Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[pshun2404]

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?

[Bust Nak]

Ves·tig·i·al

In BIOLOGY: (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution. Being or having the form of a vestige.

Merriam Webster’s, Oxford’s, and all other definitions agree...there is no need to redefine the term or make up ever newer nuances to support one’s view, Just read what the word means and apply it.

A degenerate tail with the bone tissue missing, making it functionless? Sounds very much like the Merriam Webster’s, Oxford’s, and all other definition of vestige to me. Thanks for affirming my position.

[morty]

I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?

Why would anyone agree to that?

Your posts are far more eloquent and well written than the majority of creationist posts on these subjects, for certain, but that you do not know how to interpret something as basic as a cladogram, despite arguing against their implications, says much.

[morty]

But even sequentially similar genes in the embryonic stem cells of humans vs chimps, though found in the same order, combine and function in very different ways (Maria C. N. Marchetto, “Differential L1 Regulation in Pluripotent Stem cells in humans and apes�, Nature, Vol. 503, Issue 7477, 2013). Why would one creature diverge in such different ways?

Why would they be created with sequentially similar genes despite differing combinatorial function?

Now the same thing is being found to be true in the areas once thought to be “junk� or mere non-functional leftovers from ancient ancestors. Actually this area is quite active and not only plays an important role in the life of each and every creature, but also in disease. But again, sequentially similar areas function very differently and demonstrate different purpose in these two different creatures. In this area chimps and humans are different in about 20% of the cases viewed. That's way larger than 1 or 2%.

Here is the paper you cited:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064720/

Can you point out where this 20% difference is indicated, I cannot find it. Unless you were referring to something else?

Regarding junkDNA - the reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/ ... 018-7.html

According to the researchers this difference effects many systems, and many functions, from the higher levels of expression (in the humans) that “repress the movement of the retrotransposons, to gene expressions related to triggering developmental pathways, responding to environmental stimuli, even adapting to new food sources.�

Just a few more differences to consider...

And these changes in genes and expression related to development are exactly the sorts of differences we would really expect to see!

Creationists have all along believed that the 'numbers' of mutations is just too few - ReMine made a career out of his wrong-headed and somewhat dishonest hawking of 'Haldane's dilemma' as only allowing 1667 beneficial mutations to become fixed since the estimated divergence from the chimp lineage - and darn it, according to ReMine, that is just not enough.

One of the reasons that this is 'just not enough' according to creationists is that they seem to actually believe that each and every minor phenotypic alteration requires a series of specific mutations. I once read a creationist had claimed that the number of mutations he thought would have been required to account for bipedalism from knuckle-walking ancestors to be 1 million!

And thanks to the link you cited, it is clear that this is a total farce (actually, that was known a long time ago) premised on ignorance of development and genetics.

Indeed, it appears that it is mere tweaking of developmental cascades - such as via the more active LI in chimps, as an example - is more of an actor in these transitions than are large numbers of mutations.