Sci/Tech Chimp and human DNA is 96% identical

[The Helper]

The first detailed genetic comparison between humans and chimpanzees shows that 96 per cent of the DNA sequence is identical in the two species. But there are significant differences, particularly in genes relating to sexual reproduction, brain development, immunity and the sense of smell.

An international scientific consortium publishes the genome of the chimpanzee, the animal most closely related to homo sapiens on Thursday in the journal Nature. It is the fourth mammal to have its full genome sequenced, after the mouse, rat and human being.

Some of the scientific analysis of the 3bn chemical “letters” of the chimp’s genetic code focused on its remarkable closeness to the human genome. After 6m years of separate evolution, the differences between chimp and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than those between rats and mice.

But most scientists are concentrating on the differences. The vast majority of these probably have little biological significance, said Simon Fisher of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford: “The big challenge for the future is to pinpoint the tiny subset of differences that account for the origins of unusual human traits, such as complex language.”

Client Challenge

 

[Rinpun]

But is there a reason why humans are also 96-98% identical to a dandelion and that chimps are at least a 100x different from each other whilst 10x different from humans?

 

[Sargon]

How could they be 100x different from each other but only be 10x different from humans? Doesn't really make sense.

 

[sqrage]

dont try to out smart rinpun, deffinatly not in science, trust me

 

[Sargon]

I don't think I will trust you. From my experience, he makes claims and doesn't back them up with evidence.

 

[Rinpun]

Believe this or not, it's actually scientific fact, not religious "drivel". Try looking it up

 

[DM Cross]

DRIVEL, I TELL'S YA!

Anyway, Rin, you just basically made a comeback to "He doesn't back up his argument with fact" with MORE unsupported argumentation.

I must say:

WTF IS THAT SH!T?!

 

[Rinpun]

Well I'll at least say that it's hard to find.

"Gene Difference between Chimps" (or "Difference between Chimps" yet you'll find a lot of crap on chimps being related to humans and not to each other)

Try looking at up on google. You won't find anything. Why? Because it seems scientists are too darn scared to state the difference between chimps on a gene scale! Find me an evolutionist paper on these chimps being similar and I'll withdraw my argument.

dead link removed

"Here we will see that the universe of genetic similarities is quite different from our preconceptions of what similarities mean. For example, the very structure of DNA compels it to be no more than 75% different, no matter how diverse the species being compared are. Yet the fact that our DNA is more than 25% similar to a dandelion's does not imply that we are over one-quarter dandelion—even if the latter were a sensible statement. This will be a primary illustration of the confrontation between scientific data and folk knowledge, and of the exploitation of the latter by the former. The extent to which our DNA resembles an ape's predicts nothing about our general similarity to apes, much less about any moral or political consequences arising from it."

And they dodge the exact issue with why dandelions and humans are at 25%+ similar. And yet at the same time they contradict themselves. The last sentence in this paragraph directly contradicts what evolutionists have been pulling out of there arses for quite a while.

While I'm at it, check out the book Darwin's Black Box (You should be able to find it on Amazon). Then again, maybe you think websites like Yahoo and other news sites have a 100% accurate opinion and books do not.

And last of all, try looking up (in more scientific terms) on Google's Scholar search. It cuts out all of the sources that just relay information they heard somewhere else and makes room for the much more serious websites devoted to particular research.

--Here's one of the papers.--

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/96/12/953

Now whether that is for or against Evolution, I've yet to see. I can see, however, more similarities with various things connecting to a human. So chimps are 95% similar to humans? What about 60% similar to bananas? The public needs to rethink the delusion that they know all about this...that they think that similarity through common ancestors and therefore Evolution comes from being x% similar to a y animal, where in fact it seems to run much deeper.

 

[Sargon]

Try looking at up on google. You won't find anything. Why? Because it seems scientists are too darn scared to state the difference between chimps on a gene scale! Find me an evolutionist paper on these chimps being similar and I'll withdraw my argument.

Chimps being similar to what? And while your'e at it, find me a reason for this conspiracy theory crap (too darn scared? WTF?).

"Here we will see that the universe of genetic similarities is quite different from our preconceptions of what similarities mean. For example, the very structure of DNA compels it to be no more than 75% different, no matter how diverse the species being compared are. Yet the fact that our DNA is more than 25% similar to a dandelion's does not imply that we are over one-quarter dandelion—even if the latter were a sensible statement. This will be a primary illustration of the confrontation between scientific data and folk knowledge, and of the exploitation of the latter by the former. The extent to which our DNA resembles an ape's predicts nothing about our general similarity to apes, much less about any moral or political consequences arising from it."

And they dodge the exact issue with why dandelions and humans are at 25%+ similar. And yet at the same time they contradict themselves. The last sentence in this paragraph directly contradicts what evolutionists have been pulling out of there arses for quite a while.

Did you even read the thing you quoted? It's a great quote. But it supports my side, not yours.

Edit: One other thing. You say that it contradicts what (evolutionary biologists) have been (saying) for some time, but you don't say what they've been saying, or give a source for it. Actually, as far as I can tell, they've been saying what you quoted. So I can't see any contradiction.

While I'm at it, check out the book Darwin's Black Box (You should be able to find it on Amazon). Then again, maybe you think websites like Yahoo and other news sites have a 100% accurate opinion and books do not.

...

Know why arguments between you and me get out of hand? This. Your Goddamned condescending attitude. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Yahoo? What does Yahoo have to do with this?

And last of all, try looking up (in more scientific terms) on Google's Scholar search. It cuts out all of the sources that just relay information they heard somewhere else and makes room for the much more serious websites devoted to particular research.

--Here's one of the papers.--

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/96/12/953

Now whether that is for or against Evolution, I've yet to see. I can see, however, more similarities with various things connecting to a human. So chimps are 95% similar to humans? What about 60% similar to bananas? The public needs to rethink the delusion that they know all about this...that they think that similarity through common ancestors and therefore Evolution comes from being x% similar to a y animal, where in fact it seems to run much deeper.

You're quoting wonderful sources, but they don't actually back up your argument. In fact, they back up mine. Great sources, though.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

the differences between chimp and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than those between rats and mice.

If your telling me that you can get a chimp knocked up, Conan and Alex are in serious trouble.

 

[Sargon]

Heh. Fortunately though, Rinpun already documented quite well that similarities in DNA do not really translate into similarities in the construction of the animal.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

So it iz safe to bust in a chimp?

 

[Sargon]

Well, AIDS started out as a monkey disease, but then it migrated to humans...somehow...

 

[DM Cross]

If your telling me that you can get a chimp knocked up, Conan and Alex are in serious trouble.

IT WAS ONLY THAT ONE TIME!

 

[Rinpun]

"Heh. Fortunately though, Rinpun already documented quite well that similarities in DNA do not really translate into similarities in the construction of the animal."

Which is some crap that some people have been spewing about...that similarities of DNA equal Evolution >_<

Did I say they thoroughly backed MY views, Alexander? I didn't bring Christianity into this. Therefore, I see it more against some of the crap that people have been spewing and therefore backing MY views technically.

But gee, what is the next reason Evolutionists have been flocking to so they can explain that humans and chimps have come from a common ancestor?

My condescending attitude is the biggest hard-wired defect in my social personality structure. Sorry. I've been trying to sanctify it for some time now but, so far, to no avail v_v

Anyway, I'm happy to see how they will explain how humans have learned complex languages. I'll see if the effect was "random and over time gradually occuring...et cetera" (and in other words supernatural as that fits the meaning perfectly) or a result of something random and sudden or whatever.

 

[Sargon]

The stuff you quoted said that genetic similarity doesn't translate into general similarity (it's saying that we're not 25% dandelion, even though our DNA is 25% identical). They said nothing about a common ancestor. In fact, genetic similarity does help identify which animals have common ancestors and how far back said ancestors lived (we're closer to apes than dandelions, for instance).

And language isn't a genetic trait, so it wouldn't develop the way that a stronger right arm would. It would develop through the necessity of telling others that there's a saber-toothed tiger over the next hill, or that they shouldn't get any closer or you'll hit them with a rock, or stuff like that. Animals all have their own languages. I suppose that our larger brain capacity allowed us to refine ours more.

You say that "occuring over a long period of time based on the laws ot probability" means "supernatural." I don't agree. Give me some evidence.

As a side note, exactly which anti-evolution camp do you belong to?