Humans and Chimpanzees are actually only 84% similar

originally posted by: Kurokage


The genomes are very similar across all chromosomes, with the percent identity varying only slightly, from 97.5% to 98.2% for chromosomes 1-22 and X. Chromosome Y was an outlier at 96.6% identity over 84.6% of its length; however this is likely due to the fact that the chimpanzee Y chromosome is much less complete than the human Y.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is a great ape found almost exclusively in the heavily forested regions of Central and West Africa. Along with the bonobo, the chimpanzee is humanity's closest living relative, with almost 99% (referred to as 98.6% in my OP) of DNA in common between the species.

Yes that percentile is after the fact that humans have about 4% less DNA than chimps, and also the 10% of the human genetic coding that can't be matched to the chimp genome. that's why i multiplied 98.6% by 86% in the OP

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



Your guy in the sky must be a really inferior molecular biologist. Only 84% difference? Why not 8% or 0%? You just confirmed the reasoning behind the concept of a common ancestor. When your guy in the sky puts an organism on this planet that's entirely different genetically from all other life forms, let us know.

The significance level between the two groups is less than 10 to the minus 4, or 0.0004. You didn't do the calculation. In biological terms, that's insignificant regardless how much drama you add to the data.

It would make sense that phenotypically similar organisms would have genetic similarities. nice try though (?)

originally posted by: LABTECH767


You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink as the saying goes

Yeah I feel like I'm wasting my time even responding to them at times. For those who can see, it is quite simple. You can't get 450,000,000 beneficial mutations in 250,000 generations

a reply to: cooperton

You are NOT wasting your time, if we did not argue back what we believed then it would look like we had lost the argument to those whom are easily swayed and don't know what to believe, by arguing your beliefs you show there are two or more sides to every debate and that in this case they are impotent to close down your point so they can not prove as they believe that you do not have a point because by there impotence in the face of the argument it becomes obvious that you DO have a point or argument.

It may seem like a small thing but think how many whom never comment, maybe even are not members read these threads.

a reply to: LABTECH767

That's exactly what I've always said. Keep on posting. The more people understand the real science, the less chance they will fall prey to people like Cooperton and the Great Bloviator - and I guess you too.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: cooperton

You are NOT wasting your time, if we did not argue back what we believed then it would look like we had lost the argument to those whom are easily swayed and don't know what to believe, by arguing your beliefs you show there are two or more sides to every debate and that in this case they are impotent to close down your point so they can not prove as they believe that you do not have a point because by there impotence in the face of the argument it becomes obvious that you DO have a point or argument.

It may seem like a small thing but think how many whom never comment, maybe even are not members read these threads.

Yeah so true. I can always tell when I win the argument they start to resort to erroneous insults. Generic baseless statements like phantoms post above me is also common. Notice how they're incapable of debating or accepting the fact that the human genome is 4% smaller, and 10% of the remaining genome doesn't match with chimpanzees.

They deny whatever science invalidates their precious mutant progeny theory.

You're trying to match the data to your preconceptions and bad theory

originally posted by: Kurokage
You're trying to match the data to your preconceptions and bad theory

Humans have a 4% smaller genome. 10% of the remaining does not have matchable segments on the chimp genome. It's in the report. I'm not manipulating any data, it's their own words. The remaining matchable sequences are 98.6% similar. The genomes are therefore a 84% match at best.

a reply to: cooperton

They deny whatever science invalidates their precious mutant progeny theory.

I love how you're trying to belittle comments made about your assumptions. The "precious mutant" comment shows your complete misunderstanding of human ancestry.
From the very beginning of the article you linked to at the start of your thread....

The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is a great ape found almost exclusively in the heavily forested regions of Central and West Africa. Along with the bonobo, the chimpanzee is humanity's closest living relative, with almost 99% of DNA in common between the species.

You obviously have an agenda that you're trying to put across with your belief that we don't have a common ancestor. Let me guess, it was god that did it creationist mumbo gumbo?!?!?

a reply to: Kurokage

That "almost 99%" is a reference to the similarities among matching genes, not the total percentage match of the entire genome. They say in the paper that 10% of the human genome was unrelatable to the chimps, plus the fact that humans have 4% less DNA than chimps, means that the total genetic similarity is around 84%.

It amazes me that on one hand these fanatical Christians (whom even most religious people think are crazy) simply cannot believe the genetic history all life on Earth share. It is fact and undeniable and proven by every creditable scientist who has researched genomic history and lineage.

On the other hand, these religious zealots believe without question, not one moment of doubt, that a fairy in the sky is real and his son could walk on water and do tricks with fish. There is absolutely no proof of any god anywhere, by anyone. Nothing.

As a bystander looking in, ask yourself, where is the truth?

Only a fanatical idiot would equate 84% to 0%

a reply to: cooperton
That's because the chimpanzee genome is longer than the human genome.
You're obviously a creationist with an agenda here and i can post a million and one articles stating and proving humans and chimps have an ancestor that we diverged from several million years ago but that won't change you assumptions and mutant chimp rubbish.

another link

The Broard institute

Nature article about fossil evidence.

Scientific America article

originally posted by: TerraLiga
It amazes me that on one hand these fanatical Christians (whom even most religious people think are crazy) simply cannot believe the genetic history all life on Earth share. It is fact and undeniable and proven by every creditable scientist who has researched genomic history and lineage.

On the other hand, these religious zealots believe without question, not one moment of doubt, that a fairy in the sky is real and his son could walk on water and do tricks with fish. There is absolutely no proof of any god anywhere, by anyone. Nothing.

As a bystander looking in, ask yourself, where is the truth?

what does any of this have to do with the fact that human and chimp genomes are only 84% similar? You can't defend your beliefs so you have to go off on these sorts of tangents.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Only a fanatical idiot would equate 84% to 0%

You're quite the angry person lol.

84% similarity means there would be required 450,000,000 beneficial mutations over 250,000 generations. As we can observe now the beneficial mutation rate is nowhere near that high of a rate, it's actually astronomically low. link

Your god created everything individually and independently, one after the other. They have no relation with each other at all. So why does every species of flora and fauna share a significant amount of their DNA, and in some cases over 80% or more.

Why, to you, is 84% commonality a celebration of creation when to everyone else it is validation that our species are related by evolution and speciation. You stink of desperation.

a reply to: cooperton

what does any of this have to do with the fact that human and chimp genomes are only 84% similar? You can't defend your beliefs so you have to go off on these sorts of tangents.

So you have finally accepted the concept of a common ancestor and speciation. It's amazing how long it took, but better late than never.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Your god created everything individually and independently, one after the other.
They have no relation with each other at all. So why does every species of flora and fauna share a significant amount of their DNA, and in some cases over 80% or more.

When coding the genetic code it would make sense that there are similarities among organisms, especially when they are functionably similar. I'm not sure why you think there would be 0% similarities if the genetic code was intelligently designed.

Why, to you, is 84% commonality a celebration of creation when to everyone else it is validation that our species are related by evolution and speciation. You stink of desperation.

It creates a gap far too large for random mutations to generate in such a relatively short amount of time. I went through it in the OP, showing that over the theoretical 5 million years it took for the emergence of human beings, there would have been about 250,000 generations. given that humans and chimps are only 84% similar, this means there would have had to be 450,000,000 beneficial mutations over 250,000 generations. The beneficial mutation rate is nowhere near that high. This paper found the odds are 1 in 10^64th exponent. This shows the theory is not plausible.

a reply to: cooperton

When coding the genetic code it would make sense that there are similarities among organisms, especially when they are functionably similar. I'm not sure why you think there would be 0% similarities if the genetic code was intelligently designed.

Because that's what YOU say. Your position has always been that natural evolution is a fantasy. Well, if it's a fantasy, why do all living creatures on this planet share some very basic common genetic elements?

You're contradicting your own position on evolution. No one should be surprised, however.

Oh wait, I forgot the magic wand!

originally posted by: Phantom423


Because that's what YOU say. Your position has always been that natural evolution is a fantasy. Well, if it's a fantasy, why do all living creatures on this planet share some very basic common genetic elements?

You're contradicting your own position on evolution. No one should be surprised, however.

Not at all. You would expect things that were designed by the same designer to have matching coding sequences for various functions. Look at the similarities between a macbook pro and a macbook air. Surely you wouldn't assume they randomly mutated from eachother simply because they share similarities.

450,000,000 beneficial mutations cannot happen over 25,000 generations.

Oh wait, I forgot the magic wand!

No I'm advocating for an intelligent design, you're the one advocating for random chance magic.

a reply to: cooperton

That's the most ridiculous analogy I ever heard. So your guy in the sky designer can't come up with unique code? You can't prove that a designer had anything to do with life on this planet. But the science of evolution has produced volumes of evidence ignored by your cult.

Once again, there are over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and over 200,000 articles with experimental results. You have nothing.

originally posted by: cooperton
It creates a gap far too large for random mutations to generate in such a relatively short amount of time. I went through it in the OP, showing that over the theoretical 5 million years it took for the emergence of human beings, there would have been about 250,000 generations. given that humans and chimps are only 84% similar, this means there would have had to be 450,000,000 beneficial mutations over 250,000 generations. The beneficial mutation rate is nowhere near that high. This paper found the odds are 1 in 10^64th exponent. This shows the theory is not plausible.

Show me your calculations using real evidence rather than the rubbish you copied from creationists. For example, it is commonly accepted now that the speciation split to create Pan and Homo happened approx 12+MYA.

By the way, even to create some form of credibility on your side, but especially to avoid betraying your ignorance, why do you keep referring to Homo's divergence from Pan, and not with Pan? Also, chimps are not monkeys.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Show me your calculations using real evidence rather than the rubbish you copied from creationists. For example, it is commonly accepted now that the speciation split to create Pan and Homo happened approx 12+MYA.

Even over 12 million years, you would still need about 1000 beneficial mutations per generation, which is absolutely unheard of.