Wessex Man
New member
It's because Bob b is a notorious(on quite a few sites.) as pseaudo-scientific quack,who doesn't know alot about science.
Plus I personally,have little interest it debating something as riduclous as creationism.
Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Plus I personally,have little interest it debating something as riduclous as creationism.
Mr Jack
New member
The funny thing about the article is that it ignores the ludicrously simple experiment that the figure comes from in the first place and neatly misunderstands what the experiment shows - unsurprising since they're unable to find or comprehend an experiment so simply you could actually perform it in your kitchen.
The 98.5% difference does not mean we share 98.5% of our genes. It means we share 98.5% of our DNA - that could mean we have 1.5% of our genes being entirely different and 98.5% the same or it could mean we have 100% of our genes 1.5% different.
In fact, of course, it's neither. More recent data has established that we share a large number of completely common genes, have a range of slightly different genes and a few very different genes.
Oh, look, exactly as evolution would predict.
Whodathought?
The 98.5% difference does not mean we share 98.5% of our genes. It means we share 98.5% of our DNA - that could mean we have 1.5% of our genes being entirely different and 98.5% the same or it could mean we have 100% of our genes 1.5% different.
In fact, of course, it's neither. More recent data has established that we share a large number of completely common genes, have a range of slightly different genes and a few very different genes.
Oh, look, exactly as evolution would predict.
Whodathought?
I'm not sure where you gathered that it is the only difference or even a primary difference in the phenotypes. It's certainly a significant genotypical difference, but why would you expect the expression to yield different results? If the genes on each chromosome are still actively transcribed, then there should be little difference in the phenotype as result of the fusion other than any genes which were overwritten or spliced into each other.
It would be an interesting experiment. But as I stated before, I don't think the phenotype would change that much. But such an experiment could never be performed because of ethical concerns.
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.Johnny said:
Is this what you are suggesting?
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. 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.
By the way, I know nothing about genetics. I'm only asking questions.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Valz said:
If this is the best Bob can do he needs all the help he can get.
Funny thing is, even if Christians admitted the genetic similarities existed between ape and man, it does not necessarily mean evolutionary theory is true. It could simply be the way God created things. But since the similarities are there, and because it's simply too close for comfort, evangelicals cannot even entertain the possibility that it's "just the way God made it." Very telling.
Granite said:
Granite,
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Christians have not " admitted the genetic similarities existed between ape and man,". This sounds to me to be similar to the myth that the Bible teaches that all species were created by God in the beginning and have never changed since then.
There are genetic similarities between lifeforms just as there are morphological similarities as well. Bacteria have some genes that look remarkably like their counterpart in human beings.
This similarity can be due to at least two strikingly different concepts (and even perhaps a combination of the two) :
1) all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell,
OR
2) multiple types of life were created in the beginning by a very clever designer who gave them the built-in ability to rapidly change in response to a changing environment.
ALL of the evidence (mountains of it
) points to concept #2 as being the most important as far as macroevolution is concerned.One of the reasons I believe this is because of a project I once undertook to create a "clone" of Apple Computer's Hypercard programming system. The clone was called Microcard, and was designed to run on IBM PCs.
One of the reasons I undertook this rather ambitious project was to explore the limits of an unusual programming language known as FORTH. Interestingly JAVA appears to be an extension of FORTH.
During the time of this project I discovered a number of interesting things, not only about FORTH but also about the underlying nature of computer programs: at the nitty gritty level almost all programs contain basic functions that are so similar that they could be called subprograms or subroutines.
What this meant in concrete terms was that once the underlying basic routines were available in FORTH that all of the many different functions and capabilities present in the rather elaborate Hypercard system could be easily realized by merely arranging the basic functions in short strings of implementing code.
As a result, Microcard turned out to contain a minimum of code, less than 128K, whereas as some of you may know, Apple's Hypercard is a very large beast containing millions of lines of code. This is not to knock Hypercard. It is a very fine system and was very succesful, but Microcard was not only far more compact but faster in execution as well, primarily because it was small enough so as to avoid any memory paging, which as is well known drastically slows down any fast CPU to the inchworm speed of even the fastest hard drive. But I digress.
This experience has been in my "subconscious" as I study what is being discovered about DNA and other mechanisms of life. This has caused me to hypthesize what may be going on with lifeforms. Of course one can take analogies too far, but the point is that we know very little about how lifeforms develop at this point in time and it seems to me that the analogy with subfunctions is an important insight. It may explain why bacteria have some genes that appear to be so similar to those in humans: could it be that there are functions that any lifeform has to have and so a subfunction which performs it would be expected to be similar?
It has been a puzzle as to how it is that the complex human species has so few genes, not that many more than simpler forms and even fewer than some "simple" creatures. Perhaps it is how the subfunctions (individual genes plus gene complexes) are assembled into larger elements (as I discovered in my Microcard project) that might explain such mysteries.
Of course one thing that remains undiscovered is "where is the code which assembles the genes into higher elements such as limbs and organs?"
An unbiased observer might want to keep such concepts in mind as biology delves deeper into the process of unraveling the mysteries of how life works.
Last edited:
Real Sorceror
New member
You misspelled "AND".bob b said:
noguru
Well-known member
bob b said:Granite,
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Christians have not " admitted the genetic similarities existed between ape and man,". This sounds to me to be similar to the myth that the Bible teaches that all species were created by God in the beginning and have never changed since then.
There are genetic similarities between lifeforms just as there are morphological similarities as well. Bacteria have some genes that look remarkably like their counterpart in human beings.
This similarity can be due to at least two strikingly different concepts (and even perhaps a combination of the two) :
1) all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell,
OR
2) multiple types of life were created in the beginning by a very clever designer who gave them the built-in ability to rapidly change in response to a changing environment.
ALL of the evidence (mountains of it
One of the reasons I believe this is because of a project I once undertook to create a "clone" of Apple Computer's Hypercard programming system. The clone was called Microcard, and was designed to run on IBM PCs.
One of the reasons I undertook this rather ambitious project was to explore the limits of an unusual programming language known as FORTH. Interestingly JAVA appears to be an extension of FORTH.
During the time of this project I discovered a number of interesting things, not only about FORTH but also about the underlying nature of computer programs: at the nitty gritty level almost all programs contain basic functions that are so similar that they could be called subprograms or subroutines.
What this meant in concrete terms was that once the underlying basic routines were available in FORTH that all of the many different functions and capabilities present in the rather elaborate Hypercard system could be easily realized by merely arranging the basic functions in short strings of implementing code.
As a result, Microcard turned out to contain a minimum of code, less than 128K, whereas as some of you may know, Apple's Hypercard is a very large beast containing millions of lines of code. This is not to knock Hypercard. It is a very fine system and was very succesful, but Microcard was not only far more compact but faster in execution as well, primarily because it was small enough so as to avoid any memory paging, which as is well known drastically slows down any fast CPU to the inchworm speed of even the fastest hard drive. But I digress.
This experience has been in my "subconscious" as I study what is being discovered about DNA and other mechanisms of life. This has caused me to hypthesize what may be going on with lifeforms. Of course one can take analogies too far, but the point is that we know very little about how lifeforms develop at this point in time and it seems to me that the analogy with subfunctions is an important insight. It may explain why bacteria have some genes that appear to be so similar to those in humans: could it be that there are functions that any lifeform has to have and so a subfunction which performs it would be expected to be similar?
It has been a puzzle as to how it is that the complex human species has so few genes, not that many more than simpler forms and even fewer than some "simple" creatures. Perhaps it is how the subfunctions (individual genes plus gene complexes) are assembled into larger elements (as I discovered in my Microcard project) that might explain such mysteries.
Now your catching on. This is how "simple" can become more "complex". By combining "simpler" functions into larger more "complex" functions. Sometimes, as with programming, redundancies are eliminated.
I remember about 10 years ago taking a 6,000 line purchase order program and reducing it to just over 3,000 lines. I also added functionality. However it was through modularizing it that I reduced the number of redundant lines. One of the basic concepts is using more subroutines. Have your subroutines do basic functions and keep them as small as possible. In your mainline you execute each subroutine as needed. In biological evolution this can also work in reverse. When redundancies are created inadvertantly the original mechanism and the energy needed for development/maintenance becomes free for other functions.
Another valuable tool is creating programs that achieve specific results. I remember one time reducing the length needed for hundreds of programs when I made the customer lookup a seperate program that can be called by other programs. This can be likened to our intestines using bacteria for some aspects of digestion. Why have the organism do it itself when it can get done from a symbiotic relationship with another organism.
It seems the biggest point that everyone is overlooking here is the fact that no matter how similar the DNA is, it's still DNA. In other words, whether two creatures are similar or not is secondary to the fact that what makes them what they are is language based. DNA is a codified chemical language. No evolutionary theory could hope to account for that. It makes no difference whether you're talking about the simplest of single celled organisms (which are themselves wildly and irreducibly complex) or human beings, their biology is determined entirely by the instructions codified in the chemical language known to us as DNA. And what's more is that it's the same language in all living things. No matter how "primitive" the creature, the DNA within it is still just plain old ordinary DNA. It’s the exact same sort of DNA that is in us, the only difference being the amount of information that is encoded therein.
This seems somewhat counter intuitive if Evolution is true. It would be like me, an American, visiting all the libraries in France, China, Greece, Poland, and Moscow and finding all the books in all five countries written in perfect American English. And even if that were to happen (which of course it wouldn't) the question would still remain about where the language came from in the first place.
Oh wait, I know, it just happened by complete accident! Of course! :doh:
Resting in Him,
Clete
This seems somewhat counter intuitive if Evolution is true. It would be like me, an American, visiting all the libraries in France, China, Greece, Poland, and Moscow and finding all the books in all five countries written in perfect American English. And even if that were to happen (which of course it wouldn't) the question would still remain about where the language came from in the first place.
Oh wait, I know, it just happened by complete accident! Of course! :doh:
Resting in Him,
Clete