G
grannymh
Guest
The point is that twisting the facts can sell faulty tooth brushes.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
How do you know it isn’t true? Are you sure? What are your sources? Are they current?
I have posted the papers several times now. You do not read them do you?
R
rossum
Guest
R
ricmat
Guest
You set up a false choice between God and science.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that God didn’t fake anything.
If science is provisional, as you admit, and theories change all the time, as you admit, and all is not yet known by science (as I think you will admit), then it is possible that science is still wrong. As it has always been wrong in the past, for example, right up to the time when it became “correct.” (And is it correct now? Who knows!)
B
buffalo
Guest
I believe I posted the links as a response to your posts. Go look.
…or maybe itinerant1
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Which paper gives the figure of 70% ?
R
rossum
Guest
Just the names of the authors and a year would help. When I type “human chimpanzee genome” into Google Scholar I get over 33,000 hits.
You are making the 70% claim, it is up to you to provide the reference.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
I made it and linked three references. How many times do I have to do it considering you follow just about every thread I post on. You are not ignoring my posts are you?
But because you asked:
Post 53
Here is one: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%
Genomewise, humans and chimpanzees are quite similar, but studies are showing that
they are not as similar as many tend to believe
another
Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence
another:
Chimpanzee?
…
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.
In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This ”copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or ”scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.
Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for the references.
This study only looked at less that 1,000,000 base pairs in the 30,000,000 base pair human genome. You cannot extrapolate from less than 4% of the whole genome and get accurate figures for the whole genome.
This shows the importance of references. Your first reference is contrary to your 70% assertion. The second reference is irrelevant to any whole genome figure and your third reference, which does include the 70% figure, has no scientific weight because it lacks references.
rossum
This article quotes a 6.4% difference, which equates to a 93.6% similarity. This goes counter to your 70% claim.
This looks only at the MHC class I regions, not at the whole genome. To quote the abstract:This report describes a large-scale single-contig comparison between human and chimpanzee genomes via the sequence analysis of almost one-half of the immunologically critical MHC. This 1,750,601-bp stretch of DNA, which encompasses the entire class I along with the telomeric part of the MHC class III regions, corresponds to an orthologous 1,870,955 bp of the human HLA region.
This study only looked at less that 1,000,000 base pairs in the 30,000,000 base pair human genome. You cannot extrapolate from less than 4% of the whole genome and get accurate figures for the whole genome.
This is a newspaper article that does not give any scientific references; it has no scientific weight at all. We need to see the scientific references that stand behind Dr Buggs’ assertions.
This shows the importance of references. Your first reference is contrary to your 70% assertion. The second reference is irrelevant to any whole genome figure and your third reference, which does include the 70% figure, has no scientific weight because it lacks references.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
This brings me right back to the importance of the method and materials sections in research regarding human nature. I have long wondered about all the various assumptions regarding methods in major histocompatibility complex comparisons, 1994. Which research is still being held up as definitive regarding the origin of the human species. :sad_yes:
Perhaps, this granny is right in that research regarding the two sole parents of the human species needs to be reviewed analytically.
FYI This review has been started off line so that it won’t derail threads.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
B
buffalo
Guest
Rossum - the intent of my links is to show you which way the arrow is pointing. It is pointing away from 98% and moving downward.
Rossum: This study only looked at less that 1,000,000 base pairs in the 30,000,000 base pair human genome. You cannot extrapolate from less than 4% of the whole genome and get accurate figures for the whole genome.
Right - so how could they make the 98% claim to begin with? And now that they are lining them up - guess what? Not so similar.
R
rossum
Guest
I have seen a number of figures which vary depending on the method used. Almost all have been in the 92% to 98% area: 95% +/- 3.
This study did not make the 98% claim, that was based on different studies. As I said there are different ways of calculating a match so different studies will get different results. Each individual study will give details of the methods it used, which is why it is important to give references to the actual scientific papers where those details are presented. This paper is a case in point, it only looked at one particular region and its results only apply to that region, not to the whole genome.
Your 70% figure appears to have little support.
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, you’re quite right, and research into human origins is constantly being reviewed analytically.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please provide examples of what has been found and who found it. Thank you.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What has been found about what?
G
grannymh
Guest
This question was in reagard to the following post.
However, after thinking it over, my guess is that you would answer by referring to peer review journals and scientific associations. What I am looking for is fresh, creative thinking by daring young minds totally excited by the wonders and beauty of science.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a message of faith in the future sent by God.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You are right. This is precisely what I see happening in science departments around the country. There is an enormous amount of fresh, creative thinking going on by daring young minds, and you can read about the results in numerous publications.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
From the encyclical Arcanum:
"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
- Status