>>Click here
>Posted on 08/31/2005 6:18:11 PM PDT by neverdem
The first detailed genetic comparison between humans and chimpanzees shows that 96 per cent of the DNA sequence is identical in the two species. But there are significant differences, particularly in genes relating to sexual reproduction, brain development, immunity and the sense of smell.
An international scientific consortium publishes the genome of the chimpanzee, the animal most closely related to homo sapiens on Thursday in the journal Nature. It is the fourth mammal to have its full genome sequenced, after the mouse, rat and human being.
Some of the scientific analysis of the 3bn chemical "letters" of the chimp's genetic code focused on its remarkable closeness to the human genome. After 6m years of separate evolution, the differences between chimp and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than those between rats and mice.
But most scientists are concentrating on the differences. The vast majority of these probably have little biological significance, said Simon Fisher of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford: "The big challenge for the future is to pinpoint the tiny subset of differences that account for the origins of unusual human traits, such as complex language."
| > |
| External website: Read Nature's interactive report on the chimp genome >Click here |
| > |
The preliminary evidence suggests that the outstanding size and complexity of the human brain owes less to the evolution of new human genes than to the different way existing genes produce proteins as the human brain grows in the foetus and during infancy. Genes for transcription factors - molecules that regulate the activity of other genes and play a vital role in embryonic development - are evolving more quickly in humans than in chimps.
Three key genes involved in the human inflammatory response to disease are missing in chimps, which may explain some of the differences between the two immune systems. On the other hand humans have lost a gene for an enzyme that may protect other animals against Alzheimer's disease.
The clearest differences to emerge from the analysis are in the Y (male) sex chromosome. While the human Y chromosome has maintained its count of 27 active gene families over 6m years, some have mutated and become inactive on its chimp counterpart.
This finding contradicts the popular view that the human Y chromosome is withering away because it has no genetic "mate" with which to swap genes - a process that repairs damaged DNA on other chromosomes. Presumably an alternative repair mechanism has evolved in humans but not in chimps.
David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research suggested that mating habits in the two species might explain the difference. Because male and female chimps mate with multiple partners there is stronger selective pressure on sperm-producing genes and conversely less pressure on evolution to preserve other genes on the Y chromosome in the apes than in largely monogamous humans.
It amazes me that the only response to an effort to deal with the evidence is to throw rocks. Because Dr Sarfati's work doesn't support the evolution model, it is by definition wrong?
Michael Jackson and his newest boy at Neverland.
That leaves approximately 120 million different basepairs. At least one must be significant seeing as no Chimps have chimed in with their opinions on this thread.
You might be interested to know that Denton now accepts common descent, along with Behe and Dembski.
They is?
Of course it's a fact. Why, if it weren't, evolutionists wouldn't be able to take you to a jungle ...errrrrrrr... ***RAINFOREST*** and show everyone evidence of apes actively evolving into humans. In fact, everywhere I look, I see evidence of it. It's not just with apes, either. Why there're frogs with moustaches just evolving away.
Thanks for the ping.
It will be a while before they will convince me that all the DNA in what they call introns is useless junk.
I'm not saying it is "useless junk", just that the coding regions are almost identical. That near identity speaks volumes about the relationship between us and chimps.
That bears absolutely no similarity at all to "my logic", nor is it in any way parallel to the multiple independent lines of evidence which support common descent as the origin of modern species, nor is a loaded analogy about items (sheets) which we *know* are manufactured an honest one when compared against items (species) which we *don't* know are manufactured and which we have enormous amounts of evidence indicating that they weren't, nor are sheets capable of reproduction, so they're an incredibly inapt analogy for the kinds of evolutionary processes which are at work in living things.
In short, your snide broadside is either grossly disingenuous, or ignorantly fallacious, or both.
Come back when you're able to actually discuss the biological evidence without resorting to invalid hand-waving about sheets.
I used to believe that the similarities could be explained away by assuming they were just designed by the same person, but I now know better.
Inappropriate and fallacious sarcasm is a poor substitute for knowledge and argument, son.
Let's carry this a bit farther. Instead of comparing two vehicles made by the same manufacturer and designed by committee (which suggests multiple designers), let's take a look at a Jeep Grand Cherokee and a Ford Explorer. Both are intermediate size SUV's that come with V8s. They both have 4 doors, electric windows, and heated seats. In fact the similarities are far more numerous than the differences. These two vehicles are not only made by different companies but designed by different designers. Just as different engineers will approach the same design problem with different solutions, to such a degree that the designer of some constructs can be identified by the techniques used, the identifiably different techniques used to 'design' biological life shows evidence of multiple designers. In fact it suggests a different designer for every Family.
The engines of those two cars are the descendants of the original V8s from the '50s. They both have dish pistons, one intake valve and one exhaust valve, roller lifters, 1.6 ratio rocker arms, and multiport injection. The original V8s had flat or raised pistons, solid lifters, and carburetors.
I suggest that the differences between the old engines and new engines is not simply design. The engines have in fact evolved.
Changes in the morphology of the engines are the result of changes in environment. They were made because fuels changed and horsepower increases were demanded by purchasers (Selection forces). The only way to deal with lower fuel octane ratings and still keep costs down (water injection is costly in upkeep) was to lower compression. The change to 'dishing' of the piston tops was 'forced' on the manufacturers in order to lower compression and enable the engines to survive low octane.
Because more horsepower is related to the amount of fuel/air mixture available to the combustion chamber, the manufacturers had a choice between increased chamber size or increased flow into the chamber. A larger chamber is more costly than simply increasing the ramp rate and valve lift of the cam, so a higher lift cam was selected. Neither high lift solid, nor high lift hydraulic non-roller lifters are capable of surviving for any length of time in a daily driven vehicle so the manufacturers were in effect forced to choose cams that use roller lifters. They found that these cams and lifters put enormous stresses on the heads, which developed a tendency to twist. They were forced to add taller ridges to the circumference of the heads.
It becomes obvious that many of the features of V8s (and other similar engines) were not designed, but the result of human selection, economic considerations, and the laws of physics. They evolved from simpler, less complex engines.
We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
Yet the differences show indications of different designers. It is easy to see that the common DNA sequences are necessary for similar features, but those genes that are the same but show different features and the genes that are different but result in similar features are hard evidence for more than one designer.
There is only one God, but we can infer from the many design styles a number of different designers. Therefore, biological organisms were not designed by God but by a race of aliens.
Proof: We are nothing but alien zoo specimens.
Wow, you're grossly ignorant of how evolution actually works, aren't you? Hint: If we actually *did* see other ape species evolving towards "humanhood", it would indicate that something was seriously wrong with evolutionary theory.
In fact, everywhere I look, I see evidence of it. It's not just with apes, either. Why there're frogs with moustaches just evolving away.
Wow, more sarcasm as a cheap substitute for bothering to learn enough about the topic to argue it cogently on its actual merits. What a surprise...
Ichneumon,
As a courtesy, I would like to reply to you that I have completed my reply and I realize my intentions are more suited for an Evo vs ID thread. My reply is inappropriate for this particular thread because it would be off the subject.
I will post the reply at a future time on an Evo vs ID thread.
Sincerely
And my apologies at the moment for wasting your time.
In some cases I've seen lately, it's a 100% match.
Last time I checked, creationists are immensely ignorant of what the term "theory" means in a scientific context.
Yet, you will find people on this board who not only treat it as unquestioned fact,
Because there are overwhelming mountains of evidence, along multiple independently cross-confirming lines, which indicate that it is. But hey, you don't need to bother to learn any of it before you spout your uninformed sarcasm, right?
but almost as if it were a religion in itself.
It always amuses me when the worst insult that creationists can think of is to call evolutionary biology a "religion"... So that's a *bad* thing after all, eh?
But sorry, no, it isn't. But I suppose it might look that way to someone who filters his reality through a lens of religion, but projection aside, not everyone's head is constrained to work that way.
You have sheets that imperfectly self replicate, and are subject to selection? Wow!
You forgot the Fava beans Dr. Lechter.
What amazes *me* is how you in particular, and creationists in general, are so consistently able to completely misunderstand simple English. VadeRetro's post was quite clear, and it demonstrated one of the fundamental flaws in Sarfati's so-called "argument". And yet, that somehow flew right over your head, and all you could manage to dimly grasp of it was the following bizarre conclusion:
Because Dr Sarfati's work doesn't support the evolution model, it is by definition wrong?
No... And I don't see how any thinking person could have arrived at such a strange reading of the material. Instead, it showed that Sarfati's "work" is quite simply wrong when compared to the actual evidence.
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.