We have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas of the anatomy and physiology are analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees�, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721)
Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only particular lineages of creature or sometimes only in a specific species or variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to no have evolutionary history. Despite that we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996). Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that species or to varieties within a species.
This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function, but the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/chimp difference scenario is staggering.
Any thoughts?
Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
[Replying to H.sapiens]
Me either...
Yes the way they design their tree (or bush) we split off at 6mya. What/who do we suppose that was?
Me either...
Yes the way they design their tree (or bush) we split off at 6mya. What/who do we suppose that was?
Post #12
Wong. K., “Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome�, Scientific American, Sept. 2014, reveals that the “…tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function.� And though the recent comparisons are performed on only about 33% of the genome, “individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways.�
In some of the presentations in articles and texts I see a language of persuasion! For example, IMWO the “only 1.8% difference� language describing the similarity between humans and chimps is just an opinion! The actual difference is more like 5% (National Geographic claims 4% but close enough to show the smaller number to be enhanced) and most scientists agree.
In the limited sections of the genome accessed, exploring the limited aspects of the genome that they used to derive these figures, add to that the fact that the common person will not bother to understand, most are simply persuaded by the appeal to authority, and by faith in statistics (see How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff…a must read for any statisticians). Actually a complete genome comparison of human and chimp DNA has never been done (period)! However the masses are given this impression (the art of persuasion), and yet the details are not clarified.
The very best and most complete study so far as far as I know is Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y., 2002, ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134 and that study only utilized 19.8 million base pairs. Though this sounds huge, it really is not….it is really quite miniscule. Nothing learned in this study should be generalized as an overall fact.
In addition, in the Britten study (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635) used only 779,000 base pairs. The study concludes 1.4% of the bases were “substitutions� (meaning completely different, and not actually one thing once that has been “substituted� later), plus they also added the additional number of indels (what can be “interpreted� as insertions or deletions when comparing one genome to another).
But remember, this was what was found using ONLY around 800,000 base pairs. Some indels were small sections being only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, but others were quite large (even as much as 1000 base pairs long). These additional indels have been added into the alleged “percentile� similarity/difference conclusion changing the figure from 1.8 to 5%. Now multiply that out for the complete genome and the differences are nearing astronomical (but that will come in time). But even when speaking from this limited perspective, as slight as even 5 % may sound, that difference is HUGE.
The Human Haploid Genome contains around 3 BILLION base pairs. Now if we take away the approximate 2,010,000,000 similar pairs (around 67%), that actually contain many differences in function, that leaves 990,000,000 base pairs of which around 1/6th definitely vary, which means there may be around 165,000,000 differences in just these base pairs between humans and chimps. That is just one of the ways to look at it. Another straight forward comparison shows there to be about 120,000,000 base pairs as differing (4% of 3,000,000,000). Again, despite the rhetorical manipulations which make us think we are almost the same, that is a huge number of differences (especially considering THE FACT that we do not even understand the purpose and function of but a few % of the genome itself…see the Encode Project).
As for the near 67% (shared by all species categorized “Primate�) as appearing to be nearly identical (most of which translates into our having blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on), this still does not mean one came from the other….but based on the way we have determined to categorize things this really only means we all fit in that man-determined category…nothing else! Via this section. we all are mammals, with hair, and genitalia, feeding our young via mammary glands, and so on and within that all primates. But the Encode project is discovering what was thought to be the same genes function differently and even combine differently in expression. I would suggest (a personal hypothesis) that we will find these unique combinations and functions will differ from one species to another widening the gap. But that aside, the approximated “5% difference� exists only in the other 33% which means we have an actual difference of about 1/6th of what makes us human as opposed to what makes chimps ape, and that number of differences in the base pairs is still in the millions of differences (most of which we do not even understand at this point, though we are coming along).
Why not just say we have found at least 120,000,000 differences?
When stated like that (just the data)…if we count the number of possible functions and forms possibly effected, IMO it’s like the difference between arithmetic and calculus. The amount of information encoded in over 120 million base pairs is unfathomable. Plus we have barely scraped the surface of what this means. It is actually more information than a whole think tank of genius level scientists could ever contain in 10 lifetimes compared to a think tank with only the knowledge held by any general group of common persons in 10 lifetimes. See the difference? Vast, and incomprehensible, to say the least.
I guess what I would like people to see is how when we look at declared statistics of the very same genomic portrait from a different prospective area of approach, what a different picture we get. What is emphasized…the apparent smallness of numeric representation �5%� or the reality of over 120,000,000 differences in just this small section of the genome?
In some of the presentations in articles and texts I see a language of persuasion! For example, IMWO the “only 1.8% difference� language describing the similarity between humans and chimps is just an opinion! The actual difference is more like 5% (National Geographic claims 4% but close enough to show the smaller number to be enhanced) and most scientists agree.
In the limited sections of the genome accessed, exploring the limited aspects of the genome that they used to derive these figures, add to that the fact that the common person will not bother to understand, most are simply persuaded by the appeal to authority, and by faith in statistics (see How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff…a must read for any statisticians). Actually a complete genome comparison of human and chimp DNA has never been done (period)! However the masses are given this impression (the art of persuasion), and yet the details are not clarified.
The very best and most complete study so far as far as I know is Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y., 2002, ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134 and that study only utilized 19.8 million base pairs. Though this sounds huge, it really is not….it is really quite miniscule. Nothing learned in this study should be generalized as an overall fact.
In addition, in the Britten study (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635) used only 779,000 base pairs. The study concludes 1.4% of the bases were “substitutions� (meaning completely different, and not actually one thing once that has been “substituted� later), plus they also added the additional number of indels (what can be “interpreted� as insertions or deletions when comparing one genome to another).
But remember, this was what was found using ONLY around 800,000 base pairs. Some indels were small sections being only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, but others were quite large (even as much as 1000 base pairs long). These additional indels have been added into the alleged “percentile� similarity/difference conclusion changing the figure from 1.8 to 5%. Now multiply that out for the complete genome and the differences are nearing astronomical (but that will come in time). But even when speaking from this limited perspective, as slight as even 5 % may sound, that difference is HUGE.
The Human Haploid Genome contains around 3 BILLION base pairs. Now if we take away the approximate 2,010,000,000 similar pairs (around 67%), that actually contain many differences in function, that leaves 990,000,000 base pairs of which around 1/6th definitely vary, which means there may be around 165,000,000 differences in just these base pairs between humans and chimps. That is just one of the ways to look at it. Another straight forward comparison shows there to be about 120,000,000 base pairs as differing (4% of 3,000,000,000). Again, despite the rhetorical manipulations which make us think we are almost the same, that is a huge number of differences (especially considering THE FACT that we do not even understand the purpose and function of but a few % of the genome itself…see the Encode Project).
As for the near 67% (shared by all species categorized “Primate�) as appearing to be nearly identical (most of which translates into our having blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on), this still does not mean one came from the other….but based on the way we have determined to categorize things this really only means we all fit in that man-determined category…nothing else! Via this section. we all are mammals, with hair, and genitalia, feeding our young via mammary glands, and so on and within that all primates. But the Encode project is discovering what was thought to be the same genes function differently and even combine differently in expression. I would suggest (a personal hypothesis) that we will find these unique combinations and functions will differ from one species to another widening the gap. But that aside, the approximated “5% difference� exists only in the other 33% which means we have an actual difference of about 1/6th of what makes us human as opposed to what makes chimps ape, and that number of differences in the base pairs is still in the millions of differences (most of which we do not even understand at this point, though we are coming along).
Why not just say we have found at least 120,000,000 differences?
When stated like that (just the data)…if we count the number of possible functions and forms possibly effected, IMO it’s like the difference between arithmetic and calculus. The amount of information encoded in over 120 million base pairs is unfathomable. Plus we have barely scraped the surface of what this means. It is actually more information than a whole think tank of genius level scientists could ever contain in 10 lifetimes compared to a think tank with only the knowledge held by any general group of common persons in 10 lifetimes. See the difference? Vast, and incomprehensible, to say the least.
I guess what I would like people to see is how when we look at declared statistics of the very same genomic portrait from a different prospective area of approach, what a different picture we get. What is emphasized…the apparent smallness of numeric representation �5%� or the reality of over 120,000,000 differences in just this small section of the genome?
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #14
You sound like a "conspiracy theorist". Like as if science, academia, and the media are out to convince the masses of evolution over something else.pshun2404 wrote: Actually a complete genome comparison of human and chimp DNA has never been done (period)! However the masses are given this impression (the art of persuasion), and yet the details are not clarified.
I have two questions concerning that view.
1. What would the "something else" be?
There is no evidence at all for any creator or intelligent design behind anything. That's a fact. All that exists on that front is religious rumors and superstitions that have not been the least bit valid in their claims.
2. Have you ever considered that what you have dubbed "the art of persuasion", is nothing other than a rock-solid case for the only rational conclusion that can be had?
There simply is no other rational theory. There is no rational "Theory" of a creator who supposedly designed the world and everything in it. All that exists on that front is superstitious mythologies, and very poor ones at that.
You haven't addressed my questions.
If there was a designer who actually designed the human genome, then why do humans have an intestinal appendix? And many other of the obviously "poorly designed" biological features we have.
If human genetics was actually designed by a supposedly "Intelligent Designer", then why do horrible birth defect occur? Surely an omnipotent intelligent designer could design a genetic system that wouldn't be so fragile and prone to error?
In short, what good does it do you to question the most obvious explanation for how humans came to be, when you don't have a better "Theory" to replace it?
You might question the numbers involved here, but unless you have a better theory to replace the current theory, then why accuse people of practicing "The Art of Persuasion", when in fact, all they are doing is explaining the only rational theory we currently have?
You would need to produce a better "Theory". And pointing to ancient myths about a supposed creator God hardly constitutes a "better theory". There are simply too many problems with those unsubstantiated myths. Not the least of which is that there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. If humans were "intelligently designed" whoever designed them wasn't a very good engineer anyway. The fact that genetic defects occur in some births already demonstrates a gross defect in the "design".
If there was an intelligent designer behind it why design it in such a way that it is so fragile that it can fall apart and not always work correctly?
You're attempting to find fault with a theory of a "natural process" that is expected to be less than perfect.
But what do you have to offer to replace it? An "intelligent designer" that doesn't design very intelligently?
What sense does that make?
I don't see the sense in complaining about a scientific theory when you have no viable option to offer to replace it.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Post #15
We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc) they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…
We are bi-pedal and they are knuckle walkers,
We have pronounced chins they have small receded chins,
We have a big toe in line with our other toes and they have opposable or separated big toes, ours for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…
We have very different skeletal structures…
We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, they have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)
The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.
Chimp teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)
Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the chimps is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, chimps are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.
Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the chimps is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours,
We exhibit 3 main morphological types (Neanderthal Sapiens, Denisovan Sapiens, and Sapien sapiens) chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,
Chimp-kind is only found in Africa, while human-kind is found everywhere in the world,
Chimp intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence,
Humans live long compared to chimps,
Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,
We have a covering of fine hairs and theirs are thick, course, fur.
The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases taught by conditioning in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on.
Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary but also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me� to ask for an apple and “give me orange� to say they are tired now….they do not get confused or associate the difference…On the other hand, from a very young age, humans understand this. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple�…or at least exhibit confusion
We have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.
Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes vert abstract) while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.
Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that “chimps� are unable to infer the mental state of another, whether they are happy, sad, angry, interested in some goal, in love, jealous or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary). In addition, even trained “chimps� do not conversate with other individuals though as individuals they do demonstrate some basic emotions (anger, rage, happiness, grief, depression, etc.)
Just more to consider from the mind of a Homo Cognitarus….
We are bi-pedal and they are knuckle walkers,
We have pronounced chins they have small receded chins,
We have a big toe in line with our other toes and they have opposable or separated big toes, ours for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…
We have very different skeletal structures…
We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, they have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)
The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.
Chimp teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)
Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the chimps is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, chimps are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.
Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the chimps is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours,
We exhibit 3 main morphological types (Neanderthal Sapiens, Denisovan Sapiens, and Sapien sapiens) chimps do not demonstrate different morphological types,
Chimp-kind is only found in Africa, while human-kind is found everywhere in the world,
Chimp intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence,
Humans live long compared to chimps,
Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,
We have a covering of fine hairs and theirs are thick, course, fur.
The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases taught by conditioning in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on.
Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary but also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me� to ask for an apple and “give me orange� to say they are tired now….they do not get confused or associate the difference…On the other hand, from a very young age, humans understand this. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple�…or at least exhibit confusion
We have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.
Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes vert abstract) while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.
Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that “chimps� are unable to infer the mental state of another, whether they are happy, sad, angry, interested in some goal, in love, jealous or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary). In addition, even trained “chimps� do not conversate with other individuals though as individuals they do demonstrate some basic emotions (anger, rage, happiness, grief, depression, etc.)
Just more to consider from the mind of a Homo Cognitarus….
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #16
[Replying to post 15 by pshun2404]
That fact that you find these things difficult to understand is totally irrelevant. Clearly the scientists are aware of everything you've mentioned and they don't have a problem with these things.
Also, unless you have a better theory to offer your objections are moot.
As it currently stands all you are basically suggesting is that you personally don't understand how humans could have evolved so differently from chimpanzees.
Why should anyone else be bothered by that?
I recognize that viruses and insects can change radically over a few generations. Humans had millions of generations over which to change since they had parted ways from the original common ancestor they had with Chimpanzees. And don't forget that the Chimps were changing over that period of time as well.
So I'm not the least bit surprised that we are radically different from Chimps.
Just look at dogs as an example. The brain of a Large Saint Bernard is quite a bit larger than the brain of a small Chihuahua yet they are both still considered to be "dogs". So why should you be surprised that the brain of a human could be larger than that of a Chimp? And keep in mind that humans are the ones who caused the domestic dogs to change over the course of time. So the dogs evolved quite differently over a very short period of time compared to the time humans had to evolve.
Your objections simply make no sense.
And without an alternative "theory" to replace evolution theory you have nothing to offer anyway.
Keep in mind that any "theory" that humans were created by an intelligent designer has its own extreme problems. Not to mention absolutely no evidence to support it.
That fact that you find these things difficult to understand is totally irrelevant. Clearly the scientists are aware of everything you've mentioned and they don't have a problem with these things.
Also, unless you have a better theory to offer your objections are moot.
As it currently stands all you are basically suggesting is that you personally don't understand how humans could have evolved so differently from chimpanzees.
Why should anyone else be bothered by that?
I recognize that viruses and insects can change radically over a few generations. Humans had millions of generations over which to change since they had parted ways from the original common ancestor they had with Chimpanzees. And don't forget that the Chimps were changing over that period of time as well.
So I'm not the least bit surprised that we are radically different from Chimps.
Just look at dogs as an example. The brain of a Large Saint Bernard is quite a bit larger than the brain of a small Chihuahua yet they are both still considered to be "dogs". So why should you be surprised that the brain of a human could be larger than that of a Chimp? And keep in mind that humans are the ones who caused the domestic dogs to change over the course of time. So the dogs evolved quite differently over a very short period of time compared to the time humans had to evolve.
Your objections simply make no sense.
And without an alternative "theory" to replace evolution theory you have nothing to offer anyway.
Keep in mind that any "theory" that humans were created by an intelligent designer has its own extreme problems. Not to mention absolutely no evidence to support it.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Post #17
[Replying to post 12 by pshun2404]
I've found out over time, mostly because I made this mistake and got spanked for it in discussions, that you have to be careful when comparing % of difference among genomes. When you see "genome" that doesn't always mean the entire genetic sequence of a complete strand of DNA. Sometimes they are looking at "junk" DNA, sometimes they are looking at the whole genome, sometimes its the DNA that can be directly compared, sometimes it's at the protein level where amino acids are coded, sometime they are looking at the "banding" of dyed DNA....the variations are many. I'm not saying you made that mistake, I merely offer my past experience as an example of why you will see different percentages out there in the literature. Cheers.
I've found out over time, mostly because I made this mistake and got spanked for it in discussions, that you have to be careful when comparing % of difference among genomes. When you see "genome" that doesn't always mean the entire genetic sequence of a complete strand of DNA. Sometimes they are looking at "junk" DNA, sometimes they are looking at the whole genome, sometimes its the DNA that can be directly compared, sometimes it's at the protein level where amino acids are coded, sometime they are looking at the "banding" of dyed DNA....the variations are many. I'm not saying you made that mistake, I merely offer my past experience as an example of why you will see different percentages out there in the literature. Cheers.
Post #18
Once again ... No!pshun2404 wrote: [Replying to H.sapiens]
Me either...
Yes the way they design their tree (or bush) we split off at 6mya. What/who do we suppose that was?
There is no "they" who designed "their" tree (or bush).
Wiki reports that:
The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years ago (Pliocene).
Speciation from Pan to Homo appears to have been a long, drawn-out process. After the "original" divergence(s), there were, according to Patterson (2006), periods of hybridization between population groups and a process of alternating divergence and hybridization that lasted over several millions of years.[1] Sometime during the late Miocene or early Pliocene the earliest members of the human clade completed a final separation from the lineage of Pan — with dates estimated by several specialists ranging from 13 million [2] to as recent as 4 million years ago.[3] The latter date and the argument for hybridization events are rejected by Wakeley[4] (see current estimates regarding complex speciation).
Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the Pan genus and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior.[5] However, to date no fossil has been identified as a probable candidate for the CHLCA or the taxon Pan prior.
In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup, that is, as the extant species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Are you trying to make a case that in the other 67% of the genome there are greater differences? If so, you need to say that up front and provide some support for that claim.pshun2404 wrote: Wong. K., “Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome�, Scientific American, Sept. 2014, reveals that the “…tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function.� And though the recent comparisons are performed on only about 33% of the genome, “individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways.�
"National Geographic" is not a scholarly source worthy of serious comment. What does it matter if the differences we see are the result of 1.8% or 5%? The point is that the relative differences between humans and chimps is significantly less than that between humans and gorillas and chimps and gorillas, etc.pshun2404 wrote: In some of the presentations in articles and texts I see a language of persuasion! For example, IMWO the “only 1.8% difference� language describing the similarity between humans and chimps is just an opinion! The actual difference is more like 5% (National Geographic claims 4% but close enough to show the smaller number to be enhanced) and most scientists agree.
Do you have some evidence that a complete comparison would yield a different answer than a comparison that used a sub-sample of about a third? I can think few things in science where a full third of the population of interest is sampled. As far as Huff's book, it would appear that you never bothered to read it. Instution in how to use statistics in a deceitful way is central (and amusing) conceit of his work, one that he drops in the last chapter where he details how to recognize phony statistics and how to recognize sound and usable data. I submit that your analysis of the genomic comparisons is right up there with what Huff is warning everyone about.pshun2404 wrote: In the limited sections of the genome accessed, exploring the limited aspects of the genome that they used to derive these figures, add to that the fact that the common person will not bother to understand, most are simply persuaded by the appeal to authority, and by faith in statistics (see How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff…a must read for any statisticians). Actually a complete genome comparison of human and chimp DNA has never been done (period)! However the masses are given this impression (the art of persuasion), and yet the details are not clarified.
Not being able to infer to the general from the specific, a basis for much of modern science, is a prohibition that you need to provide a rationalization for ... that reads to my like nothing more than an argument from ignorance.pshun2404 wrote: The very best and most complete study so far as far as I know is Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y., 2002, ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134 and that study only utilized 19.8 million base pairs. Though this sounds huge, it really is not….it is really quite miniscule. Nothing learned in this study should be generalized as an overall fact.
Percentages are, perhaps, the least "rhetorical" manipulation, in fact, normalization to a base of 100 exists to make comparisons clear and easy to understand and involve no use of statistics.pshun2404 wrote: In addition, in the Britten study (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635) used only 779,000 base pairs. The study concludes 1.4% of the bases were “substitutions� (meaning completely different, and not actually one thing once that has been “substituted� later), plus they also added the additional number of indels (what can be “interpreted� as insertions or deletions when comparing one genome to another).
But remember, this was what was found using ONLY around 800,000 base pairs. Some indels were small sections being only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, but others were quite large (even as much as 1000 base pairs long). These additional indels have been added into the alleged “percentile� similarity/difference conclusion changing the figure from 1.8 to 5%. Now multiply that out for the complete genome and the differences are nearing astronomical (but that will come in time). But even when speaking from this limited perspective, as slight as even 5 % may sound, that difference is HUGE.
The Human Haploid Genome contains around 3 BILLION base pairs. Now if we take away the approximate 2,010,000,000 similar pairs (around 67%), that actually contain many differences in function, that leaves 990,000,000 base pairs of which around 1/6th definitely vary, which means there may be around 165,000,000 differences in just these base pairs between humans and chimps. That is just one of the ways to look at it. Another straight forward comparison shows there to be about 120,000,000 base pairs as differing (4% of 3,000,000,000). Again, despite the rhetorical manipulations which make us think we are almost the same, that is a huge number of differences (especially considering THE FACT that we do not even understand the purpose and function of but a few % of the genome itself…see the Encode Project).
(please note: chimps are ape, people are ape, I think you meant what makes us human as opposed to what makes chimps chimps)pshun2404 wrote: As for the near 67% (shared by all species categorized “Primate�) as appearing to be nearly identical (most of which translates into our having blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on), this still does not mean one came from the other….but based on the way we have determined to categorize things this really only means we all fit in that man-determined category…nothing else! Via this section. we all are mammals, with hair, and genitalia, feeding our young via mammary glands, and so on and within that all primates. But the Encode project is discovering what was thought to be the same genes function differently and even combine differently in expression. I would suggest (a personal hypothesis) that we will find these unique combinations and functions will differ from one species to another widening the gap. But that aside, the approximated “5% difference� exists only in the other 33% which means we have an actual difference of about 1/6th of what makes us human as opposed to what makes chimps ape,
A rational person would hard pressed to style your suggestion a "hypothesis" since it contains within itself its own regressive falsification. You state that "we will find these unique combinations and functions will differ from one species to another widening the gap." On the assumption that blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on, are somehow "immune." But the fact is that our jaw is, in large part, the result of the reduction in jaw muscle, that was a requirement for our cranial capacity to increase. You can't separate things the way you want to without oversimplification and commensurate incorrectness.pshun2404 wrote: and that number of differences in the base pairs is still in the millions of differences (most of which we do not even understand at this point, though we are coming along).
Because percentages are better understood and more clearly indicate, in a human scale, the issue.pshun2404 wrote: Why not just say we have found at least 120,000,000 differences?
No, not really, it is quite fathomable when viewed as a percentage ... your interest here seems to be to make things incomprehensible so as to defend what is in the end, your appeal to ignorance.pshun2404 wrote: When stated like that (just the data)…if we count the number of possible functions and forms possibly effected, IMO it’s like the difference between arithmetic and calculus. The amount of information encoded in over 120 million base pairs is unfathomable.
See? I must be prescient, or perhaps you are just very predictable.pshun2404 wrote: Plus we have barely scraped the surface of what this means. It is actually more information than a whole think tank of genius level scientists could ever contain in 10 lifetimes compared to a think tank with only the knowledge held by any general group of common persons in 10 lifetimes. See the difference? Vast, and incomprehensible, to say the least.
North America has a population of about 390 million, sounds like a lot of people, but that is (after all) only 5% of the world's population. 390 million can only be understood in the abstract, 5% or five cents on the dollar, makes immediate sense to most people.pshun2404 wrote: I guess what I would like people to see is how when we look at declared statistics of the very same genomic portrait from a different prospective area of approach, what a different picture we get. What is emphasized…the apparent smallness of numeric representation �5%� or the reality of over 120,000,000 differences in just this small section of the genome?
Post #19
See? I must be prescient, or perhaps you are just very predictable.
Not difficult when one has already read what the other has said...therefore neither are you prescient nor I predictable....but the "appeal to ignorance" insult? Now that is predictable.
Not difficult when one has already read what the other has said...therefore neither are you prescient nor I predictable....but the "appeal to ignorance" insult? Now that is predictable.
Post #20
If you think it is an insult, you most likely do not know what it means.pshun2404 wrote: See? I must be prescient, or perhaps you are just very predictable.
Not difficult when one has already read what the other has said...therefore neither are you prescient nor I predictable....but the "appeal to ignorance" insult? Now that is predictable.
Let me help you out:
1. An "appeal to ignorance" is not a statement that you are ignorant.
2. An "appeal to ignorance," is a fallacy in informal logic. The name comes from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam. The "ignorance" referred to is "a lack of contrary evidence." It is the assertion that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false.
