Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I've admitted I am wrong plenty here. However you have repeatedly shown that you are not o fey with the biological sciences, and Chemistry. Perchance you are trained in another discipline?

Because I don't agree with your conclusions regarding these fields? Step down from your pedestal, everyone is living quite well down here below the cloudy megalomania in high places.

a reply to: cooperton

No because you make mistakes that someone trained in Chemistry would not, but someone who took a paper once might.

Lets make this easy. What was your specialist in chemistry? Physical? Organic? Inorganic? Environmental/Aqueous? Mine was organic, though my PhD was also full of Physical Organic, due to the measurements taken, and calculations run to show the likely mechanism products formed from.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%

Not any more its closer to 95 to 96 for possible variances.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah the more we sequence whole genomes the better the data goes. The problem is over what was being compared. We share about 99% of the same DNA, but gene repeats and mutations make it more like (as you say 95%, so it is still quite high.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah the more we sequence whole genomes the better the data goes. The problem is over what was being compared. We share about 99% of the same DNA, but gene repeats and mutations make it more like (as you say 95%, so it is still quite high.

The amazing thing is we have moved on to sequencing other animals. As we do that and build a large enough data base with cross comparisons we should fully understand genetics.

a reply to: dragonridr

When I came back to retrain in Bioinformatics in 2010, there was the competition for 1000 genomes, that is nothing now. One day soon it will be a regular test to have done by your doctor, or the veterinarian, to see what his hiding in your genome (roll on Gatica?)

The more information we get, the more dodgy the creationist stance becomes

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%

Not any more its closer to 95 to 96 for possible variances.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

To be fair, your citations are 12 years old. This genomic wide comparison of Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Humans from 2012 says

On average, the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi genome are approximately 99.9% identical to each other, 99.6% identical to corresponding sequences in the chimpanzee genome and 98.7% identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome. A comprehensive analysis of the bonobo genome is presented in Supplementary Information.

Link

It's a good read.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%

Not any more its closer to 95 to 96 for possible variances.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

At what point is someone going to count what they refer to as "indels" (claimed mythological insertions and deletions) as differences in their (whole genome) comparisons? Rather than ignore it and pretend it's not a difference, thereby altering the raw data (by removing almost all the sequences that don't match up in their comparison between human and chimp) so all you're left with is that which does match up (barring the few exceptions that you haven't left out of the comparison, allowing to get as close to 100% as one desires by using different methodologies in deciding what differences to ignore and not count in the overall similarity percentage number). Any chance we'll be getting some honesty regarding this issue with indels anytime soon? Or the comparitive genome size between chimp and human genomes already exceeding the proposed numbers in terms of difference? Or the number of N's (gaps) used in the chimp genome to get a better match (and also not counted as differences)? Or only talking about the percentage similarity of "the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi genome" and then pretend it's not misleading to refer to that as a "genomic wide comparison" just because it was a search through it (genomic wide) to cherry-pick relatively short sequences that were nicely similar while ignoring to mention any numbers for the rest of the genomes you should also be comparing to get a number that is representative of a whole genome to whole genome comparison (without ignoring the differences in the order and exact placing certain sequences are found when they are found in a different place in one genome compared to another)?
No need to bother with answering any of those questions without watching the background story below regarding historical claims made in relation to human-chimp genome comparisons.

Best not watch beyond 2:20:

Relevant from 7:19 - 18:01:

Relevant from 31:42 - 37:42

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah I goofed. Memory is not perfect and I didn't double check with dr google. This is what happens when you rush a post.

Nah, that's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. Anybody that's been trained wouldn't make an error like that.

a reply to: Barcs

Hey its only a factor of 100 out I mean how bad could that be .... oh wait

a reply to: whereislogic

I guess since you asked the question without reading any papers or any published material on huge subject at all for that matter, then I'm safe answering without watching a bunch of creationist bull s# in video form.

The short answer, is that INDEL polymorphisms have been factored into comparative genomic analysis for over a decade. This makes your entire point yet another strawman with no substance.

In 2006 this paper was published. I think the title is pretty self explanatory... "An initial map of insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation in the human genome".
"Although many studies have been conducted to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in humans, few studies have been conducted to identify alternative forms of natural genetic variation, such as insertion and deletion (INDEL) polymorphisms. In this report, we describe an initial map of human INDEL variation that contains 415,436 unique INDEL polymorphisms."

This map has been used countless times in the last 11 years and aided in compiling data and has aided in informing research like "Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack" Link


"The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions. The challenge is to identify the many evolutionarily, physiologically, and biomedically important differences scattered throughout these genomes while integrating these data with emerging knowledge about the corresponding “phenomes” and the relevant environmental influences."

Here's an article in Scientific American describes it quite well for people who can't grasp the finer details of the preceding papers
"We now have large regions of the chimpanzee genome fully sequenced and can compare them to human sequences. Most studies indicate that when genomic regions are compared between chimpanzees and humans, they share about 98.5 percent sequence identity. The actual relationship depends on what types of sequences are being compared and the size of the comparison unit. A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 suggested that under the most rigorous alignments, the match would be only 95 percent similarity overall.

This resulted from the researchers treating changes involving small insertions and deletions of bases differently than previous investigators did over a very large region. "
www.scientificamerican.com...

This is just a brief glimpse at outdated research from over a decade ago. Hopefully it will spur you to engage in due diligence for yourself instead of repeating what your confirmation bias tell you the world looks like. It took me less time to find and cite the 2 papers and article than it did for you to copy the bbc code for the YouTube videos. Though I'm sure all you care about is hearing that the genetic similarity isn't nearly 99% because that's all you're going to read in all of this and ignoring anything that contradicts your need to minimize genetic affinity to Pan Troglodyte. But I think it's just as important as acknowledging the role of INDEL polymorphisms as it is to understand that in general,
"the overall conclusion is that most genes would share about 98.5 percent similarity. The actual protein sequences encoded by these genes would then typically be slightly more similar to one another, because many of the mutations in the DNA are "silent" and are not reflected in the protein sequence. Given the very strong similarity between the chimpanzee and human genomes, many people wonder how we can be so different. At this point, there have been only a few isolated examples of genes that are functionally present in chimpanzees but not in humans, and vice versa. Thus, chimps and humans may share as many as 99.9 percent of the same genes with most of those genes being 99 percent similar in their sequences. Chromosomes do not exhibit big structural differences either. Although there are a number of small chromosomal changes that rearrange the order of genes on regions of those chromosomes, most of these are thought to leave gene function unchanged. It seems likely that the differences between human and chimpanzee phenotypes depend more on subtle regulatory changes more than on the presence of different genes."


Just food for thought despite my doubts that you will bother eating any.

originally posted by: Barcs
Nah, that's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. Anybody that's been trained wouldn't make an error like that.

Ha this is an example of why so little philosophical progress is made regarding ontological interpretations of science - because you guys think you're perfect. It's ridiculous. Especially since Petervlar is the only one who has made novel points out of your entire bunch. The rest of you sit like cheerleaders blindly cheering for your side merely capable of reciting textbooks when it comes your turn to speak. Although Petervlar seems vehemently opposed to ever considering his field may have come to incorrect extrapolations regarding the data, at least he has looked into the other side of the argument.

The study I was thinking of found a 9% variation among the epigenome of the most dissimilar populations of humans:
Human variance in genetic expression

In terms of chimp-human DNA variation, it is around 4% if you include indels
human-chimp variation of genome

will get more links when i have time. Happy holidays.

a reply to: cooperton

Your most recent post illustrates why you have not been trained in the sciences, or perchance snoozed trough class. Science never thinks it is perfect. It continuously re-evaluates the data (evidence).

But hey look you went into a Gish Gallop coupled with a Ad hominem attack.

So your point. Do you know what the epigenome is?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Nah, that's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. Anybody that's been trained wouldn't make an error like that.

Ha this is an example of why so little philosophical progress is made regarding ontological interpretations of science - because you guys think you're perfect. It's ridiculous. Especially since Petervlar is the only one who has made novel points out of your entire bunch. The rest of you sit like cheerleaders blindly cheering for your side merely capable of reciting textbooks when it comes your turn to speak. Although Petervlar seems vehemently opposed to ever considering his field may have come to incorrect extrapolations regarding the data, at least he has looked into the other side of the argument.

The study I was thinking of found a 9% variation among the epigenome of the most dissimilar populations of humans:
Human variance in genetic expression

In terms of chimp-human DNA variation, it is around 4% if you include indels
human-chimp variation of genome

will get more links when i have time. Happy holidays.

It is true that you can't have much training as a scientist. Your response to the hypothetical situation on another planet was clear evidence that you don't think like a scientist. You start everything with your own opinion before you even open the lab door. Then you work backwards to fill in the blanks. This is why you don't understand the evolutionary process. You can't think from the bottom up. You think strictly from the top down. "I know the answer, now all I have to do is construct the evidence".

And I'll say it again: you NEVER, EVER address the hard evidence which exists in thousands of research papers which have appeared in recognized journals.

I challenge you to select ONE PAPER which discusses any subtopic in evolutionary biology and describe why it is wrong.
You won't do it because you can't do it.

As they say self evident truths are self evident. Closed mind, closed doors, closed books, closed hearts.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Nah, that's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. Anybody that's been trained wouldn't make an error like that.

Ha this is an example of why so little philosophical progress is made regarding ontological interpretations of science - because you guys think you're perfect. It's ridiculous. Especially since Petervlar is the only one who has made novel points out of your entire bunch. The rest of you sit like cheerleaders blindly cheering for your side merely capable of reciting textbooks when it comes your turn to speak. Although Petervlar seems vehemently opposed to ever considering his field may have come to incorrect extrapolations regarding the data, at least he has looked into the other side of the argument.

Please don't speak for peter vlar, peter vlar is all too happy to accept that so,etching is incorrect. I've yet to see anything presented that comes remotely close to falsifying the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Quite the contrary, it's been you that has consistently reached false conclusions extrapolated from conversations and used those incorrect assumptions and conclusions to levy ad hominem attacks against me, including statements that I was leading children on a path to hell. So forgive me if I take that somewhat personally as I'm quite proud of how my kids are turning out. You're the one who is exceedingly adamant that you're trained as a scientist and that your position is infallible. Nobody who works in science ever considers themselves infallible and we are always open to falsification and actually embrace being wrong as a learning experience that shows us a new direction to investigate. I've never seen a anyone who supports Young Earth Creationism embrace a willingness to be wrong as a learning experience, let alone admit that their entire premise could be incorrect. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for such either.

The study I was thinking of found a 9% variation among the epigenome of the most dissimilar populations of humans:
Human variance in genetic expression

Actually, it doesn't say that epigenetics demonstrate a 9% variance among disparate populations. It says that epigenetics account for 9% of variation. The difference is subtle to those who don't quite grasp the material, but the difference is in fact considerable.

In terms of chimp-human DNA variation, it is around 4% if you include indels
human-chimp variation of genome

will get more links when i have time. Happy holidays.

If you had read my reply above, I say the exact thing and cite the same paper.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic

The short answer, is that INDEL polymorphisms have been factored into comparative genomic analysis for over a decade.

And where is this link to an article doing a whole genome to whole genome comparison base for base that doesn't ignore indels and without changing* or ignoring the order in which the sequences are found in individual chromosomes (you can quit with the terms "genomic wide" and "comparitive genomic analysis" as long as you're not referring to a whole genome to whole genome base per base comparison as described above; which is what's required for the everchanging claims being made concerning 90-99% Human-Chimp DNA similarity; while you're at it, might want to skip past all the articles that work with the Chimp genome that was assembled using the human genome as a template as well)?

*: example in the last video I shared with chimp chromosome #2, changing the raw data for better alignment with the human chromosome, even turning a whole portion of the sequence around. Your short answer is no answer to any of my questions. Just pointing at an article where people are looking at what they want to claim are indels and saying meaningless or useless things about it really doesn't answer any of my questions either. The first article you linked doesn't even have a similarity statistic (for the whole genomes of Chimp compared to human; which does include requiring to also look at the differences in order in which similar sequences are found seeing that that's kind of important in the genome, it determins how things will operate), it's only looking at claimed indels of the human genome.

But then again, you were never going to answer by looking at the relevant issues or respond to historical fraud and cherrypicking with an agenda. I already said don't bother in that case but some people seem to have some motive for doing that in spite of not wanting to look at what I'm referring to and what I'm asking questions about.

a reply to: whereislogic

Try learning heres a good place to start.

www.genome.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: whereislogic

I already oisted those citations. I cant help it if you can't be bothered to read the papers and instead choose to rely on YouTube videos. And the irony of you making claims about cherry picking data to serve confirmation bias? It is beyond hilarious! And you're right, why would I bother with anything you have to say when you aren't capable of engaging in an honest dialogue about the topic and haven't got a clue when it comes to any of the material because ou haven't read it and I have serious doubts that you would understand any of it if you tried to read it. You're gripes with my citations are ridiculous and your reading comprehensions is atrocious if that's what ou took away. I'm sorry if you can't access the entire paper, that's not my problem. All of the information is there.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic

I already oisted those citations. I cant help it if you can't be bothered to read the papers and instead choose to rely on YouTube videos. And the irony of you making claims about cherry picking data to serve confirmation bias? It is beyond hilarious! And you're right, why would I bother with anything you have to say when you aren't capable of engaging in an honest dialogue about the topic and haven't got a clue when it comes to any of the material because ou haven't read it and I have serious doubts that you would understand any of it if you tried to read it. You're gripes with my citations are ridiculous and your reading comprehensions is atrocious if that's what ou took away. I'm sorry if you can't access the entire paper, that's not my problem. All of the information is there.

Dont bother i think we have been arguing with a teenager. Ive not seen him display anything above 10th grade science class. And he doesnt appear to want to learn. He dismisses scientific study with out even a counter argument. And ive noticed hes unwilling to admit he doesnt understand thats why he keeps confusing people he has no logical path to follow.

a reply to: whereislogic


These guys are hilarious.


Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own.

He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth.


They can say what they want, but abiogenesis is impossible.

Evolution is a religious belief that goes back to ancient India. Darwin was simply parroting a belief system that was thousands of years old.