Posted on 06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT by lasereye
i know they are but demmom seemed to indicate it shouldn’t be included becasue, in her words,
“If you compare regions of non-coding DNA between any two species or even sub-species, you will find far more divergence than if you compare the coding regions between the same two species...
Thus, any mutations within that region have no effect on survival. On the other hand, the coding regions of DNA are far less tolerant of changes in bases. Some mutations within the coding region will have little effect: for instance, TAA, TGA, and TAG all mean “Stop” (as in, that is the end of the protein molecule). Thus, an A to G or G to A mutation in those sequences has little effect.”
That seemed to indicate that only the coding DNA should be taken into account unless i was misunderstanding her comments-
I cannot speak for her but I believe she was not saying anything should be excluded but was addressing the claim in the title that DNA science disproves evolution, using this as evidence from DNA science that supports evolutionary theory.
again, i may have misunderstood, but it seemed she was accusing the author of being intentionally deceitful for including areas that shouldn’t have been included or taken into consideration because they were ‘non coding’-
Our FRiend iffinnegan is obviously putting out dog whistles to our anti-evolutionists who respond warmly, while (presumably) *his* posts to us are consistently hostile.
But at the same time, iffinnegan seems to claim he's not anti-evolution.
So he's playing some kind of game, likely involving word definitions, but I've not figured out what it is.
So whatever "tree" iffinnegan has actually climbed up, he's working hard to conceal its true location.
It should not surprise anyone that calculations of percent similarities & differences in DNA will vary depending what assumptions and rules are used.
So when we say all human DNA is 99.9% identical, that is based on different assumptions than when we say human & chimp DNA is 98% or 84% *similar*.
The key point exDemMom brings out is that mutations accumulate faster in non-coding regions of DNA than in coding regions.
And she tells us the reason: because non-coding mutations have no significant effects on survival, whereas coding mutations can be catastrophic and prevent reproduction.
Now ifinnegan wishes us to understand that non-coding DNA can have important functions, but that idea is not fully accepted, for one reason because non-coding mutations accumulate so readily.
The key point then is: if non-coding regions have no or little functions, then **any** differences there are totally irrelevant and should not be used in percent comparisons.
On the other hand, if non-coding has important functions then their differences are significant enough to consider in percent similar calculations.
[[On the other hand, if non-coding has important functions then their differences are significant enough to consider in percent similar calculations.]]
That’s the key point of hte discussion- the link i gave cites several articles, done by ‘secularists’ btw, throughout history, that indicate we should be counting it all, or at least much of what had been deceitfully thrown out when doing comparisons
“So he’s playing some kind of game, likely involving word definitions, but I’ve not figured out what it is.”
I suggest dropping your paranoia and tribalism.
“Now ifinnegan wishes us to understand that non-coding DNA can have important functions, but that idea is not fully accepted”
Yes it is. Questions exist as to the degree of “functionality” and what is considered functional, hence my quotes.
“The key point then is: if non-coding regions have no or little functions, then **any** differences there are totally irrelevant and should not be used in percent comparisons.”
No. Apples must be compared to apples so if it is a whole genome comparison all base pairs in each entire genome are compared, if it is a coding sequence then coding sequences are compared.
It’s not hard to understand. Neither is “better”.
I can’t make up my mind
Is this piece balderdacious drivel or drivelous balderdash?
;-)
I suggest you tell us what game you're really playing here.
Or, to use your own metaphor, which tree are you hiding in?
“I suggest you tell us what game you’re really playing here.”
This is what I mean by your paranoia.
But there's no "deceit" if we understand that over 90% of DNA is non-coding and mutations there have no visible effects on survival & reproduction.
But coding regions are quite different -- there any mutations can be fatal resulting in Natural Selection weeding those mutations out of our gene pools.
Yes, I "get" that some people now suspect some non-coding DNA does have some functions.
However, it's not yet been shown that DNA mutations there effect survivability, and therefore in terms of coding percent similarities, such mutations are irrelevant.
Bottom line: if you wish to include all non-coding DNA in your comparison of chimps & humans such that it shows only, what is it, 85% similarities, that's fine.
So long as you properly identify how you arrived at your number, it's legit.
But in terms of DNA that truly matters -- protein coding DNA -- the figure of 98% (plus or minus) similarity between chimps & humans is still valid.
The reason is Natural Selection working on Descent with Modifications, just as Darwin predicted.
Bob434 is calling comparisons of just the coding regions "deceitful" because they give us figures like 98% similarity between chimps & humans.
ExDemMom points out that non-coding regions are much more subject to enduring mutations, since such mutations have no known effects on survival or reproduction.
Hence non-coding mutations are not weeded out by Natural Selection and thus accumulate generation to generation.
So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity, I have no real problem with it, so long as you properly identify what you did.
But in terms of actual working parts -- protein coding DNA -- the old number of 98% (plus or minus) similarity remains as valid as ever.
And the reason is Natural Selection.
No "paranoia" here, just responding reasonably to your inexplicable hostility and notable dishonesty.
What's up with that?
[[So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity,]]
I never stated that the whole genome was necessary to compare- only pointing out that, as ifinnigan states, that some of the non coding regions are more important than we’re being led to believe by the ‘ape to man’ crowd-
And yes, I use the word deceit because of how the latest studies were conducted- throwing out info that was pertinent, and ‘filling in the gaps/ by using human genome instead of a complete chimp genome to do the comparisons as the original article indicated
[[since such mutations have no known effects on survival or reproduction.]]
Two posts ago you stated it may- which is it? “No known Effect”? Or “May be according to some”?
“So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity, I have no real problem with it, so long as you properly identify what you did.”
That’s right.
It was right hundreds of posts ago too.
“...your inexplicable hostility and notable dishonesty.”
This is untrue and unsupportable and reflects poorly on your character.
Both are true: some researchers say some non-coding DNA may have actual functions, however, no researchers have identified positive or negative affects on survivability & reproduction from mutations in non-coding DNA.
That's why Natural Selection does not eliminate mutations in non-coding DNA and so they accumulate generation after generation.
So, when you use non-coding DNA to claim only 85% similarity between chimps & humans, well, then, imho, you are practicing just a weee little bit of, ahem, deceit yourself, aren't you?
But it was never expressed until my post #234.
Why is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.