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?

[H.sapiens]

So what do you have to add H....more on how they are similar or how they are different...no? Nothing but another ad hominem?

An ad hominem? Where?

The point is that your assumptions don't stand up. If you disagree, make a case. But, so far you have failed to do so and now you insult me with an accusation of committing a logical fallacy that you can't support either.

By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same ... such nonsense.

[Blastcat]

Th reason I ask is because I believe the differences are actually far greater than presented in the media....

Maybe we should pay attention to better media, or to better scientists.
Not all media or scientists are equal in the accuracy of their reports.

[pshun2404]

An ad hominem? Where?

The point is that your assumptions don't stand up. If you disagree, make a case. But, so far you have failed to do so and now you insult me with an accusation of committing a logical fallacy that you can't support either.

By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same ... such nonsense.

You are continually implicating things about my person, intelligence, understanding, etc...thus ad hominem (though subtle as they may be)

An when you say "By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same"

Not at all... I said depending on which description you present IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same...IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is used they get a totally different perspective (it is the science of rhetoric and propaganda to present in a way that supports the opinion we want them to have)

Now since I assume you are taking the opposite position can you contribute additional instances that show we are similar???? No personal shots or misrepresentations necessary...

[H.sapiens]

So what do you have to add H....more on how they are similar or how they are different...no? Nothing but another ad hominem?

An ad hominem? Where?

The point is that your assumptions don't stand up. If you disagree, make a case. But, so far you have failed to do so and now you insult me with an accusation of committing a logical fallacy that you can't support either.

By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same ... such nonsense.

You are continually implicating things about my person, intelligence, understanding, etc...thus ad hominem (though subtle as they may be)

You need to look up what an ad hominem is. OK, I'll save you the trouble:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

To be a logical fallacy an ad hominem requires a claim or argument that is based on some irrelevant fact or supposition. I did not do this, I went directly at the heart of your claims and arguments an shattered them. If that made you appear lacking in person, intelligence, or understanding, well, that was not my doing, that stemmed from the inherent weakness of your position and the quality of your argumentation. This is, after all, a debate forum and it is expected that I take full advantage of such opportunities, within the bounds of reasonable civility.

What you are doing now appears to be nothing more than playing out "the Black Knight Syndrome."

An when you say "By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same"

That was a fallacious argument that you were trying to make that I falsified. If you feel that I implied things about your intelligence and understanding in doing so, I'm sorry, but that really can not be helped given the fact that you are basically trying to argue that two plus two is not the same as one plus three.

Not at all... I said depending on which description you present IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same...IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is used they get a totally different perspective (it is the science of rhetoric and propaganda to present in a way that supports the opinion we want them to have).

Exactly, your argument is based on the wrongheaded assumption that people are too stupid to understand that 120 million out of 3 billion is about 5%. I have more respect for the common sense of "the masses" than you do.

Now since I assume you are taking the opposite position can you contribute additional instances that show we are similar???? No personal shots or misrepresentations necessary...

There is no need to, 5% (or 120 million out of 3 billion, if you prefer) says it all. You have made a great case for similarity, I need do no more than rest on your laurels.

[pshun2404]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

Yes indeed that is exactly what you did....you tried to belittle me rather than address the issues I posted...

An when you say "By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same"

That was a fallacious argument that you were trying to make that I falsified.

No you created a strawman by misrepresenting what I said and then knocking that down.

Please address the OP and give some examples of how we are similar....here I will even start this side for you since you insist on diverting and making it personal...

Our Broca's and Warenke's areas (required for speech and comprehension of speech) are larger and more convoluted than those in chimps, but they still have them. Now I agree WE BOTH HAVE THEM (similarity) but I would say it is an important DIFFERENCE between humans and chimps that we have a far more accentuated one giving us unique abilities they do not share (difference)

So can you add some other similarities to support the "we are very similar" hypothesis?

Not at all... I said depending on which description you present IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same...IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is used they get a totally different perspective (it is the science of rhetoric and propaganda to present in a way that supports the opinion we want them to have).
Exactly, your argument is based on the wrongheaded assumption that people are too stupid to understand that 120 million out of 3 billion is about 5%. I have more respect for the common sense of "the masses" than you do.

So I know everyone can see the "wrongheaded" ad hominem as well as the false accusation that I must think "people are too stupid" but I actually have great respect for the common sense of the masses and that's why I gave this example...so rather than be persuaded they can understand and then make up their minds for themselves. This is necessary because we humans ARE easily persuaded by the opinion of those we think are authorities, and often have difficulty separating the science (the actual data) from the opinion of the scientists telling them what they believe this means.

As you SHOULD be well aware of the public opinion is pro-actively shaped....Edward Berneys, the father of Public Relations, in his book Propaganda tells us the opinion of our leadership. He says

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.�

One of the ways our opinion is shaped (engineered) is by how we present material. The data these scientists reported was without motive and true, but their interpretation of the data (what THEY inferred from the data) is not necessarily the truth. In this case, presenting it one way supports their pre-accepted hypothesis and presented the other way calls it into question and elicits more study being necessary.

[H.sapiens]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.
Yes indeed that is exactly what you did....you tried to belittle me rather than address the issues I posted...

You are confusing losing an argument with an ad hominem attack. I simply pointed out that what you said was wrong . I directly attacked the argument and not the person. But, some damage to the person is an inevitable collateral damage problem, ... that is what happens in a debate, when someone shows that you are wrong it naturally reflects on your personal attributes and abilities, even when there is no intent to do so.

An when you say "By the way, all you have said is that two values that are algebraically the same, aren't the same"

That was a fallacious argument that you were trying to make that I falsified.

No you created a strawman by misrepresenting what I said and then knocking that down.

No, I did not misrepresent what you said, I just pointed out that it was both wrong and wrongheaded, I do seem to have touched a nerve.

Please address the OP and give some examples of how we are similar....here I will even start this side for you since you insist on diverting and making it personal...

Give us all a break ... I did that in my first contribution, back in Post 4:

Th reason I ask is because I believe the differences are actually far greater than presented in the media....

What is presented in "the media" is rather irrelevant. "The media" rarely gets it right, especially when dealing with complex issues on the cutting edge.

Orphan genes are the latest hobby horse for the creationists, but rather than buttressing their case, contained in their very argument is yet another example of how intellectual depauperate creationist theory is. Creationists would have you believe that the discovery of orphan genes falsifies evolutionary theory. Creationists spend no time either looking at the hypothesis being advanced concerning orphan genes, nor do they make any attempt at fitting orphan genes into a framework that explains either the orphan genes themselves or integrates any of what is know of genetics into a creationist theory that steps out beyond the argument from ignorance that "god did it" that is so easy to make on the cutting edge of science where there are issues that have yet to be clarified. Real science says, "wow, that's interesting ... here are some competing ideas, we'll work it out in time.

Wiki identifies three origins, which are likely not mutually exclusive:

De Novo Origination: Novel orphan genes continually arise de novo from non-coding sequences. These novel genes may be sufficiently beneficial to be swept to fixation by selection. Or, more likely, they will fade back into the non-genic background. That young genes are more likely to go extinct (become pseudogenes) has recently been confirmed in Drosophila.

Duplication and Divergence: The duplication and divergence model for orphan genes involves a new gene being created from some duplication or divergence event and undergoing a period of rapid evolution where all detectable similarity to the originally duplicated gene is lost. While this explanation is consistent with current understandings of duplication mechanisms, the number of mutations needed to lose detectable similarity is large enough as to be a rare event, and the evolutionary mechanism by which a gene duplicate could be sequestered and diverge so rapidly remains unclear.

Horizontal Gene Transfer: Another explanation for how orphan genes arise is through a duplication mechanism called horizontal gene transfer, where the original duplicated gene derives from a separate, unknown lineage. This explanation for the origin of orphan genes is especially relevant in bacteria and archaea, where horizontal gene transfer is common. At least in bacteria, there is no correlation between organism complexity and orphan genes percentage. Likewise, in bacteria, there is no correlation between orphan percentage and genome length.

Let's not forget the source of such variability, mutation, and the work that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, demonstrating the reasonableness of Lodish's 2005 work that estimated that an individual cell can suffer up to one million DNA changes per day. There is fertile ground there to argue that even with seemingly tiny fitness advantage, the precursors present, the so called orphan genes, are chomping at the bit to launch down their unique evolutionary paths.

Our Broca's and Warenke's areas (required for speech and comprehension of speech) are larger and more convoluted than those in chimps, but they still have them. Now I agree WE BOTH HAVE THEM (similarity) but I would say it is an important DIFFERENCE between humans and chimps that we have a far more accentuated one giving us unique abilities they do not share (difference)

So what is your point. I agree that we are the same, only different, that is to say about 5% different. That does not change the fact that chimps are our closest living taxonomic relatives.

So can you add some other similarities to support the "we are very similar" hypothesis?

Um ... how about 95% similar genome?

Not at all... I said depending on which description you present IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same...IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is used they get a totally different perspective (it is the science of rhetoric and propaganda to present in a way that supports the opinion we want them to have).

No, 120 million out of 3 billion remains about 5%. You just think that people are stupid.

Exactly, your argument is based on the wrongheaded assumption that people are too stupid to understand that 120 million out of 3 billion is about 5%. I have more respect for the common sense of "the masses" than you do.

So I know everyone can see the "wrongheaded" ad hominem as well as the false accusation that I must think "people are too stupid" but I actually have great respect for the common sense of the masses and that's why I gave this example...so rather than be persuaded they can understand and then make up their minds for themselves. This is necessary because we humans ARE easily persuaded by the opinion of those we think are authorities, and often have difficulty separating the science (the actual data) from the opinion of the scientists telling them what they believe this means.

Pointing out the "wrongheadedness" of your disparagement of people by describing them as "the masses" (as thought you are better than they are) and assuming that they can't deal with simple long division is hardly an ad hominem, it is an indictment of your explicitly stated world view.

As you SHOULD be well aware of the public opinion is pro-actively shaped....Edward Berneys, the father of Public Relations, in his book Propaganda tells us the opinion of our leadership. He says

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.�

Interesting that you quote him with such ease, he shared you views concerning "the masses," which he regarded as irrational and dangerous.

One of the ways our opinion is shaped (engineered) is by how we present material. The data these scientists reported was without motive and true, but their interpretation of the data (what THEY inferred from the data) is not necessarily the truth. In this case, presenting it one way supports their pre-accepted hypothesis and presented the other way calls it into question and elicits more study being necessary.

Here is, perhaps, a better representation:

[pshun2404]

No, I did not misrepresent what you said, I just pointed out that it was both wrong and wrongheaded, I do seem to have touched a nerve.

Emotionalism never entered into it for a moment.

[pshun2404]

Interesting that you quote him with such ease, he shared you views concerning "the masses," which he regarded as irrational and dangerous.

I do not think they are naturally either. He was instrumental in teaching how they do this and how to do this. That it happens every day is reality.

As for genomic similarities some are simply because physically we are all living creatures, others because we are mammalian, others because we are primates. Thus we ARE related (as in similar) but does not necessitate being "related" in a lineage sense. We also share in the 90+ % range with pigs and mice but who tries to make a case for humans evolving from a common ancestor with pigs?

The science demonstrates properly and actually the similarities (the actual data) and then the SCIENTISTS tell us what THEY think this means (stuff of the imagination and human opinion) because they accept the theoretical position that we came from a common ancestor (though we've never found one).

There is nothing wrong with the science but I question their conclusion and believe it is motivated by the hypothesis they accept as true. I believe it was you who once admitted they take the data and INFER based on what they consider the likelihood. Well inference is "interpretation" not fact. It is what CAN BE inferred when one presupposes the over-all view. But the actual data simply says we have these on common it does not say it shows one came from another OR that both came from a similar source.

[H.sapiens]

Interesting that you quote him with such ease, he shared your views concerning "the masses," which he regarded as irrational and dangerous.

I do not think they are naturally either. He was instrumental in teaching how they do this and how to do this. That it happens every day is reality.

So ... you think that "the masses" are unnaturally both?

As for genomic similarities some are simply because physically we are all living creatures, others because we are mammalian, others because we are primates.

You are making my point for me. Some are because we are alive, some are because we are animals, some are because we are vertebrates, some are because we are Synapsids, some are because we are mammals, some are because we are primates, some are because we are Haplorhinids and some are because we are Hominids. With each step in the taxonomy we asymptotically approach zero difference as the limit.

Thus we ARE related (as in similar) but does not necessitate being "related" in a lineage sense. We also share in the 90+ % range with pigs and mice but who tries to make a case for humans evolving from a common ancestor with pigs?

There is no scientific basis for your claim that there exists no lineage relationship. That is presuppositional claptrap. All of science maintains that the taxonomy I presented is also an accurate description of our "blood relations" with other taxons.


The relationship is more on the order of 98% for chimps, 92% for pigs and 86% for mice. Of course we share a common ancestor with pigs as we do with mice and every other species on earth ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC383294/ http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... and-mouse/ ). Every biologist will tell you that.

With specificity to humans, pigs and mice, Wernersson noted, back in 2005:

Even though divergence between pig and human occurred approximately at the same time as the divergence between human and mouse, the pig sequence is much more similar to the human sequence. Thus, the availability of the pig sequence effectively subdivides the human-mouse evolutionary branch at a position closest to human. This implies that one can determine which changes occurred on the human and mouse branches, respectively, since their divergence. The results of the phylogenetic analysis show that the relative length of the mouse, human and pig branches are different for the different types of data. Intronic sites and intergenic sites show a similar pattern, which also closely resembles that of synonymous sites, reflecting that purifying selection is probably weak and similar for these regions. It is noteworthy that intergenic branch lengths are slightly shorter than intronic ones (and both are shorter than synonymous sites. This may reflect either 1) more selective constraints on intergenic sequences than intronic, i.e. parts of the annotated intergenic sequences are indeed genic, or 2) a bias in the construction of the human-mouse alignment that make it easier to align sequence close to the conserved exons so that somewhat more divergent intronic sequence can be detected. The differences in evolutionary rates among the three species are most likely attributable to differences in generation times since they diverged. Non-synonymous sites show shorter branches that are much more similar in lengths among the species. This reflects purifying selection, which has been strongest in the mouse lineage, followed by pig and then human. The reason for this may be the larger average population size in the mouse since divergence. The UTR regions shows more selective constraint than introns.

The similarity between human and pig adds to the recently reported ultra-conserved regions. Pig and human share more ultra-conserved regions than human and mouse, and (correcting for the coverage in the data presented) virtually all of the ultra-conserved elements defined by Bejerano et al. are also found in pig and therefore most likely in the artiodactyls lineage.

Variation in GC content along the genome (isochore structure) is more pronounced in primates than in rodents. The present results extend these findings and put artiodactyls in line with primates – lending further support to the suggestion that isochore evolution in rodents deviates from all other lineages, possibly because of extensive genome rearrangements.

The science demonstrates properly and actually the similarities (the actual data) and then the SCIENTISTS tell us what THEY think this means (stuff of the imagination and human opinion) because they accept the theoretical position that we came from a common ancestor (though we've never found one).

Not true, perhaps the latest and best know is the mother of all terrestrial tetrapods: Tiktaalik roseae http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_04

There is complete agreement between the fossil record, the genomic data, and immunological studies, there are no discrepancies.

There is nothing wrong with the science but I question their conclusion and believe it is motivated by the hypothesis they accept as true.

Then you are in conflict will all of modern science and you need to first falsify those conclusions and then provide an alternative conclusion that is not also falsified. That requires more than presupposition, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling.

I believe it was you who once admitted they take the data and INFER based on what they consider the likelihood.

Absolutely, that is how science works. Science is, in large part, based on best possible inference.

Well inference is "interpretation" not fact. It is what CAN BE inferred when one presupposes the over-all view. But the actual data simply says we have these on common it does not say it shows one came from another OR that both came from a similar source.

There are no "facts," nothing can be "proven," there are just best guesses that are always open to dispute and falsification, tasks that you do not seem to be willing to undertake. I would love to see you actually try. Come on, rise to the challenge, get beyond prepositional nay-saying and present your data, explain your analysis, show us your conclusions.

Let us have a book of pshun, We shall excise you from the Pentateuch and slip you neatly into a peer reviewed journal between Darwin and Dawkins. That is, if you actually have a case to make.

[Wootah]

So what do you have to add H....more on how they are similar or how they are different...no? Nothing but another ad hominem?

Moderator Warning

One thing is certain, your post added nothing to the debate. If you are feeling attacked - report the post and let the mods weigh in.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.