is not affected by those, so I'm not very sure where the author is trying to go with it.

Finally, we really do not have the enough information to compare with precision the relatedness of us to chimpanzees or any other great ape. A real experiment would be lining up a bunch of human genomes against a bunch of chimp genomes. Both have to be fully sequenced. Only then, would we be able to tell the creationists, ID theorist, to go home and find something else to do with their lives.

Happy Wonderer

What is the story behind this claim?

HW

MyKell

WOW, I didn't even notice that one!

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

So wait:

Humans DID evolve from apes, but it was 6500 years ago?

Want to know where that claim came from?
A crack pipe.

That whole thing is full o shit.

Advocatus Diaboli

Just like: studies show that all humans are from a Mitochondrian-Eve. (and then the creationists "forget" to mention it happened approx 120 000 years ago)

Dr.GH

http://home.christianity.com/ministr...ies/43298.html

The author of the essay quoted above, David DeWitt, makes a number of interpretation errors in the section quoted above. First, the most likely time since humans and chimps shared a common ancestor is thought to be closer to 10,000,000 years ago, twice as long as DeWitt indicates. This is not just a trivial factual error as it informs some inferences about the speed of “molecular clocks” found on various regions of nDNA, and mtDNA.

More significantly, DeWitt makes a gross error when he conjoins generation studies with trans-species studies. DeWitt uses this error to imply that humans and chimps may have diverged as recently as 6,500 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA studies as early as Cann et al 1987, realized that different loci mutated at different rates, and the nDNA was much more highly conserved than mtDNA. Further, none of the papers, nor authors, cited
implied that there could have been an human/chimp spilt as little as 6,500 years ago. Nor is there any sane interpretation of the data to support such an conclusion.

What is ironic is that DeWitt chastises the scientific principle of uniformatarian processes, when only the most bizarre and extreme application of uniformitarianism could lend itself to DeWitt’s misrepresentation of this research. Specifically, DeWitt would have to reject clearly demonstrated variation in the degree of conservation of different mtDNA and nDNA sequences and insist that all sequences mutate as the same, most rapid rate ever observed. This is a foolish as expecting that all radioisotopes decay at the same rate.

DeWitt’s concluding paragraph is the most irritating of his little essay. It is true that variations in experimental protocols are the way in which scientists obtain differences in their results. But, this is the only way science has to refine the small scale details of a theory. It is not even vaguely as implied by DeWitt, a way that major differences in conclusions are reached. The overlap in human and chimp genes are major, and as they confirm the equally significant fossil, and anatomical evidence for our descent from a common ancestor, this alters not one whit the fundamental conclusion of common descent that DeWitt hopes his readers will continue to reject. There is no emperical support for DeWitt’s fantastic assertion that humans and chimps could have diverged 10,000 years ago. Additionally, the estimated time since the first humans spread out from Africa is not at all related to the time since we diverged from the liniage that lead to the chimps. The fact of this common descent is not at all significant to the estimated time elapsed since the most recent common ancestor for all humans, which renders DeWitt’s last sentence pernicious nonsense.

And it is pernicious. We need to make clear distinction between the leaders of the anti-science creationist movement from their duped followers. Too often, scientists make the simple assumption that creationists as merely ignorant. This is not true. Men such as DeWitt are clearly well informed about the current biological research, and their misrepresentations are not the accidental errors of ignorance. These are purposeful lies and distortions used by educated men and women to delude and victimize. Their motive is selfish as they “earn” income from their willing victims by encouraging a worldview without foundation. It is a constant subtext within the creationist writings that science is an unreliable product that is generated by frauds. The irony of this theme is choking.

Cann, Rebecca, Mark Stoneking, Allan C. Wilson
1987 “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution” Nature Vol. 325, 31-36

zwi

It is incorrect to state that humans are descended from great apes

Humans are African Apes The other living African Apes are pnpaniscus, pan troglodites and Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Asian apes are a distant relative

Humans are descended from hominids

Zwi

Jimmy Higgins

Thanks for the help. I'll have to digest this and form a reply.

Non-praying Mantis

Sorry to rain on your parade again, Zwi, but:

The above statment is incorrect, because if...

...then it is likely that our most recent common ancestor of all of these groups would be considered an "ape"

The classification "ape" for humans is somewhat debateable, but it is generally accepted by scientists that we are, at least, close relatives of apes.

Yes, and we are also considered hominids, but this group (Hominidae) is more inclusive than the group "apes", IIRC.

NPM