The 98% Myth - Humans and Chimps

Here's a half truth that's spouted over and over again. It says that humans and chimps share over 98% of DNA so we're kissing cousins.

The truth is we share 98% of the same DNA sequence not regulatory genes. When you look at the difference between gene regulation the variation makes a natural interpretation of evolution a story that belongs with the Hobbits in middle earth.

It's about insertion and deletion which act as on and off switches in regions of DNA. So it's like we share the same chords with chimps but we play very different music.

Chimps are playing Mary Had a Little Lamb while Humans are playing Mozart or Rachmaninoff. A natural interpretation of evolution can't turn Mary Had a Little Lamb into Mozart. It's just sill to even think it can.

It's all about belief.

There's DNA inserted in regions of human DNA that's not found in chimps. How did this DNA evolve in Humans when it was never present in chimps?

The only thing you can do is assume that there's was a common ancestor that shared the traits of humans and chimps. This common ancestor is like Bigfoot or a Purple Dragon. People just make this magic assumption because it's what they believe.

A natural interpretation of evolution is impossible. We share a Common Design or Common Sequence but different gene regulation. We have different programs that regulate the common sequence. So the question is how did humans evolve into Mozart from Marry Had a Little Lamb. This had to have guidance from Intelligence.

Here's another huge myth.

I can't explain something because I've not the knowledge, nor the technological ability in my current state. Therefore it must either God's doing or some sort of intelligent design".

The truth is, that anything is entirely possible over thousands and thousands of years of genetic mutation and breeding.

What's also true is all we know as a species is just our 'best guess' at the time, using the current technology and information we have available. The 'theory' of evolution is the same as the theory of whether or not the earth is flat.

The only difference is in the ladder theory, is we have the tools and knowledge to prove, definitively what the actual answer is. Seeing is believing and all that jazz.

So IMO, the idea of creation, evolution etc, isn't something that humans as a species currently have the information, or technology to properly understand. At least not enough to start making declarative statements about our origins and ancestors.

~Tenth

reply to post by neoholographic


I think i found the supposed "study" you are referring to: answersingenesis.org

A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

I think the author of the report, David Dewitt, has taken some research by Roy Britten that apparently corrects for missing calculations due to duplication/omissions and because the percentage of shared DNA between primates and humans has gone from 98% to 95% he is proposing this allows for some kind of biblical injection of understanding or something....

Originally posted by neoholographic
So the question is how did humans evolve into Mozart from Marry Had a Little Lamb. This had to have guidance from Intelligence.

Why?

Cancer is the result of very small changes in genetic code (DNA mutations) and a dramatic change in the expression of a large number of genes. Tumors are extremely different from the healthy tissue that they originate from. "Mozart" becomes a blaring techno remix of nails on a chalkboard and white noise. This example goes to show that system wide changes in gene expression (within a cell) combined with subtle changes in DNA sequence can have dramatic consequences, and don't require guidance from intelligence.

We have similar genetic designs (or share a common design in your words) to other animals because they have been successful in surviving and reproducing. I don't think it reveals an intelligent designer at all.

reply to post by neoholographic


Another great admission of ignorance from the religious.

"I don't understand, therefore magic."

I have been meaning to post something about Chimps/Apes and Man...

If god Created all the 3 why make them similar?

There are no other creatures on EARTH that look similar to humans. Dolphins, Wolves, Cats, Dogs, Sheep (well lol), Insects, Birds nope not a one really resembles us in any shape or form.

And yet the Chimps do,in arms, hands, fingers, Check, legs, feet, toes, Check, Faces, noses, eyes, lips etc...CHECK

Why if we were made in this gods image do we looks so similar? Wouldn't that apply to chimps as well then?

Is this a Trick? is this magician god who does not follow nature do this as a joke on humanity? And creates things poof without thinking about what we might think?


Now a God that shows us its work through Mathematics and nature (Geology, Science and yep..Evolution) that is something I could believe in.

A trickster magician no way!

reply to post by neoholographic


I'll be a monkey's uncle!

But one undisputed fact is that chimps and humans both lack the capacity to make Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and need to supplement it (chimps in captivity have to be given, by law, megadoses of C every day).

If chimps could speak they may have developed much further in a societal manner, or may just have gone around screaming obscenities at each other and developed NASCAR.

The problem here is, the Common Ancestor belongs with myths and legends. How does function evolve?

This information is pre-determined and then it adapts. It's like random strings of 1' and 0's or random letters from the alphabet. These things are giving meaning when intelligence puts it in a pre-determined sequence that gives the randomness meaning.

This is the same with DNA. Function doesn't evolve, it's a pre-determined sequence that regulates gene expression.

When these DNA letters are inserted into these regions a specific function occurs. This function regulates gene expression and works as an on switch. There's no evolution involved here. This is a pre-determined sequence that had to be put in place by intelligence.

It's like putting gas in a car. It's a pre-determined sequence that was put in place by intelligence that allows a car to run.

When these DNA letters are inserted into these regions of DNA a specific function occurs. Specific gene regulation and expression is switched on. This pre-determined sequence didn't evolve.

So humans and chimps share 98 percent of the same raw materials but not the same functions which are pre-determined sequences of the raw material that produce a specific result. These functions do not evolve.

reply to post by neoholographic


NO it doesn't work that way. A species doesn't just evolve a hand one day and then POOF it can grab and clasp things. No, it starts out as an appendage (most likely a foot). Then over the course of MANY MANY MANY (read: many) generations the appendage's toes start to get longer. As these toes get longer, the species starts to utilize these new longer toes to start grasping things until the species becomes reliant on it. Eventually the species develops the ability to stand and the ones that cannot grasp things start to die out (or go down a different evolutionary path).

So why is it so hard to grasp that two different animals evolved from the same animal? It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it logically. Of course this is a religious thread, so I doubt much of that will be taking place here.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


The mistake people make who believe in a natural interpretation of evolution is they mix the pre-determined sequence with the evolution of the raw materials.

It's just silly to think a pre-determined sequence evolved. The only thing that's random is when these DNA letters will be inserted or deleted. This is based on the environment. What's not random is the function that occurs when these DNA letters are inserted. When they're inserted they produce specific gene regulation and expression that has nothing to do with the evolution of the raw materials.

So we come from a Common Design or a Common Program that carries a pre-determined sequence that produce specific function when insertion and deletion occurs. When you talk about a Common Ancestor, you're looking at the evolution of the raw materials which is missing the forest because of the trees. You're paying to much attention to the evolution of the raw materials because people want to believe in a natural interpretation of evolution.

Deleted - Could've been taken the wrong way

reply to post by abeverage


Made in God's image = soul/spirit. It does not equal body shape or limb positioning.

reply to post by neoholographic


So in your opinion God just has a sick sense of humor in making Humans and chimps so similar, instead of the most obvious explanation that they evolved from the same source?

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by neoholographic

 

So in your opinion God just has a sick sense of humor in making Humans and chimps so similar, instead of the most obvious explanation that they evolved from the same source?

No, I believe in evolution.

I used that as an example of why I do not believe in the *poof* creationism god but possibly in intelligent designer and fine tuner God.

And while I do believe God does have a wicked cool sense of humor (why else would I be here) I believe that Chimps are not a joke but to allow us humans to see the possibilities, our genetic linage and a link to the Earth's creatures.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Of course they evolved from the same source code. God is a chemist and he uses the best raw materials to produce a desired result. Humans and Chimps share 98% of the same raw materials not 98% of the same source code that handles gene regulation and expression.

It's like changing your oil in your car. It's a pre-determined process designed by intelligence. When these DNA letters are inserted they produce specific gene regulation and expression. The only thing that random and evolves is the process of insertion and deletion based on the environment not the gene regulation and expression that occurs when these DNA letters are inserted.

Evolution isn't needed because the sequence is pre-determined. What some people do is look at the evolution of raw materials and say, they must have blindly and randomly evolved over billions of years. This is because people use this theory to support their personal belief system but it has nothing to do with science.

The only thing that is random is when insertion and deletion occurs based on the environment, not what happens when insertion and deletion occurs. They're on an off switches for specific gene regulation and expression.

reply to post by neoholographic


Using a software analogy, the genes are the operating system which make available a plethora of basic functions. The whole of life on this planet can be seen as a source code repository which started with some very basic functions which has branched off over time creating a huge tree of versions.

Humans and chimps are near the top of the tree, down a large number of branches sat next to each together on tiny twigs. Humans have the operating system: Earth.Life.Animalia.Chordata.Mammalia.Primates.Similiforms.Hominoidea.Hominidae.Homininae.Homo.HomoSapian.1.0

Chimps have the operating system:

Earth.Life.Animalia.Chordata.Mammalia.Primates.Similiforms.Hominoidea.Hominidae.Panini.Pan.PanTroglodytes.1.0

Our operating systems are close enough to run the same program with a few tweaks, a bit like the different versions of DOS. Would you say a computer running DOS 4 and one running 6.22 are completely different or closely related? I would say closely related

In other news, our operating system is pretty basic compared to plants and creatures such as amoeba. They are more like Windows 2050 to our DOS. However we have some pretty good software running on our DOS box...

Originally posted by neoholographic
A natural interpretation of evolution is impossible. We share a Common Design or Common Sequence but different gene regulation. We have different programs that regulate the common sequence. So the question is how did humans evolve into Mozart from Marry Had a Little Lamb. This had to have guidance from Intelligence

We share DNA with grass, we live on earth and breath the 20% oxygen because that is what earth provides. The fact that ALL life on earth is related kind of means .....dare I say it.... We are related, whether it is 100,000 years ago, 5 million years ago, or 3 billion years ago, we all are related.

Your argument is like saying that because the cheetah is the fastest land animal then it must be because of god. When we are talking billions of life forms then one of them will be the smartest, or fastest, or whatever...

Please explain why the smartest would be of god, but the dumbest would be of evolution?

Originally posted by neoholographic
Here's a half truth that's spouted over and over again. It says that humans and chimps share over 98% of DNA so we're kissing cousins.

The truth is we share 98% of the same DNA sequence not regulatory genes.

You write a thread about the 98% myth but still say it's 98%.

It's closer to 99% if you're rounding to the nearest percent. 98.7%, according to this source:

Bonobo Genome Completed: The Final Great Ape to Be Sequenced

The comparison of the genome sequences of bonobo, chimpanzee, and human show that humans differ by approximately 1.3% from both bonobo and chimpanzee. Chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related, differing by only 0.4%.

Bonobo and chimpanzee territories in central Africa are close to one another and separated only by the Congo River. It has been hypothesized that the formation of the Congo River separated the ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos, leading to these distinct apes. Examination of the relationship between bonobos and chimpanzees showed that there appears to have been a clean split and no subsequent interbreeding, which supports this hypothesis.

It's been hypothesized that Chimpanzees and bonobos evolved differently on different sides of the Congo river.

And it's a hypothesis that they share a common ancestor with each other, and further back in time, with humans. If the point of your thread is that some people choose to believe this hypothesis even though it's not proven, that's a fair statement. It's not easy to trace exact lineage to prove something like this because there isn't enough remains to analyze, unless someone stumbles on a lucky find.

So let's acknowledge the possibility that they didn't evolve from a common ancestor...that would be even more remarkable, that about 99% of the gene sequences are the same, evolving that way independently without common ancestors, wouldn't it?

My thoughts. . . .