tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3844227224451960196..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: How Intelligent Design Creationists try to deal with the similarity between human and chimp genomesLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53603212280888453422023-05-19T19:55:25.493-04:002023-05-19T19:55:25.493-04:00@Scott: Yes, it would be interesting to note what...@Scott: Yes, it would be interesting to note what fraction of difference they find between different species that are of the same "kind". They only have about 200 years for these to evolve after the Ark. It would also be interesting to know whether the fans of the Ark see natural selection as having any role in those species' differing adaptations.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51136020360136203052023-05-16T12:46:27.650-04:002023-05-16T12:46:27.650-04:00To follow on Joe's comment - I find it curious...To follow on Joe's comment - I find it curious that the ID creationists do not expand their 'research' by comparing pairs of taxa that they have pre-concluded are related via post-flood descent from an 'original Kind'. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072269576170920335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61546103859659837562023-05-16T12:44:09.704-04:002023-05-16T12:44:09.704-04:00Of note, to follow on Joe's comment, I have ye...Of note, to follow on Joe's comment, I have yet to see the ID creationists expand their comparisons to, say, pairs of taxa that they believe to have been descended from a 'common Kind' post-ark. <br />My suspicion is that they understand that THOSE percentages would increase at the same rate as the percentages seen between humans and chimps, which would be just as problematic for them.<br /><br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072269576170920335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55996034720710504462023-04-20T08:36:47.708-04:002023-04-20T08:36:47.708-04:00It's becoming more evident that "Intellig...It's becoming more evident that "Intelligent Design proponents" needs to be replaced by "willing to lie repeatedly about science proponents". deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279929296814513986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89043845424558044442023-03-05T04:12:41.377-05:002023-03-05T04:12:41.377-05:00ID or not, Blind Watchmaker Evolutionists haven...ID or not, Blind Watchmaker Evolutionists haven't proven their case.<br />bill4https://www.blogger.com/profile/03374640194146056479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56094606687494530882023-03-01T15:36:47.700-05:002023-03-01T15:36:47.700-05:00"He says that common design can explain the s..."<i>He says that common design can explain the similarities. That's true up to a point, you could argue that the mystery designer used common features to design chimps and humans then tweaked the design to make them slightly different.</i>"<br /><br />This does not appear to have any explanatory power. Why would a 'mystery designer' want to reuse code? I can understand why a human designer might do so; to conserve effort and materials. But this motivation completely fails if one is to postulate that the designer might be omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, if the Creationist is to continue on and eventually get around to pointing out that their putative designer is the Christian God, they have left behind the argument that got them there.Bayesian Bouffant, FCDhttp://bbfcd.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79740473174822966982023-02-27T18:08:54.934-05:002023-02-27T18:08:54.934-05:00The measure that counts an indel of 1000 bases as ...The measure that counts an indel of 1000 bases as 1000 differences was, I believe, introduced by Roy Britten. This may be it, though I think I encountered it in another of his publications:<br /><br />https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.172510699<br /><br />It's a silly way to measure divergence if you're thinking in evolutionary terms, but if you're interested in the melting point of cross-species duplex DNA, it's probably better.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34283110124498064702023-02-27T16:54:53.788-05:002023-02-27T16:54:53.788-05:00He's still around? I read his and Sitchin'...He's still around? I read his and Sitchin's books in my late teens and was initially convinced but once I started reading science, and especially biology, I realized how wrong they were.<br />-César D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44802493034945969832023-02-27T11:36:34.407-05:002023-02-27T11:36:34.407-05:00A few minor points:
1. I think the chimp genome p...A few minor points:<br /><br />1. I think the chimp genome paper's 1.23% figure was based on differences in aligned sites only, not on indels, however short.<br /><br />2. The measure that counts an indel of 1000 bases as 1000 differences was, I believe, introduced by Roy Britten. Can't immediately summon up the paper in which he did that.<br /><br />3. 25% similarity results from randomized sequences only under the Juke-Cantor model, or any other with equal expected base frequencies. Consider, for example, an extreme bias of frequency in which A is 90% and C, G, T are all at 3.3%. Randomized sequences will still be exceedingly similar.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85137365909593886972023-02-27T09:40:05.463-05:002023-02-27T09:40:05.463-05:00“The problem is that similarity and difference are...“The problem is that similarity and difference are relational and oppositional concepts. We can study how similar and how different we are from the apes and we can examine the patterns of those similarities and differences, but the meanings we attach to the results are by no means self-evident... It is not that difficult to tell a human from an ape, after all. The human is the one walking, talking, sweating, praying, building, reading, trading, crying, dancing, writing, cooking, joking, working, decorating, shaving, driving a car, or playing football. Quite literally, from the top of our head (where the hair is continually growing, unlike gorillas) to the tips of our toes (the stoutest of which is non-opposable), one can tell the human part from the ape part quite readily if one knows what to look for. Our eye- whites, small canine teeth, evaporative heat loss, short arms and long legs, breasts, knees, and of course, our cognitive communication abilities and the productive anatomies of our tongue and throat are all dead giveaways. However, they are not readily apparent in a genetic comparison.”<br /><br />Jonathan Marks, “What is the Viewpoint of Hemoglobin, and Does It Matter?” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 31 (2009):241-262; pp. 244, 246.<br />Paul Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14127052026545950910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88205974364623446582023-02-26T23:01:41.748-05:002023-02-26T23:01:41.748-05:00Two points that actually matter on this.
First its...Two points that actually matter on this.<br />First its a great point that if us/primates are o little different then it undercuts the great evolution that must of happened since we are quite different. the dna is not what it should be in difference if we seaparted so long ago and so much in important poinys.<br />The second more importany point is we do have the primate body. biblical creationists, more easily then ID folks, must see the primate was made before the man. So god in making the man was making a copy of another creature. Another kind. yet unique in biology for such a exact bodyplan likeness. SO the creationist must conclude we do not have our our bodyplan that represents us . iNstead because we uniquely are made in Gods image we can not have a bodyplan to show that in the common blueprint of biology. So we alone are renting another creatures body. having a identical bodyplan with primates is the evidence of our unique origin. A creationist must reason this way and , like me , desire as exact a dna score as primates. its close enough to demand we got thier bodyplan. case closed.<br />We simply can't have our own and so have the best one in biology for fun and profit. there is no better bodyplan than the primate sorry to the eagle. It is wrong to seek DNA differences from primates. not needed and undesirable if one thinks carefully about it. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17226386832358052266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13556974569616527322023-02-26T16:36:12.072-05:002023-02-26T16:36:12.072-05:00@Anonymous
Tomkins is correct. If the similarity ...@Anonymous<br /><br />Tomkins is correct. If the similarity between any two nucleic acid sequences is only 25% then you cannot conclude that they share a common ancestor. In the case of the vitellogenin genes, this similarity is 39%, which is well above the cutoff of 25% so the sequences are very likely to be related. <br /><br />If these were just random alignments between the chicken vitellogenin genes and any fragment of the human genome, you would be right to question whether this was just a coincidence but that's not what the authors of the study did. They looked specifically at the same region of the mammalian genomes (wallaby, opossum, dog, human) where the chicken genes are located in the chicken genome. <br /><br />The similarities (39%) are located right where they should be if the mammalian genes are old pseudogenes. Not only that, the authors reported that there are no other similar matches anywhere else in the genome. That seems like pretty good data to me. <br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35396780977263329942023-02-26T16:06:06.828-05:002023-02-26T16:06:06.828-05:00@Mathew
Hunter's argument makes no sense (duh...@Mathew<br /><br />Hunter's argument makes no sense (duh!). The data shows that chimps and humans differ by only 1-2% so whether you believe in a creator or in evolution makes no difference - in both cases it only takes a tiny modification of the genome to change chimps into humans and vice versa. <br /><br />Intelligent Design Creationism has been around for thirty years. You would think that by now they could have come up with better arguments. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6543443126671904992023-02-26T16:05:41.157-05:002023-02-26T16:05:41.157-05:00Jeffrey Tomkins responding to Dennis Venema argues...Jeffrey Tomkins responding to Dennis Venema argues that the human vitellogenin pseudogene has only 14% identity with the chicken vitellogenin gene, he argues that any two random genetic sequences will have 25% similarity because DNA has only 4 nitrogenous bases and the vitellogenin pseudogene has only a 39% match to the vitellogenin gene and this results in a 14% identity on a scale of 0 to 100. How do you refute this<br /><br />here is the Answersingenesis article:<br /><br />https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/does-biologos-have-even-more-egg-on-its-face/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13113472595206643502023-02-26T08:55:56.084-05:002023-02-26T08:55:56.084-05:00And since a predetermined conclusion allows interp...And since a predetermined conclusion allows interpreting absolutely anything as support for your position, let's not forget that a post on Evolution News & Views by Cornelius Hunter declared that the close relationship between chimps and humans was evidence FOR intelligent design: <br />"In recent decades the genomes of humans and chimps have been determined, and in an evolutionary paradigm they make no sense. One of the main problems is that the genes of the two species are almost identical. They are only about 1-to-2 percent different and, if you’re an evolutionist, this means you have to believe that the evolution of humans from a small, primitive, ape-like creature was caused by only a tiny modification of the genome."<br />https://evolutionnews.org/2016/05/stunning_eviden/Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14737575197659612557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58213167232142615642023-02-26T06:21:27.386-05:002023-02-26T06:21:27.386-05:00Intelligent Design supporters are in good company:...Intelligent Design supporters are in good company: the famous Erich von Daniken claims in his latest book 'Evolution is Wrong':<br /> "the amino acid sequence of the 231 proteins discovered in humans and apes differs by 83 percent."<br /><br />Furthermore, a strong argument that humans and the great apes cannot be closely related is this fact: humans have 46 chromosomes and chimp, gorilla and orangutan have 48 chromosomes!gert korthofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02176669976311883850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34510023306034058832023-02-25T19:09:59.924-05:002023-02-25T19:09:59.924-05:00When a creationist announces that the fraction of ...When a creationist announces that the fraction of difference between humans and chimps is not 1% but is Much Bigger Than That, ask them about the fraction of difference between humans and gorillas. That will turn out to be even larger. And with orangutangs, even larger than that. They never seem to make those comparisons. I wonder: why not?Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35588327089091435502023-02-25T18:29:57.277-05:002023-02-25T18:29:57.277-05:00There is the possibility that much of the design w...There is the possibility that much of the design was done by student designers who just made changes at random because they didn't really believe in biochemistry but were instead adherents of the great philosopher Norman Vincent Peale and The Power of Positive Thinking.Wadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16393309713853770816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83958072641843312742023-02-25T16:16:25.445-05:002023-02-25T16:16:25.445-05:00I wonder if Luskin's reasoning doesn't for...I wonder if Luskin's reasoning doesn't force him to view his parents as members of a distant species.SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.com