Determining similarity statistics between the human and chimp genome

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@Frank

IF the similarity in chimp-humans is a high as 95 percent that equates to approximately 150 Million differences. By anyone’s reckoning that’s a huge number of differences, is it not?

No.

@Frank

Firstly, you need to explain what you mean by “qualitative relationships in the matches.”

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.

@Frank

When you say: “the confirmations at the molecular level” this suggests to me that you are of the belief that chimps and humans are “nested hierarchically” on the basis of their genetic similarity.

I am “of the belief” because they are. Evidence matters.

@Frank

But this isn’t actually the case. As far back as 1735 Carl Linnaeus in Systema Naturae named humans Homo sapiens, and placed us in the genus Homo. He also placed orangutans and chimpanzees, the two apes known at the time, in the genus Homo.

Leaping from “the molecular level” back to 1735 and Linnaeus leaves me baffled.

@Frank

But this isn’t actually the case

Yes it is.

@Frank

Secondly, it very much seems to me that you place a great reliance on “nested hierarchies”, “phylogentic trees” and other classifications as evidence for a common ancestor.

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.

@Frank

I’m speaking as a former atheist and would care to suggest that you may want to give very careful consideration to challenging your assumptions because not all may actually be that which it appears to be.

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.

@Frank

you may want to give very careful consideration to challenging your assumptions because not all may actually be that which it appears to be.

Perhaps that would be good advice for you as well.

@Frank

In so doing you are making the assumption that nested hierarchies are evidence of common ancestry.

And that is because they are such evidence.

@Frank

Below is a relevant extract from: www.evolutionnews.org/

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.

@Frank

Common ancestry, therefore, is a starting assumption about the data – not a conclusion from it.

No.

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@Frank

I’m pretty sure that as a theistic evolutionist you’re not going to embrace the Genesis account of creation.

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.

[Frank (Frank Cross)]

Frank: Thanks for your latest response.

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.

Peace.

[Frank (Frank Cross)]

Your entire tone is nakedly aggressive and quite obviously you’re looking for a fight.

Well, with no apologies whatsoever you will have to look elsewhere.

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@Frank

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.

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

Your entire tone is nakedly aggressive and quite obviously you’re looking for a fight.

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.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Patrick

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.

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.

@Patrick

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.

@Jay313

Perhaps now we should move on to comparing the human and neanderthal genome…

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 …

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Frank

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.

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:

@Frank

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.

However, you get my position wrong. I do NOT believe…

@Frank

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.

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.