Posted on 06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT by lasereye
ifinnegan: "This is untrue and unsupportable and reflects poorly on your character."
No post of yours strikes me as either honest or friendly.
They all seem to have some hidden hostile agenda, and you repeatedly refuse to tell us just what it is.
Why is that?
It does badly hurt Conservatives, but none who have studied Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy during pre-med studies.
Your best Evolution argument is to, “Ask your doctor”.
“No post of yours strikes me as either honest or friendly.
They all seem to have some hidden hostile agenda, and you repeatedly refuse to tell us just what it is.
Why is that?”
Because you are paranoid.
[[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?]]
Please point to where i ever claimed 85%- so no- I’m not being deceitful- I’m asking about the viability of non coding areas and what importance they may have- I’m not the one throwing out all the non coding areas, nor am i the one using human genome to substitute for incomplete chimp genome-
“But it was never expressed until my post #234.”
?????
The original article is about comparing genomes.
The discussion has been about comparing genomes.
A less than honest answer, and totally typical.
85% is the figure from this thread's article, mentioned there five times and about a dozen times in these posts.
I assume you accept 85% and indeed much prefer it to the "deceitful" more usual number of 98.5% similarity.
What ExDemMom pointed out is the difference: measuring coding versus non-coding DNA.
If we stick with just protein coding DNA, then we get about 98.5% similarity of human & chimp DNA.
But if we include the non-coding then similarity drops to just 85% -- or at least that's my non-professional, interested observer understanding.
So, are you telling us now you have a problem with the 85% number?
[[I assume you accept 85%]]
See what happens when you assume? I stated clearly in several posts though that I was not sure what the % would be- I even cited a link to several ‘secular studies’ comparisons that came up with different %’s and wondered out loud which would be more accurate-
[[So, are you telling us now you have a problem with the 85% number?]]
I never said i had a problem with it or accepted it- you assumed wrong
So, you really don’t know what you think?
OK, do you at least “get” that different methods produce different results, and no method is necessarily “deceitful” if we understand how it was done?
I’ll repeat my understanding that tbe significance of the difference between 98.5% and 85% is whether non-coding DNA has any value in Natural Selection.
Some say it does.
But logically, if it did, tbe we would not expect to see so many more mutations in non-coding than coding DNA, yet we do.
It suggests the affects of non-coding mutations are minor to zero.
And that means using non-coding to measure DNA % similarity is less tban ideal.
For meaningful comparisons, the 98.5% is more realistic.
You disagree?
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.