The Chimp-Human 1% Difference: A Useful Lie
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
(1) You'll notice that no one (even creationsafaris) ever said that that number is profoundly different. The genetic similarity is still sitting somewhere at 98% +/- a few percentage points.
(2) You'll notice that creationsafaris tries to give the impression that the overall number has changed by citing specific areas of the genome (such as the cerebral cortex) that have a more profound difference (the cerebral cortex being another, surprise.)
(3) You'll notice that the original paper cited by the article -- Wilson's 1975 paper -- predicted that the differences between chimps and humans lies not in the genes, but in the regulatory setup of the genome. This was a hypothesis.
(4) You'll notice that the recent paper in science says recent research has confirmed what Wilson said in 1975 -- the difference lies not in the genes but in the regulation.
Now put that all together and what do you get?
Basically when scientists realized how close the human genome is to the chimp genome (back in 1975), they hypothesized that the primary difference must lie then in how the genome is regulated. They had no data to assess this hypothesis. But now that research in the past few years has backed this hypothesis (i.e. the primary difference lies not in the genome, but rather in the regulation), it seems Wilson and the scientists in the 70's were right. Modern scientists now say that while it remains true that our genome is remarkably close to the chimp genome (~98%), it should be emphasized that our primary difference lies in the regulation of the genes, not in the genes. Prior to modern research, there was no way to assess this even though it was hypothesized this was the case.
Enter creationsafaris. Creationsafaris decides they want to take this and spin it so that it becomes a "confession" that earlier scientists were "lying" about the similarities, when nothing could be further from the truth.
So now the question of the thread: Why do creationists constantly engage in such intellectual dishonesty?
(The answer is that they know full well that there audience is composed of readers like Bob B who will soak up whatever idiocy they put out as long as its packaged as anti-evolution).
This tripe belongs in the trash bin.
(2) You'll notice that creationsafaris tries to give the impression that the overall number has changed by citing specific areas of the genome (such as the cerebral cortex) that have a more profound difference (the cerebral cortex being another, surprise.)
(3) You'll notice that the original paper cited by the article -- Wilson's 1975 paper -- predicted that the differences between chimps and humans lies not in the genes, but in the regulatory setup of the genome. This was a hypothesis.
(4) You'll notice that the recent paper in science says recent research has confirmed what Wilson said in 1975 -- the difference lies not in the genes but in the regulation.
Now put that all together and what do you get?
Basically when scientists realized how close the human genome is to the chimp genome (back in 1975), they hypothesized that the primary difference must lie then in how the genome is regulated. They had no data to assess this hypothesis. But now that research in the past few years has backed this hypothesis (i.e. the primary difference lies not in the genome, but rather in the regulation), it seems Wilson and the scientists in the 70's were right. Modern scientists now say that while it remains true that our genome is remarkably close to the chimp genome (~98%), it should be emphasized that our primary difference lies in the regulation of the genes, not in the genes. Prior to modern research, there was no way to assess this even though it was hypothesized this was the case.
Enter creationsafaris. Creationsafaris decides they want to take this and spin it so that it becomes a "confession" that earlier scientists were "lying" about the similarities, when nothing could be further from the truth.
So now the question of the thread: Why do creationists constantly engage in such intellectual dishonesty?
(The answer is that they know full well that there audience is composed of readers like Bob B who will soak up whatever idiocy they put out as long as its packaged as anti-evolution).
This tripe belongs in the trash bin.
This is the same line as was discussed before. Is the number a lie or isn't it?
The original researchers did not promote the lie. Others did by omitting the qualifying remarks. We can find the "useful lie" all over articles and discussions on the web, perhaps even in books by evolutionists.
It should be obvious to anyone with any amount of training in statistics that it is a vast unrealistic simplification of a complex subject to put forward a single percentage. Therefore creationsafaris would be as guilty of deception as the evolutionists if they presented their own single number.
So why did evolutionists do it? To try to quell the critics of the theory of descent of humans from apes. And the ploy worked for a while.
GeneCosta
New member
Bob, before I read through thousands of lines worth of what I probably will find unconvincing information, I'd like to ask if you think it's even slightly telling that all these creationist articles never appear in respectable places? Anyone can purchase a DN and some space and fill it with content. I'm curious if you wouldn't jitter if I posted a link to a website called "evolutionproofs.com."
Hey man, with a name like "creationsafaris", it's gotta be trustworthy.
lain: :chuckle:
Is that any worse than talkorigins? :idunno:Hey man, with a name like "creationsafaris", it's gotta be trustworthy.
:chuckle:
I suggest that you think for yourself and not be overly impressed by material on obviously biased web cites.
The reason I frequently cite creationsafaris is because they obviously have good access to university libraries which in turn allows them to keep us up to date on what is being published in scientific journal articles. In the case at hand the article in question which suggested that the single percentage number be discontinued as a measure of similarity between different species appeared in Science.
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Knight said:
Yes. Talk Origins focuses on science, Creation Safaris focuses on distorting the information at Talk Origins.
Yes, actually. I think it's the "safaris" part that makes me :chuckle:
I am simply talking about the name you mental midget. Why are you people so stupid?
kmoney tries to marginalize just about every Christian ministry and now he has resorted to mocking their names. It's pretty pathetic really.
Uh... they take safaris! When a company takes people on adventure safaris it isn't unreasonable to have the word "safari" in their name. :duh:
I have never seen creationsafaris ever mention talkorigins. If they do it is rare.
Instead they specialize in analyzing articles from major science journals that have some bearing on the creation-evolution controversy.
Talkorigins also specializes, in their case with their own articles dealing with historical sciences which have a bearing on Origins, as their name indicates. Many of these articles are good and are written generally by people working in the respective fields. My primary objection is that they frequently omit material that is critical to the debate. Since there is tons of material on any given subject, this "selection" may be unconscious. In other words they may have felt that the omitted material was not that important.
I disagree.
Yes.
I agree.
I have tried and I already have the hang of it, but thanks! :thumb:
Mr. 5020
New member
Turbo started a thread about this a while back.
On TOL, you have established your reputation as generally being against Christians.
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Mr. 5020 said:
Don't even think about starting anything with my boy, kmoney. We both live in the same 'hood (about an hour apart). Amish country, G. You don't want any of this, trust me.
:chuckle:
So let's get back on track about the subject of this thread: chimp-human differences.
For those who missed it here is a direct quote from the article in Science:
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”
So can anyone here explain why a single percentage number is not appropriate to use for a comparison between chimps and humans?
I am sure we have some people among us who took a course in statistics and hence know.
For those who missed it here is a direct quote from the article in Science:
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”
So can anyone here explain why a single percentage number is not appropriate to use for a comparison between chimps and humans?
I am sure we have some people among us who took a course in statistics and hence know.
A single percentage can be a perfectly valid comparison. What is being compared needs to be stated, however. (And yes, I've taken three courses in statistics, one at the graduate level)bob b said:
The genome may be 1% different, but the differential regulation by genes can amplify how much of an effect this has. That doesn't change the fact that the genome is still 98 or 99% similar. You said you have read Carroll's "Evo-devo" book, so the whole concept of regulatory changes should be rather unsurprising for you. This is what many of us have been saying all along.