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?

[pshun2404]

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

[Divine Insight]

Humans didn't evolved from Chimpanzees.

That might help you out a bit.

Humans co-evolved alongside Chimpanzees from a common primate ancestor.

There were also apparently several different species of hominids as well.

You ask, "How similar are we really?'

The answer seems pretty obvious. We are similar enough to have originated from a common ancestor.

[H.sapiens]

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.

[pshun2404]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Except I would suggest that there are a much larger number of differences than the media presentations would lead us to believe...they would like us to think we are variations of the same creature at some point, but the data does not necessarily demonstrate that to be true, only possible. The genetics IMO only show the reasons for our physically all being mammals and then primates within that classification.

Just because something precedes something else does not necessitate that the primary caused the secondary, nor that something preceding two things is related to producing either or both. It COULD BE possible and even MAY BE possible but we do not know, and thus should not rhetorically present these subjunctives as truth.

Take statistics for example (and I know you know this), what sample, how large, from where, etc., all effect what the statistic could or may imply. Also from a number of statistical tests on the same subject matter often the tester decides or chooses the results needed to support their pre-concluded view or must use a line of best guess (which in itself can be deceptive based on the other factors mentioned above...the sample size, the who, the what, the where, the when, etc.)

[pshun2404]

[Replying to post 4 by H.sapiens]


I certainly can agree that given billions of years the unique combinations of Alleles and rarely but remaining mutations out of the millions you mentioned could be an explanation...definitely possible! What I meant by "media presentations" are the impressions of a less than 2% difference (as if that is so miniscule) where most scientists side more to the 4-5% range..and even those figure are derived from small selected and compared sections of the genome. Secondly it should be made clear what we mean when we say 4-5% (which is actually quite huge revealing millions of areas of difference).

[Divine Insight]

Just because something precedes something else does not necessitate that the primary caused the secondary, nor that something preceding two things is related to producing either or both. It COULD BE possible and even MAY BE possible but we do not know, and thus should not rhetorically present these subjunctives as truth.

It's not being presented as "truth". It's simply being presented as the most rational and logical answer that has ever been provided to date.

Mythological and religious creation stories are not rational. Not only are they not rational, but consider simple things like the human intestinal appendix. Why would a supposedly "Designing Creator" have designed such obvious flaws into humans? And this is only one example.

So you are actually thinking incorrectly if you think that science is being presented as the truth. It's simply being presented as the most rational, logical, and compelling conclusion offered thus far.

Obviously if there were a designing creator said creator could have done the things we see. But the bottom line to that is that it simply makes no sense. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence to even support those kinds of guesses.

There is no evidence that species are individually designed by a creator.

Moreover, think of all the species that are known to have gone extinct. What would that have been all about if there were a designer behind the process? That would imply that the designer either isn't very good at designing things since they seem to die off on their own after they have been designed, or the designer is working on a trial and error basis just experimenting with different designs.

So science isn't being presented as the "truth". It's simply being presented as the most convincing and compelling conclusion to date based on the actual evidence.

There is no evidence of any kind that would suggest an intelligent designer is behind anything. So that idea isn't even in the running as being a potentially competitive idea.

Other than religious mythologies that can't possibly be true verbatim as they have been historically recorded, there simply is no reason to suspect that anything has been "intelligently designed" on purpose.

The scientific evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming and has no competition. Religious mythologies that can't possibly be true verbatim as they have been historically recorded simply aren't credible competition.

Appealing to statistics isn't going to change that fact.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 4 by H.sapiens]


I certainly can agree that given billions of years the unique combinations of Alleles and rarely but remaining mutations out of the millions you mentioned could be an explanation...definitely possible! What I meant by "media presentations" are the impressions of a less than 2% difference (as if that is so miniscule) where most scientists side more to the 4-5% range..and even those figure are derived from small selected and compared sections of the genome. Secondly it should be made clear what we mean when we say 4-5% (which is actually quite huge revealing millions of areas of difference).

I've never been really sure what the popular claims of various percentages meant. The real point is that even if seen as just a relative measure the application of cladistics permits us to view the relationships:

[pshun2404]

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?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to pshun2404]

No. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor more recently than they do a common ancestor with gorillas, etc.