Thank you for your time and efforts. Please feel free to come back and contribute your perspective on other topics, as well. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on something other than your specialty. Of course, I’m assuming that you do think about things besides genetics once in a while …
I have a feeling that if the 95% does prove out Dr. Buggs would still argue that it doesn’t indicate common ancestry.
Neither the chimp nor the human genome are completely assembled, so that would be the first major problem. There are gaps in each alignment, and those gaps will be in different places in each alignment. This means that a lack of a match between the genome assemblies could simply be a gap in the alignment in one of the genomes.
It would be interesting to see the results for the same comparison of the chimp and gorilla genomes. It is the pattern of similarity that evidences common ancestry and evolution, not a set percentage. If there are more differences between the chimp and gorilla genome, then what?
You probably know that on the topic of Human/Chimp genome comparison, I’m not exactly an “easy sell”.
But your “Final Summary” is impressive in its conciseness, its frankness and even in its elegant simplification of highly complex data.
I celebrate your most important sentence!:
“The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 82.34%.”
Intuitively speaking, this is seems to be the best way most of us can tune into this issue:
by comparing “one-to-one exact matches in the genome”. This might not be the best approach for all purposes, but it is certainly an excellent benchmark to start with. If anyone reads anything in this thread, it should be your Final Summary!
Best wishes, George Brooks
Good to know this.
Also good to know when comparing program P1 ‘build a chimp’ and program P2 ‘build a human’, is whether P1 and P2 only differ in their parameters or also in their dimensions. If the difference is only in the parameters, P1 can change into P2 by random variation of its parameters and selection. If the difference is also in the dimensions, billions of variations of the parameters during billions of years cannot produce a change in dimensions (= second order change/ transformation / innovation). The progress of science in the ENCODE-project (see: https://www.encodeproject.org/ ) will reveal eventually the type of differences between P1 and P2. Notice that change of P1 and P2 in their dimensions is antagonized by mutation repair systems. (see: Can mutations produce mutation repair systems? )
Dr. William DeJong
This might be a reasonable question if genomes were programs or had parameters and dimensions.
But WilliamDJ says it does so that must mean it is true.
Comparing DNA to a program is not a bad analogy but at a fundamental level it breaks down.
It’s an okay analogy for some purposes, terrible for others. (And programs don’t have dimensions either.)
Are you hijacking the thread with the mutation repair Red Herring? 1. If there are still mutations despite mutation repair systems, and if mutation repair systems are genetically established, I really can’t see the point of bringing back that old saw horse to a topic that won’t benefit a bit by its introduction!
I wrote many a FORTRAN program that was just full of dimensions.
My understanding is that the Chimpanzee genome was assembled using the human genome as a framework. Is this correct and is it still the case?
human genome was never completely sequenced, (9% is still missing), neither was chimpanzee nor any other mammalian genome…
So how can you compare incomplete data?
human vs. chimpanzee
look at this video lecture made by secular scientists, very clear, very simple to understand, show it to your kids…
here is the most important idea from the lecture (at 1:27)
“yes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps, if we ignore 18% of their genome and 25% of ours”
@martin_r You might try reading this thread from the beginning. This horse is well and truly dead.
Bill… i will…
tell me Bill, the video lecture i have posted here is wrong?
especially this part "“yes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps, if we ignore 18% of their genome and 25% of ours”
Is it false? before i read the whole forum from the start…
Let’s do a thought experiment. You find 2 books that have different titles, and you start reading each of them. When you’re about 80-90% done, you compare passages between the 2 books. By working carefully, you are able to find paragraphs and sometimes even entire chapters that are 97% word-for-word identical.
Even though you did not read 100% of the books, would you be able to draw a conclusion about whether they have a common origin? In the book metaphor, of course, the common origin could have several explanations (e.g., common author, 2 different editions of the same book, one author plagiarized another, etc.).
Hope that helps.
@martin_r First, youtube videos are not the best source of information. Given the numbers quoted in this thread which come from recent peer reviewed papers I can say, as a layman, the numbers you quoted are very outdated.
Read the entire thread and see what you think.
Chris, don’t post these kinds of thought experiments… i posted here a video lecture made by secular scientists, and their main message is:
"yes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps, if we ignore 18% of their genome and 25% of ours”
So where is your “97% word-for-word identical.” or are these guys wrong and you are right? I am a layman, i don’t know who to trust…
Have you watched the video?
have you watched the video?