Replies

Actually his understanding of the genomic science was not bad. When he wrote:
“Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task.”
He is absolutely right. True for any genomic comparisons, with greater non-triviality with increasing size and complexity.

He left out a lot of very pertinent details--that is, he cherry-picked which facts to include and which to omit. That is not scientific. One of the very pertinent facts he "forgot" to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA. 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. That is because there is little to no selective pressure to maintain the DNA sequences of non-coding regions. If the only purpose of that stretch of DNA is to fill space, it does not matter much what the sequence is. 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. But a change in that T to anything else would have an effect, because the stop would be lost, and the protein coded there would be unusually long--with potentially lethal result. So, if I were looking for the degree of genetic similarity between two organisms, I would look at the coding regions, and at the redundancy within the code when.

By "coding" and "non-coding" DNA, I mean DNA which contains a template to make a protein, vs. DNA that contains no such template.

And whereas I agree with you that “DNA science” does not disprove evolution, your argument was mainly one of authority.

An argument of authority is not necessarily an invalid argument. If the person arguing from authority happens to be a subject matter expert on the topic being argued, then they are using their authority, i.e., their expertise on the subject, to make a valid argument. I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology, meaning that I have studied and worked in this field for decades and am very much a subject matter expert.

On the other hand, an argument of authority *is* invalid if the person claims knowledge they don't have, or uses legitimate knowledge in a deceptive manner. Clearly, the author of this screed is, in fact, arguing from authority in a very deceptive manner. He is only relaying those scientific facts that support his agenda--and he is counting on his target audience not having a sufficient level of scientific expertise to be able to spot where he is omitting essential facts that undermine his agenda.

what you left out was how many ‘non coding DNA sequences’ were ‘discounted’ by the author- and didn’t mention how similar you think we are to chimps?

You also didn’t address the point that the construction of the chimp genome was done using human scaffolding and contained contaminated human DNA

I guess the point I’m trying ot make is that you dismiss the author’s findings, but fail to point out yourself just how different or similar the two species are- you left the reader ot believe that the author was being deceptive, and that chimps and humans ‘really are similar’ after all- The author pointed out that there needs to be a certain percentage in order for common descent ot be viable- and showed that there isn’t that much- not even close- you are seemingly suggesting the author deceived and seem to imply that we are? How similar are we then?

[[the author of this screed is, in fact, arguing from authority in a very deceptive manner. He is only relaying those scientific facts that support his agenda]]

It seems to me the author relayed facts that evolutionists left out-

[[and he is counting on his target audience not having a sufficient level of scientific expertise to be able to spot where he is omitting essential facts that undermine his agenda.]]

You mean like the chimp DNA being contaminated with human DNA during recording?

[[That is not scientific. One of the very pertinent facts he “forgot” to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA. 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.]]

so again, how much was non coding and necessary to determine difference? What % are we left with? Seems to me that the evo side of things left out all the possible sequences for their set agenda- and used faulty chimp DNA which had been contaminated- Who’s beign deceptive again?

“One of the very pertinent facts he “forgot” to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA.”

I don’t think he left it out, that’s the point. It’s easy to compare cDNA for genes. Not so easy to compare genome structures of 23 and 24 chromosomes in context of all the DNA.

“That is because there is little to no selective pressure to maintain the DNA sequences of non-coding regions.”

The genome project and comparative functional genomics have shown that the key to differences in species is in the non-coding sequences and how the corresponding chromosomal structures regulate development and morphology by spatial-temporal regulation is, to my mind, the biggest question in biology.