Humans and Chimpanzees are actually only 84% similar

a reply to: cooperton

The majority happens to be hundreds of thousands of educated scientists. If it's so illogical, why don't you post your own experiments which challenge the majority? Where's your stuff? You have none. All you have is bogus rhetoric which you repeat over and over again. It's the same old mantra: throw enough mud at the wall and hope that some will stick.
Well it doesn't stick. You're in total denial of the real science.

Once again over 500 journals in evolutionary biology and over 200,000 peer-reviewed research papers say you're wrong.
You can't disprove that statement.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton


Show factual evidence for what you claim.'

originally posted by: Phantom423
why don't you post your own experiments which challenge the majority? Where's your stuff?

I did in the OP. An 84% genomic match between chimps and humans ruins the evolutionary timeline. That requires wayyy to much data to be altered, especially given a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
000,000,000,000 chance of even getting a beneficial mutation.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Similar folklores and mythologies are similar.

Yet each and every will claim theirs as truth.

The others, the product of the Devil.

Should be asking why that is, to be honest.

Instead of buying into one narrative, and doubling down.

No disrespect intended, just to be clear. I get it.

I'm usually just a cheeky sarcastic butt on here...

But I was "on the other side" for a long time.

Guess my path in life lead me in a different direction.

Anyways, since I'm not really adding anything here,

Have a great night coop!

It does seem very rare to have someone consider their core beliefs are wrong. I am constantly asking questions, but time and time again the see the necessity of a logical source must have been responsible for the intricate world we see around us and within us.

Thanks for the cordial dialog, good hearing from ya

a reply to: cooperton

For sure. I know we have different beliefs. One thing I can say for myself though is, I do still wonder about "the nature of everything", so to speak. I don't think it all was created by God, or any of the other Gods (small g, big G, whathaeyou). All I know for sure is even though I don't buy into the religious narratives, or ID, well there are still questions. The one thing I know for sure is, I'm just a mere meatsack doing the best I can. I do think there is more for us to figure out and try to understand, as best we can. Whatever our individual leanings may be.

a reply to: cooperton

This is a from a link i posted earlier and is a quote from a link......

Chimpanzees are a highly promiscuous species; far more promiscuous than humans. Consequently, they have evolved a rather impressive pair of testicles to keep up with all of the sperm that is needed for lots of mating. Relative to body size, the testes of a male chimpanzee are ten times larger than the testes of a male human. While all this extra sperm might be great for the females, it unfortunately increases the likelihood of mutations arising.

From one of my other links

Male chimps drive mutations faster than humans

Interestingly, researchers found male chimps pass on seven to eight times more mutations to the next generation than do female chimps. In comparison, male humans only pass on three or four times more mutations than female humans. Overall, the offspring of chimpanzees inherit 90 percent of new mutations from their fathers, and just 10 percent from their mothers, the scientists said.

The researchers also discovered that male chimpanzees potentially contribute three more mutations to their offspring with each year of age. Human males potentially add just two new mutations to progeny each year they age, the researchers said.

"We have shown how the mutation process, which determines so many things, can differ, even between closely related species," McBean said.

One explanation for why male chimps pass on more mutations than male humans may have to do with differences in mating behavior. Male chimps have evolved to produce many more sperm than humans, possessing testes more than three times the relative size of human testes. This greater level of sperm production increases the opportunity for new mutations to emerge.

Since mating behavior could explain why male chimps contribute more mutations than human males, that means gorillas potentially have reduced mutation rates compared to humans. Gorillas encounter less competition for mates and have smaller testes relative to humans.may "It is possible that direct estimates of the mutation rate in gorillas would lead to a re-evaluation of the split times," McVean said. "We'd love to do the experiment in gorillas."

This link explains the mutations in DNA right here but you chose to ignore it before because it pokes big holes in your beliefs and assumptions.
Your imaginary friend didn't magically pop out a Human that is accidently about 96% or more the same as a Chimp, it was natural selection. You're hell bent on trying to prove a magical being created us and missing the facts and the magic of nature. There is lots of evidence in the links I've posted but i bet you haven't read a single one.
You can't even grasp the differences between theory and a scientific theory.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Your imaginary friend didn't magically pop out a Human that is accidently about 96% or more the same as a Chimp

How are they 96% the same if humans have 4% less DNA, and of their remaining DNA 10% is unmatchable to the chimp?

"Approximately 306 Mb (9.91%) of the human sequence did not align to the chimpanzee sequence" source

human genome count
chimpanzee genome length.
-human genome is 4% smaller.

When you see that number "almost 99% matching" They are referring to homologous gene sequences having that degree of matching, not the entire genome.

The researchers also discovered that male chimpanzees potentially contribute three more mutations to their offspring with each year of age. Human males potentially add just two new mutations to progeny each year they age, the researchers said.

Notice how they're saying "potentially"? They are speculating. They are basing this off the fact that the Y chromosome (specific to males) has more variability between chimps and humans than the other chromosomes.

"Chromosome Y was an outlier at 96.6% identity over 84.6% of its length" source

This is why you have to do your own research so you know why they are saying certain things. You can't just appeal to authorities and blindly believe everything is dogma, we know where that gets us lol

No known organism has ever generated a beneficial mutation rate of 1000 per generation. That is unheard of. It is extremely rare to even get one in the zygote. Multitudes of sperm doesn't matter, it is only the single sperm that wins that passes on genetic material.

You're hell bent on trying to prove a magical being created us

No it's an intelligent being. You're the one trying to convince people that unintelligent processes created humans.

Aliens created chimps too, to confuse the hell out of us

a reply to: cooperton

This is why you have to do your own research

You should take your own advice instead of posting creationist rubbish trying to make out it's science.

No it's an intelligent being. You're the one trying to convince people that unintelligent processes created humans.

And your the one trying to say your imaginary friend "invented" humans who happen to be almost genetically identical to other great apes, Neanderthals, Denisovans.....
Again from the article that you say is proof which isn't.

Note that the chimpanzee genome is far less polished than human, and much of the extra DNA might be explained by haplotype variants or incompletely merged regions; thus the two genomes might be much closer in size than these numbers indicate.

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: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

For sure. I know we have different beliefs. One thing I can say for myself though is, I do still wonder about "the nature of everything", so to speak. I don't think it all was created by God, or any of the other Gods (small g, big G, whathaeyou). All I know for sure is even though I don't buy into the religious narratives, or ID, well there are still questions. The one thing I know for sure is, I'm just a mere meatsack doing the best I can. I do think there is more for us to figure out and try to understand, as best we can. Whatever our individual leanings may be.

Yes don't give up on the search it's worth it despite the growing pains. Best of luck friend!

originally posted by: Kurokage

You should take your own advice instead of posting creationist rubbish trying to make out it's science.

Everything in the OP is from a scientific report. You're just biased against any science that refutes evolutionary theory.

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.

that 97.5-98.2% percent is the amount of matching DNA between the comparable parts of the genome

It does not take into consideration the parts that don't match:

Humans have 4% less of a genome, and 10% of the remainder that doesn't match at all. They assume there must be something missing here because they realize this is a huge gap for such a relatively small amount of time to change.

a reply to: cooperton

that 97.5-98.2% percent is the amount of matching DNA between the comparable parts of the genome

Exactly, you clutching at straws trying to make the data out to prove you imaginary friend created Homo-sapiens instead of evolution. The data that is comparable is almost identical.

originally posted by: Kurokage


Exactly, you clutching at straws trying to make the data out to prove you imaginary friend created Homo-sapiens instead of evolution.

lol what?

10% of the Genome doesn't match.

That means at best you can have a 90% match

the human genome is also 4% smaller.

That means at best you can have a 86% match.

Of that 86% of the remaining matchable genome, 97.5-98.2% is completely matching.

This means of the entire genome, only 86% x 98% = 84% of the genome is an actual complete match.

a reply to: cooperton

The genomes are different sizes...

the main genetic difference between humans and chimps is that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes in their genomes.

Human karyotype is represented by 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes

The parts that are comparable are almost identical.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and this is all about trying to prove creationism, your imaginary friend didn't create Homo-sapien, a member of the great apes. Next you're going to say Neanderthal aren't related to us and chimpanzees either...

Our genome overlaps with about 97–98 percent of that of Neanderthals, thanks to us sharing a common ancestor. (Many living things are surprisingly similar: Humans and chimps, for example, are only about 1.2–6 percent different from each other, depending on how you count.)

www.sapiens.org...

originally posted by: Kurokage

The parts that are comparable are almost identical.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and this is all about trying to prove creationism, your imaginary friend didn't create Homo-sapien, a member of the great apes. Next you're going to say Neanderthal aren't related to us and chimpanzees either...

You're resorting to straw man arguments and erroneous tangents to avoid the straight-forward fact that 14%+ of chimpanzee DNA is unrelatable to humans.

Coop, why don't you publish your research? No, seriously.

Take your notes on all the relevant papers published so far and point out their errors. I mean it, please do it. If you're right you win big - probably a Nobel too.

Publish your claims so they can be scrutineered. I dare you. Or drop the nonsense, fraud.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Coop, why don't you publish your research? No, seriously.

Take your notes on all the relevant papers published so far and point out their errors. I mean it, please do it. If you're right you win big - probably a Nobel too.

Publish your claims so they can be scrutineered. I dare you. Or drop the nonsense, fraud.

This would be like you appealing to the Catholic Church that Jesus isn't real. If you guys are incapable of considering the data i'm putting forth, why would people who depend their livelihood on forcing the validity of evolutionary theory?

Mark Armitage did and got fired lol.

You gotta realize how dogmatic and zealous the scientism establishment is. No dissent allowed. Even when Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue fragments in dinosaur bones, they were at her neck right away. Turns out she was right and there is undeniable proof of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm not arguing for or against Jesus, he is of no consequence. I'm arguing against divine creation, or rather I'm asking you or anyone else to prove it. We, on the whole, are of no consequence scientifically (no offense to anyone reading or contributing!). You have to convince the scientific community, who will read and examine the evidence you've presented. Peer review. Something the creationist community do not believe in, as you are demonstrating.

Scientist's livelihoods depend on finding and revealing the truth through evidence. If that happens to be creation, so be it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

I shall take it you did not understand my point, your use of my point and attempt to twist it to your favour is both idiotic and childish.

a reply to: cooperton

Over 500 peer-reviewed journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research papers with experimental results say you're wrong.
Where are you papers? Where are your results? Where's your evidence? You have none.
You ought to admit it once and for all. It's all made up to fit your agenda.
You're an extreme cultist with no foundation in ethics.

a reply to: LABTECH767

No, I guess I did not.

a reply to: TerraLiga

That is one very bold statement and one you will someday have to account for, Jesus is of no Consequence, sorry but for the greater multitude of this worlds population your statement could not be more insulting to there belief's (though they may not be Christians and believe in other being's).

As for me I find it simply rude, I see GOD even though you think of the concept of a god as irrelevant AND mechanically as far as a tiny view of reality is concerned you have a point but one that is still very rude and there was no need to make it in that manner.

Now let's see, you assume - wrongly - that the laws of physics are immutable and unchanging.

I challenge you with Quantum Mechanics, how many Newtonian (Sir Isaac Newton BELIEVED in GOD and JESUS and would actually have been scandalized by your point) physicists have to bury there heads in the sand when faced with such.

Let's see even in NON Quantum physics and the study of the early universe following the so called Big Bang, the expansion of the universe was FASTER than Light Speed, this means the so called Laws which in fact are merely if we argue from the concept of Membrane Theory temporary states of interaction in super space anyway are not actually fixed and immutable but may be variable or even prone to complete changes especially at the quantum level and also in the macroscopic realm of day to day reality when events in super space and interactions between membranes occur.

But you see since the 1500's and especially from 1700's in part due anti Catholic sentiment but mostly due to Gnostic and pagan cults that had hidden behind the mantle of occultism and alchemical pseudo science in earlier periods being presented with the opportunity to control the world and steal power form the diminishing influence of Rome there great enemy many have been brainwashed into thinking that religion is NOT compatible with science, it was easy for the Alchemist especially since many GENUINE Alchemists were in fact early chemists and physicists before they discovered actual workable models and rules they could rely upon to pervert the academic world of science in there favour, especially since as knowledge seekers (though there intention was solely for power) many of these cult's had wealthy and powerful patrons to give them authority.

Sadly the opinion many think is the natural outcome and move away from Religion that is endemic in todays society is actually an artificial opinion created by these anti religious movements whom perverted the academia of science and used to create there new idol in the form of a FALSE Science that is a NEW religion and actually fundamentally corrupts and hides TRUE science behind it's own walls of Dogma and control that would put to shame even Rome at it's worst such as the removal or denial of important out of place artefacts that for example PROVE if taken as what they are and put into the correct context that humans if they existed when chimp's supposedly did NOT exist are therefore NOT descended from an ancestor of the Chimp's - that is unless the Chimps as one Orthodox Rabbi believed were actually descendants of humans that were turned into beasts through inbreeding and other corruptions.

You see the fact is you are arguing a dead point (oh it's not your fault but), we are NOT arguing a dead point, you are part of a crowd trying to make out that religion is unreasonable while in fact the opposite is the true.

And thanks to that HIJACKING and corruption of the scientific fraternity through CONTROLLED peer review and paid influence as well as the direct corruption of it's goals by secularist and anti religious cults many genuine, real scientists have had there careers destroyed time and again simply because they went outside of the NEW Dogma the Pagan Church of Science allows and which It's priests stick to.

Real Science is independent on that you have a point but it only works as long as reality is fixed and beyond that you need to create new theorem to account for variable laws of reality.

We could get into a circular argument debating about the nature of Consciousness, you would say it is the result of the brain and nervous system of the complex web of electro chemical interactions and the neural networks but I would argue that even as complex as the brain and nervous system are they do not explain consciousness and are merely an interface for a higher state of mind, they hold the mind based on linear reality that we experience day to day but how many have experiences OOBE or had prescient experiences and Déjà vu type episodes of prolepsis, I would argue that it was Jung whom was far closer than that weirdo Sigmund Freud with his strange and unpleasant attitude toward his own mother and his habit of painting his own perversions onto other's as a means of explaining there Psyches.

I would argue that we are more than this body and that if we are then the universe at this level is only a tiny part of a picture and neither you nor any scientist with such a myopic view of reality will EVER explain it.

For me God is real, Jesus is NEVER going to be irrelevant and I am not alone, some of the top researchers into quantum cosmology have even found religion having in some cases being entrenched agnostics (Atheists are NOT being scientific Agnostics ARE and I agree that we believers accept something without experiment, we do not need that because being believers we have our own get out of jail card it is called faith).

So I put it to you that your argument is equally unreasonable and in fact even more so.

a reply to: LABTECH767

That's all well and good. But it isn't science. It's your opinion.