The page you cite was last updated in 2003. With a tiny amount of effort, one could discover that the 1000 Genomes project reported on human genetic variation just a little more than a year ago. I believe the publication of these findings was very broadly publicized, such that no one with a beginner’s understanding of the literature would be unaware of their existence. Here is the relevant paragraph from the open access paper at Nature:
We find that a typical genome differs from the reference human genome at 4.1 million to 5.0 million sites (Fig. 1b and Table 1). Although >99.9% of variants consist of SNPs and short indels, structural variants affect more bases: the typical genome contains an estimated 2,100 to 2,500 structural variants (~1,000 large deletions, ~160 copy-number variants, ~915 Alu insertions, ~128 L1 insertions, ~51 SVA insertions, ~4 NUMTs, and ~10 inversions), affecting ~20 million bases of sequence.
Three million isn’t even close.
Let’s try harder to cite relevant scientific data.
Someone check my math here. If I read Tomkins correctly, the (hypothetically) less contaminated set of reads gives 85% human/chimp identity while the full set gives 90% identity. If we assume that the human contamination is 100% identical to the human reference, then two-thirds of the reads are of the less-contaminated type and one-third consists of nothing but human reads: 0.67 * 0.85 + .33 = 0.90. So if his numbers and explanation are correct, one-third of the chimpanzee reads are actually human. That strikes me as a trifle implausible.
That’s a pretty concise paragraph … I can see now that the only reason I’ve resisted this view up to now is that it was easier to dispute a Creationists who thought there was only Adam’s family in the beginning !
Frank: Many thanks for your considered response which, as you say, took some time to write up.
I should like to address your latter points first to clear up a misunderstanding you have.
You said that I had said I had no interest in running the code should you make it available to me. I haven’t checked the forum post for verification but I’m fairly sure I would not and did not actually say that at all. I think what I said is that my programming is limited to C++ and that this particular area is out of my level of experience.
You’ll see therefore that the two statements are entirely different.
You fear that I will accuse you of attacking him (Jeff Tomkins) and that “people like me are evidence immune.” Hmmm.
On this first point I can allay your fears as having read your comments it’s clear to me that unlike certain others in this forum who indulged in the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack you have critiqued in some detail his methodology and findings and not the man.
As to your latter point your comments reveal a certain default attitude that some persons have towards Biblical creationists whether they are Old earthers but more especially to YEC’s.
I do have to say that whilst it is water off a duck’s back to me personally and especially so when attacks are made by atheists it does cause me some concern when negative comments are made by fellow Christians as I find such comments say more about them than me. Do you appreciate the point I’m making?
To get things into perspective on this issue of “immunity to evidence” you may want to reconsider your attitude when you learn that I’m a former atheist who moved to agnostic to believer in an Intelligent Force/Creator of the fine-tuned for life Universe to a believer in the God of the Bible (firstly as an Old earther to a YEC) to a born-again believer in Jesus Christ.
Therefore, to say that “people like me are immune to evidence” is stating it baldly – quite wrong.
As to your analysis and critique of Tomkins research you will appreciate that as I haven’t engaged in “hands-on” research as have you and Jeff that I do not have the experience and depth of knowledge to drill down into the step-by-step details and I freely openly and transparently admit to this deficiency.
I would like to swiftly add that I am completely fascinated by this area of research and am reading copiously on the subject and with a focus on the programming technology used. On that latter point I’ve read a number of articles and one thing that stands out clearly is that advances in that area are making rapid progress and that great care must be taken to not set up parameters to achieve the desired results to accord with one’s starting assumptions – and this cuts both ways, or to be more accurate, as many ways as people have different assumptions ranging from atheism, theistic evolution, to Intelligent Design, and Creation science. And yes I realise that the latter term may just possibly not compute with you and some others.
Yes, which is why peer review and verification of results by other scientists, who may have opposite assumptions, is so important. The “atheist scientist” has his work checked by the Christian scientist (not the Mary Baker Eddy type), and the Christian scientist has his work checked by the atheist. Oh, and in between, atheists are checking up on other atheists, and Christians are checking up on other Christians. That is how false assumptions and errors are discovered. That is how science works. Even a layman like me can understand that. This whole idea of science’s inherent bias against God just strikes me as another manifestation of conspiracy-theory thinking.
That is a great story and I am glad you found Jesus, the One who is greater than anything we find in science. Peace.
Your story, though, I read as evidence that a loving God has searched for and called you to Himself. It is not your “responsiveness to evidence” that brought you to Him, but Jesus work in you through the cross. I thank Him for that good work, and as it is for all of us, coming to him does not automatically make us clear thinkers in all areas of life. That is not how following HIm works. So, as is true for all our journeys, I give credit to Him and not to us.
Why Not Look at the Data Yourself?
You do not need to know how to program to run the code. I’m happy to show you how. This is so easy to do, that a high schooler can do it. Do you have interest? Would this change your mind if you could see for yourself the data?
It does not take technical or programming expertise to understand that this analysis needs to add positive controls: human reads to human genome comparison, and chimp reads to chimp genome comparison. Both these control" experiments should produce very high similarity (because they are positive controls) if his methodology is good. However, because he is using a poor analysis, the will not come out correct.
And if you take me up on the offer, I’ll show you how to run this analysis with controls too. You can see for yourself his mistake.
I respond based on my experience with YOU
I am concerned about some being evidence immune and anticipate being accused of attacking Jeff. You seem puzzled by this, and think this is a general bias I have against YECs.
I wrote…
Then…
So thank you for not accusing me of excoriating attacks on Jeff this time, but I think you are missing something here.
We need to remember the history here. I fear you will accuse me of ad hominems this because you did this to me already earlier this thread (see next quote). It has nothing to do with you being a YEC, but my prior experience with you on this thread.
If you go back and read the thread, I did not attack Tomkins at all, but carefully explained why the ~88% figure you quoted was wrong.
With that experience, I do wonder about similar non-sequitors in the future. This wondering does not expose a general attitude about YEC, but a specific experience I have had with you.
That is not what I said. Rather…
Notice the “if”. I am still curious how you go from here. Will you choose to be immune to the evidence or will you enter in?
So what will you do?
So this is really in your hands. Right now you are being presented with evidence that counters your presuppositions. There are multiple genuine experts (myself, @glipsnort, and @DennisVenema) who are also Christians willing to answer the questions. Will you be immune to the evidence?
This case should be particularly easy too, because…
The evidence is directly verifiable by you.
The raw similarity between humans and chimps does not even prove that evolution is true or YEC is false
Many YECs (e.g. Todd Woods) agree with us about the data too.
Tomkins own work is directly contradicting itself without explanation
So, in this really simple and easy case, can you change your mind? Can you come to a different view of the world based on well reasoned explanations and clear data?
If not, I will continue to wonder if you are evidence immune. And I see no point in explaining how (for example) 150 million base differences are understood by evolutionists and why we find no difficulty here. If we can’t come to agreement about the most obvious facts, what point is their in going back and for about that?
Any how, I sincerely hope you can change your mind and prove my fears are misplaced. I encourage you to do so.
I had it in mind to make a lengthy response addressing each of the points raised but for a reason which will become crystal clear have decided against it and will cut to the chase.
Let’s for the sake of the argument say that the chimp human difference is only, say, 2% or even 1%.
So what?
That factor is not hard facts and evidence for a common ancestor which is an assumption which goes back to the time of Darwin who, as you know, was ignorant of the specified information content and the nanomachines in the cell of even the least complex organism.
The notion of a common designer who front loaded the cell with specified information and nanomachines is at least as viable as the notion of a common ancestor.
The “only” 2% or 1% difference is ENORMOUS.
When and if a chimp can write algorithms, compose the music for an opera, sing Nessum Dorma, produce a Space Shuttle or type the 23rd Psalm or even one line from a play by William Shakespeare then I’ll give credence to the notion of a common ancestor.
But until such time I’ll continue to believe that chimps and humans are different “kinds” (baramin) of creatures.
So, the bottom line is this. I’m pretty sure that as a theistic evolutionist you’re not going to embrace the Genesis account of creation. You will understand that I am not going to reject the authority of the infallible Scriptures (I’m talking about the original “autographs”) in favour of science which in reality is knowledge arrived at by fallen men and which changes when new “truths” replace that which was previously held to be “true.”
I entirely embrace the Genesis account of creation, and hold it as a trustworthy account of our origins.
I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead, and because of this I believe that the Bible is the infallible and authoritative Word of God and all Scripture is useful for teaching and instructing.
Believing all this myself, of course I have no intention of dissuading you from agreeing with me here. Please do not turn from trusting Scripture because of this conversation. Rather, I call you to trust it more, but trust your personal interpretation less. Maybe there is a way to understand it better.
I am not willing to proceed on this point if all you can do is concede “for the sake of argument” an obvious and clear point of evidence.
You are entirely right that this fact alone does not mean evolution is true or YEC is false, which is why it is so strange that there is so much resistance to recognizing the reality of this detail of God’s world. Given that this is not even a definitive fact, why is it so hard for you to change your position?
Yes and no.
Turns out this is 1/10th the differences between mice and rats, and many YECs think mice and rats share a common ancestor (because they are the same “kind”). So this is really a very tiny difference. From a genetic point of view, we look like we are the same baramin, there is no way around this without doing backflips to discard clear evidence.
On the other hand, there is no way we would mistake a human genome for a chimp genome, because the difference is very clear too. So in this is a substantial difference too. And these differences are consequential and important.
And your observations of the differences are correct too, and many scientists agree with you. You can read my thoughts about this here: More Than Just Apes. But the logical jump to rejecting common ancestry for this reason is a non-sequitur.
The real question is whether or not evolution is expected to produce this amount of difference between two genomes in 6 to 10 millions years. Turns out that the answer, using simple to understand formulas, is that this is exactly how much we expect genomes to be different when they diverge this recently. The mathematics of this come out of something called “neutral theory” and are directly verifiable with several experiments.
That is as much detail as I can into this with you though. Until we are operating from similar facts, there is no reason to get into the details of this.
I should also offer I am open to that possibility, though I have yet to see clear evidence that God did it this way. Just we can’t find the evidence, however, does not mean it did not happened this way.
As Denise has mentioned, chimps are our closest living relatives but there were many intermediate forms between the common ancestor of humans and chimps. Why are you not considering these intermediate forms? Didn’t it take a long time (about 200,000 years) for humans to compose the music for an opera, sing Nessum Dorma, and produce a space shuttle? During that time, the human genome hasn’t changed much. In addition, many of us have 1 to 2% Neanderthal DNA mixed into our genome. Neanderthals are genetically more similar to Homo Sapiens than Chimps are. Let’s says that Neanderthals didn’t go extinct, do you think Neanderthals could have composed an opera at some point in the last 600,000 years? How about the Denosivans? Do you think if they survived to this day, they would have discovered the natural laws of science such as quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the genetic code?
My point is that it was humans who discovered the laws of nature over thousands of years. If Neanderthals lived to present times, they too would have discovered the exact same laws of nature that we discovered. But I am sure that Neanderthals would not have came up with the same story of creation as written in the bible. To me, this says the biblical story of creation can’t be deemed more credible than what we know is true about the nature of the universe.
Not really. If you are familiar with the evidence for Common Descent,you know that it is not just the NUMBER of differences but the NESTED NATURE of those differences.
I am “of the belief” because they are. Evidence matters.
Leaping from “the molecular level” back to 1735 and Linnaeus leaves me baffled.
Yes it is.
Now you have a good grasp of the facts which make the evidence so compelling. Of course, there are also many other lines of evidence which produce an overwhelming consilience of evidence for Common Descent. It is not only the nested hierarchies.
The fact that you are “speaking as a former atheist” is irrelevant to the evidence, just as my being a former Young Earth Creationist is irrelevant.
Perhaps that would be good advice for you as well.
And that is because they are such evidence.
Frankly, I’m amazed that you would complain about “assumptions” and then cite evolutionnews. I’ve far too much experience with their dishonest quote-mining to ever take them seriously. It is a waste of my time because they have consistently demonstrated their ability to grasp science and the nature of evidence. At least when I used to read their “news” their primary writers had not been scientists and constantly misrepresented the science.
Evolutionnews is a propaganda website. I have no reason to trust it. Indeed, the title of the website is misleading. They regularly ignore real evolutionary biology news until they are ready to deny it. It is anti-evolution commentary. Never do they admit to valid evidence for evolution.
You directed those words to Swamidass and he made clear that you were wrong despite being “pretty sure.” I am a theistic evolutionist (though I prefer “evolutionary creationist”) and you are just as incorrect in my case. I strongly embrace the Genesis account of creation.
It sounds like it is you who is making a lot of incorrect assumptions and that is most likely because you have not spent sufficient time reviewing the evidence and various commentary concerning the evidence. I could be wrong but that is how it looks to me.
You say you “entirely”[wholly, completely] embrace the Genesis account of creation…… [my addition]
However, we have entirely different models of life.
My model, based on God’s word, is top to bottom i.e. creatures e.g. the first human, Adam, came into existence fully formed. In other words Adam ‘is not in existence’ and then (almost) in an instant ‘he is in existence.’
Then through reproduction the specified highly instructional information and nanomachines for producing body parts which comprise the entire human were downloaded at conception into the cell.
Your model, as a theistic evolutionist, is bottom to top in which a first self replicating molecule evolved over billions of years through natural selection and mutation into the diversity of life we see on the planet today.
That God who created the vast fine-tuned for life Universe to come into existence ex nihilo and is then somehow unable (as “some” theistic evolutionist would have it) to create a fully formed creature simply does not compute.
There is, it seems evident to me, no “one size fits all.”
What I mean is this. Some people seem to be able to live with the notion that the Genesis account of creation is not to be taken literally and this seems not to conflict with their belief that Jesus was resurrected.
Some others believe that God did precisely that which is recorded in Scripture and that He created Adam fully formed.
So, I would say that it is best that we agree to differ because there’s no profit in this for either of us given that we are both of the belief that God aka YHWH aka Jesus Christ manifested in the flesh, died as the ransom and atonement for our sins, and was resurrected to rule as LORD of Lords and King of kings.
Frank said “[God] is then somehow unable (as “some” theistic evolutionist would have it) to create a fully formed creature…”
Can you name some of these alleged theistic evolutionists who claim that God is _“unable to create a fully formed creature?” I have yet to meet such a person. It makes a convenient accusation to say that they have declared God incapable of something. But is it an accurate claim?
It is similar to the people who chide me by saying “So you claim that God is unable to create the universe in six days?” Obviously, the issue is not what God CAN do but what God DID do. And a number of theologians over the centuries were opposed to a six day creation because they claimed that it limited God to taking more than an instant to create everything.
Frank, do you think that your accusations–such as this one which I quoted above—might appear to be a “nakedly aggressive” tone and looking for a fight? It is not the first time you appear to place motivations on your opponents which (1) you don’t support with evidence, and (2) which make insinuations against them?
Do you understand how it might appear that you accused me of making unwarranted assumptions but then were offended when I suggested that it might be you who is making unwarranted assumptions? It looks to me like you have double-standards.
I’m not trying to be “nakedly aggressive”. I am trying to hold my own against your unwarranted accusations against me. Also, it is my assumption that you do not have a good grasp of the scientific evidence. I could be wrong about that, but I can only judge based upon what you post.
I would suggest that we focus on the evidence which supports our respective positions and avoid casually assigning motive and assumptions.
Just for the sake of clarity, the above quote is from Frank Cross. When I copy and paste it from your post, it appears here as if you wrote it, just as it appeared that Swamidass wrote it in yours. So, to be clear, these words belong to Frank Cross, not Swamidass or Patrick. Confusing, I know.
Am I allowed to quote myself from more than 100 posts back? Those who deny common descent really haven’t addressed the issue of earlier hominids at all, as Patrick points out.
In any case, I’m not clear what you’re saying, because it seems to me that you’re mixing two different ideas together. Whether the Neanderthals, had they survived, would have developed as H. sapiens developed is one question. It’s an interesting hypothetical, but it hangs on a controversial conclusion, which is whether Neanderthals possessed full-blown symbolic language capabilities. Anthropologists and linguists are divided on it, as far as I can gather. Steve Mithen’s “The Singing Neanderthals” offers some interesting theories in that regard.
Your other point about Neanderthals discovering the laws of nature is less clear to me. Obviously, as you say, the laws of nature remain the same whether we or some other species discover them. As far as the Neanderthals writing a different creation story than what we find in the Bible, other H. sapiens have written different creation stories than we find in the Bible. I must be missing something …
I think you have found something greater than science. Something worth losing everything to gain.
And I gladly accept your kind acknowledgement that we follow the same One. Thank you for that kindness.
You are right too, we will have to agree to differ. I take you at your word that you believe:
However, you get my position wrong. I do NOT believe…
Of course this view of our origins does not compute, because it is self contradictory and describes a God very different than the God we find in Scripture. Therefore, this is NOT my position.
If you ever want to know how I think of our origins, I am happy to explain it to you. But it is nothing at all like what you describe here.
Until then, thanks for your time here. I’m glad that at least the two of us have had a good conciliatory ending. Peace.