Are Humans Really Genetically Close to Apes? [Yes]

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
[Admin Edit:]
From the original paper, the 98% figure is still accurate.
http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/59332

Original (incorrect) post follows:

So much for the DNA being 98% the same for apes and man.

http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanzees/genetics/chimpanzee-y-chromosome-2010.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
So much for the DNA being 98% the same for apes and man.

http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanzees/genetics/chimpanzee-y-chromosome-2010.html
98% + of bonded pairs of DNA are the same. However the DNA is organised in the chromosomes so it is not surprising there are chromosomal differences
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solrey

Senior Member.
The author of that blog post apparently failed to find and read the whole paper. The new findings do not change the fact that chimp and human DNA is more than 98% the same.

http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/59332
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
98% + of bonded pairs of DNA are the same. However the DNA is organised in the chromosomes so it is not surprising there are chromosomal differences
So the DNA is 98% the same but 30% of the chromosomes are wildly different... but that is unimportant/unsurprising?

[...]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091007101242AAd0lhA
"The Blogger", is not 'just some guy', he is a professor with years of experience... and he finds the vast changes over such a short period remarkable, as do I.

http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/hawks/hawks.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marcus Mudd

Member
What we can all agree on is that understanding how genetics manifests itself as traits, and how these differ from our supposed closest relatives in the animal kingdom is not simple!

ive been researching this topic and following this conversation, the face palms are completely unneccesary as the topic is so convoluted that I can bet none of us fully understand.

my research has garnished ideas from both sides of this argument, there are articles that view the 98% identical nature of chimp/human DNA is specifically protein based, whereas the portions of dna responsible for protein creation and the proteins themselves are identical. Ive also read that all male specific nucleotide sequences were identical, but the proteins that regulated mental activity were significantly different. I don't understand all of the information, but I am not convinced that this evidence proves humans evolved from apes.

of course this is another evolution thread in disguise so with that said protein creation regulated by dna itself is evidence for a creator, due to the complexity of the amino acid patterns and the specific actions they portray in activating and deactivating gene expression. proteins are biologcal nanotechnology and nano technology can in no way emerge from nothing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Given that Chimps are genetically more complex than humans, wouldn't that then suggest that chimps evolved from humans, and not the other way around?

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/chimp-genetic-history-more-complex-humans-6C10533510

More likely, some chimp alien/god came along 5 million year ago, and though early hominids could do with some tweaking, so created chimps. Just didn't work out as they expected.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Given that Chimps are genetically more complex than humans, wouldn't that then suggest that chimps evolved from humans, and not the other way around?

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/chimp-genetic-history-more-complex-humans-6C10533510

More likely, some chimp alien/god came along 5 million year ago, and though early hominids could do with some tweaking, so created chimps. Just didn't work out as they expected.
Lol... Nice to see you finally getting the hang of this debunking game Mick ;)

But seriously, the diversity of expert opinion on it is interesting.

I personally like the 2001 Space Odyssey scenario but really I am just posting here on the 'general discussion' because i think it is an interesting subject which as Marcus said, no one really understands.

I am not out to upset anyone here, I just think it good to question things to the best of our ability and perhaps we can all learn a thing or two. :)
 

solrey

Senior Member.
So the DNA is 98% the same but 30% of the chromosomes are wildly different... but that is unimportant/unsurprising?

Isn't that like saying 'a mud hut is made from ceramics and so is the Taj Mahal, so they are not dissimilar?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091007101242AAd0lhA

"The Blogger", is not 'just some guy', he is a professor with years of experience... and he finds the vast changes over such a short period remarkable, as do I.

http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/hawks/hawks.html
I simply said, "The author of that blog post...", I did not say the blogger was 'just some guy', so why use quote marks like that? I take that as a form of ad-hom, an attempt to discredit my comment by implying that it was demeaning. Putting words into peoples mouths is an ugly habit, I kindly suggest you refrain from such practices.

His interpretation of the paper was incorrect and he seemed to not have read more than the abstract so I didn't waste any time looking into the authors background... instead I read the damn paper and understood it, what a novel idea.

The 30% difference is for ONE chromosome from the mis-matched pair, not all 23 pairs of 46 chromosomes. As the paper states...

In other words, the majority of that <2% overall difference mostly resides within the one chromosome, the oddball, in males only. MSY is the male-specific region of the Y chromosome, which is composed of nearly 50 million base pairs. Considering the rest of the genome is nearly identical, that 30% difference in one male specific chromosome is literally just a drop in the bucket.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I simply said, "The author of that blog post...", I did not say the blogger was 'just some guy', so why use quote marks like that? I take that as a form of ad-hom, an attempt to discredit my comment by implying that it was demeaning. Putting words into peoples mouths is an ugly habit, I kindly suggest you refrain from such practices.
Well that is a bit strong IMO, especially coming from the poster of a chimp facepalming. Like I said, quite deliberately, my intent is not to upset anyone but simply to explore some wide ranging views on a very complex subject, so please accept my apology for any perceived offence and be assured it was not intended.

"The author of that blog" paraphrases very well to 'The blogger'... so I think you are over reacting.

Are you heavily invested in some way in the evolution concept?

His interpretation of the paper was incorrect and he seemed to not have read more than the abstract so I didn't waste any time looking into the authors background... instead I read the damn paper and understood it, what a novel idea.

The 30% difference is for ONE chromosome from the mis-matched pair, not all 23 pairs of 46 chromosomes. As the paper states...

In other words, the majority of that <2% overall difference mostly resides within the one chromosome, the oddball, in males only. MSY is the male-specific region of the Y chromosome, which is composed of nearly 50 million base pairs. Considering the rest of the genome is nearly identical, that 30% difference in one male specific chromosome is literally just a drop in the bucket.
If it is the case that 'it doesn't matter' ("a drop in the bucket), then I doubt whether such an experienced expert would make such a deal out of it.

You can always take it up with him personally if you wish. I am 'just some guy', trying to get my head around it so it is pointless taking me to task on it. I know that a number of posters on here like to post on sites they disagree with so that seems the best option really.

BTW, I was mostly responding to Dave anyway, as he was/is of the opinion that it is unimportant in the scheme of things.

However, I am aware that The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides and only 20 amino acids, which really means that there is very little that any known life can deviate genetically given such a small base code and small number of amino acids. It therefore seems logical to me, (but I may be wrong), that differences found in species appear to be derived in the way these building blocks are put together, more than what they are.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was reading "The Crowd: A Study of the popular Mind" (1895) today, and I came across this interesting comment:

1895 being pre-DNA, I thought it was interesting, back in the day the similarity between species could be measured to some extent by the speed of divergence of the embryo. The more human-like the animal, the more similar the early stages, even fish look like humans at early stages of embryo development

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
More on the differences, highlight added. It is basically the same data but it does highlight the significance, which has largely been downplayed here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072128
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Just to illustrate the size of the Y chromosome in comparison to a whole genome:

The Y chromosome is the little guy in the bottom right-hand corner, paired with the larger X chromosome.
So 30% of a specific region in that little nub is what the paper is discussing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Code-Beta Needs Debunking: CE-5, humans initiating UFO sightings UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Graham2001 'NASA worker' claims to have seen humans walking on Mars in 1979 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
Critical Thinker Claim: "Australian and US scientists reverse ageing in mice, humans could be next" General Discussion 0
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Stefan Leahu How atmospheric tunelling and refraction really look like in real life. Flat Earth 0
Julien Did Solzhenitsyn really say or write this? Quotes Debunked 13
K Did Elvis really say this about Andy Kaufman? Quotes Debunked 11
Mick West Slate: Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Really Skeptics Practical Debunking 2
Oxymoron Is The Rambles Section Really A Way of Hiding Threads Which Support CT's? Site Feedback & News 20
blargo Living with a CT believer, sometimes it is really difficult Contrails and Chemtrails 27
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
Grieves Hormones, and age as a disease: A really bad idea. Health and Quackery 3
Clock 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud (or full of baloney) Practical Debunking 9
Oxymoron Norway Spiral. Was it Really a Failed Missile Launch or Was it HAARP (EISCAT) Conspiracy Theories 36
SeriouslyDebatable Did FBI Director Robert Mueller Really Say There Was No Legal Proof of hijackers ID? 9/11 18
Mick West Debunking: "Is healthy food really more expensive?" Health and Quackery 2
Mick West Context: "If people really knew, the war would be stopped tomorrow" Quotes Debunked 1
Leifer Is bill S.968 really a gov't blacklist bill ? General Discussion 1
Critical Thinker Debunked: Monsanto wants to replace the bees they are killing with genetically engineered flying ant General Discussion 5
deirdre Debunked: Monsanto to replace honey bees with genetically engineered ants Health and Quackery 5
Leifer Genetically modified "Innate Potato" approved by USDA Science and Pseudoscience 6
FuzzyUK You too could look like a genetically modified corn cob Health and Quackery 5
Mick West Debunked: Kaiser Permanente Warns Against Consuming Genetically Modified Foods General Discussion 6
Leifer Prop 37 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. LABELING. General Discussion 40
Related Articles
























Related Articles

Top