myDigitalLife Blogs

Blogs about Digital, Lifestyle, current news and opinions

Human/Chimp similarities have surprising results!

Posted by: thenack

Tagged in: thenack , origins , humans vs chimps , genetics , evolution , DNA

thenack

You have heard that old story, Humans and chimps have 98% of the same DNA. Not just a story, up until recently evolutionary scientists said this was a "fact" that supported evolution. Tuns out, it's not that simple.

 

Firstly what they don't tell you is that one of the largest studies compared 19.8million bases (basic DNA "word"). This is only about 1% of the total genome. doesn't that irritate you a little, that they say humans and chimps are basically the same based on comparing 1%? so it wasn't a "FACT" after all.

 

Lets look further, these studies left out the areas of biggest difference between humans and chimps, you can read more about nucleotide substitution and insertion and deletion. When some of this was included, the difference jumped to 5% between humans and chimps. So which "SCIENTIFIC FACT" should we now believe?

 

Quick recap: What was called a fact was hardly representative of human vs Chimp DNA using about 1% of the total. When more of the genome was used, the difference rose to 5% instead of 1.5% as previously claimed.

So, the science was good, but the assumptions were wrong. Incidentally, 5% relates to 150,000,000 different base pairs, thats a lot of information!!

 

NOW FOR THE REALLY INTERESTING STUFF: A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’ (In other words, we all came from the same set of parents recently, but how recently?)

 

The estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000–200,000 years ago. BUT these estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago (which again was based on other assumptions, which have been shown to be based on 1% DNA comparison).

 

Other studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons (counting mutations) have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years. In other words, if you do not use the human/chimp assumption, genetics show 6500jears, which is basically what Genesis teaches. (the best science based on bad asumptions will probably be bad)

So to conclude, we see that human/chimp similarity is not so straight forward as evolutionists would like us to believe. Depending on which genes you count, you get different answers. No matter how amazing the genetic science is, it depends how you use it.

 

Also, depending on assumptions on human/chimp similarities, the common human ancestor (Adam and Eve if you will) can be either 100-200 thousand years old or +-6500 years old based on modern science (references below).

so do not let anyone tell you "science" says this or that, actually find out for yourself. There is much good science that says we have a common ancestor 6000 years ago, I say his name was Adam. The Bible said 6000 years all along, now it seems science is finally agreeing on this!

 

after-eden-evolutionlet-there-be-truth-v3-n2

evidence-for-evolution

  1. Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2–13.
  2. Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432–1434.
  3. Heyer, E., Zietkeiwicz, E., Rochowski, A., Yotova, V., Puymirat, J., and Labuda D. 2001. ‘Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutation in deep-rooting pedigrees.’ Am J Hum Genet 69:1113–1126.
  4. Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308–314.
  5. Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J., and Deninger, P.L. 1996. ‘DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement.’ Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4360–4364.
  6. Parsons T.J., Muniec, D.S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, N., Alliston-Greiner, R., Wilson, M.R., Berry, D.L., Holland, K.A., Weedn, V.W., Gill, P., and M.M. Holland. 1997. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat. Genet. 15:363–368.
  7. Sigurgardottir, S., Helgason, A., Gulcher, J.R., Stefansson, K., and Donnelly P. 2000. ‘The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region.’ Am J Hum Genet 66:1599–1609.

 

Be Motivated, Make Money Ge t a Totally Free Trial Now and find out about find two get two strategy!

Comments (15)Add Comment
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, April 15, 2011
A pretty poor copy and pasting of a poor article by Ken Ham, and David de Witt.

Of course, depending on what you actually want to compare between different genes will give different figures. Of course, science progresses, as we get more information, and the new information has to be checked, and explained against current theories & hypotheses, which is what some of the work you cite has done. Although I very much doubt that you have read any of the citations. I have not finished reading all of them, but so far not one of them has come even close to the conclusions that you have managed to get to, citing their work!!!

Fact: Human and Chimpanzee chromosones are very similar.
Fact: One of the biggest differences is the fact that Homo sapiens has 23 chromosone pairs, whereas great apes have 24 pairs (which you could call a 4% difference right there!).

What is fascinating is that our current research is pointing out some intriguing differences, so for example, there is a difference at the genes responsible for speech development (some humans born with a problem with this gene, do have speech developmental problems). All this is building on our knowledge, and at the same time reinforcing the certainty of evolutionary biology.

Where the confusion with Ham arises, perhaps is the report in the draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005, in Nature magazine which showed that 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single-nucleotide polymorphisms - and that is still FACT!

What, in fact, this, and the originals by Ham & DeWitt show is a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. The research does not set out to prove anything, rather it is trying to disprove, or find the limits to the present theories. In the research of comparisons between human & chimpanzee genes, the results have given overwhelming evidence to support our present understanding of evolution, in that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees and then Bonobo's. It shows that gene duplications are a major source of differences between humans and chimpanzees - the figure is given at about 2.7% , since humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor. (The comparitive difference within the human population is around 0.5%). But the age is still around 6 million years since divergence, none of the science is pointing to 6,000 years. There you are out by a HUGE factor!!
thenack
...
written by thenack, April 15, 2011
Whatever Dissol, I did not just copy and paste, I used certain parts of a few papers to write my own blog. Your final statement is the same bull you always bring, just ignoring my argument and stating what you think while hiding behind a lot of cleverness.

The basic similarities and differences really has very little to do with this, the perceptions they leave with people is my problem. Even a 1% real difference is still huge. Basing other genetic studies of common ancestry on the asumption that humans and chimps actually had a common ancestor is therefore based on speculation arrived at by statistical interpretations.

I made a logically progessive argument and as always you have found a way to BS out of it.
thenack
...
written by thenack, April 15, 2011
If this one assumption is removed the science gives different answers, which was the point
Jawellnofine
...
written by Jawellnofine, April 15, 2011
I am still at loggerheads with your logically progressive argument - is it giving credence to the bible or to evolution?
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, April 16, 2011
@JaWellNoFine, it is no surprise that you are at loggerheads, as all the data points towards one conclusion, while nack and Ham are trying to make the opposite case!!!

@Thenack, hmmm...OK, if I grant you that 1% is still huge, then will you grant that 99% is absolutely massive???! Why did you not cite the copy and pasted...oops I am sorry, few papers that you used in your blog, rather than just copying and pasting their own citations? This would be a fail...
thenack
...
written by thenack, April 17, 2011
I included it as a link Dissol, but as always, you fail to argue the point but use manipulative and distracting tactics instead of actual arguments.
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, April 18, 2011
hahahaha "use manipulative and distracting tactics" or otherwise known as quoting facts!!!
Jawellnofine
...
written by Jawellnofine, April 18, 2011
I like your assumption that 'data points towards one conclusion,'. And what conclusion may that be?

thenack
...
written by thenack, April 18, 2011
Yeah Dissol, last time we had an argument I whent through your stuff point by point and when I actually showed your technique you didn't answer again. Perhaps you should go defend yourslef there as it is up for everybody to see
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, April 18, 2011
@ thenack. I think you must be delusional. You have never done any such thing...you may have thought you did, but, as has been clearly shown, you are wrong!!smilies/cheesy.gifsmilies/cheesy.gifsmilies/cheesy.gif
thenack
...
written by thenack, April 18, 2011
When I actually took the time to go through your comments step by step you backed out, I wonder why,

http://www.mydigitallife.co.za/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=creation-vs-evolution-the-two-faiths.html&blogger=thenack&Itemid=29
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, April 18, 2011
Hahahaha!!!! There was no point in trying to engage you in any debate, as you clearly proved in that case that you have absolutely no interest in actually reading up on science, and approaching any point with an open mind, but you clearly go in with a infantile belief in the bible, and everything has to corrolate to that.

Your presupposition on that post was clear; assuming that evolution requires faith, whereas it clearly does not. It is the best description that we have for our modern understanding of biology.

Read my comments again, and you will see that you did not refute a single fact, you are delusional! smilies/cheesy.gifsmilies/cheesy.gifsmilies/cheesy.gif
msbodetti
...
written by msbodetti, April 19, 2011
@ Dissol you sound like a Dick, no offence but it just looks like it from above...
Doolally
...
written by Doolally, April 19, 2011
I have a question for all of the above...Before I ask I am going to state where I am coming from. My Father (may he rest in peace) was an Orthodox Jew, my mother is a staunch Catholic (was fun growing up in my house. There was daily religous arguments until my mother left my father when I was 10.

Okay so my question is if Adam and Eve were the FIRST and only people GOD made who did Adam and Eve's children leave to marry?
I asked my parents this exact question a couple of times and was always told to stop questioning the bible.
thenack
...
written by thenack, April 19, 2011
@msbodetti, thanks for the support. Will check out your stuff

@ Lally (have always liked your name). It is quite sad about your parents but it must also be very interesting, both RCC and Judiasm is very interesting. Your question is actually extremely common and one of the 4 most asked questions on Genesis. For a detailed asnwer go Cain's wifehttp://www.answersingenesis.or...cains-wife

The answer is actuall quite straigt forward. God only precluded marriages between close relatives in Leviticus. Before that is was entirely permissible. The reason not to marry close relatives is that mutations build up and may cause deformities or health problems. The curse (God cursed the earth after Adam and Eve sinned) is the cause of things like mutations, but Adam and Eve (and their children) would not yet have suffered from mutations. Bottom line, Cain either married his siter or niece, there were nobody else!

In Genesis 5:4 we read a statement that sums up the life of Adam and Eve: “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.”

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”

God new about the effects of the curse, ie mutations, and therefore gave the Law of Moses to protect His People, but only thousands of years later when it became necessary.

Interestingly, we are all of one blood, so you have to marry a relative, even if they are very far off. All humans were made in thelikeness of God, and we are all decendants of Adam. This is the reason why racism is so utterly anto Biblical. Incedently, evolution was one of the main justifications for racism, as it says that humans evolved differently, so some are "more evolved than others"


Add your 2Cents
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Member Login