"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons (1% difference a "myth")

Access Research Network ^ | July 2, 2007 | David Tyler

[GodGunsGuts]

"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons

07/02/07

by David Tyler

"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons For over 30 years, the public have been led to believe that human and chimpanzee genetics differ by mere 1%. This 'fact' of science has been used on innumerable occasions to silence anyone who offered the thought that humans are special among the animal kingdom. "Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same." However, this "given" is about to be discarded....

[webstersII]

“Now there’s a “fierce” effort to correct the accusations of fraud.”

I never made the accusation, so take it up with the one who did.

[tacticalogic]

I did. That was the exchange you got into the middle of.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Not the “whole story”....but PART of the story. Nobody is claiming that the 1% difference in DNA sequences equates to a 1% difference in gene expression or any other bit of nonsense you or some zoologist can conjur up.

Sorry Strawberry, the zoologist is named and quoted in the AAAS/Science article. They knew that the 1% difference was a sham all along. That’s deliberate fraud in my book, or at the very least (as another FReeper pointed out) “spin” bordering on fraud. If you refuse to see this for what it is, that’s your problem, not mine:

What’s most remarkable about this confession is how certain evolutionary biologists are evaluating the claim in hindsight. In the 1970s, it was considered a “heretical” view that our genomes could be that similar, but Cohen comments, “Subsequent studies bore their conclusion out, and today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.” But “Truth be told,” he begins in the next sentence, the inaccuracy of the statistic was known from the start:

But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070629a

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ElectricStrawberry]

Actually, you’re reading too much into what the zoologist said and absolutely refuse to see that even your own article leaves the 1% number as valid.....AND that the zoologist left the 1% number as valid as well. Nowhere has anyone said that the 1% number is WRONG/INCORRECT/REFUTED...or any other term you want to use.
What he’s saying is that limiting the understanding of the differences between the species to a 1% difference based on DNA sequences is a hinderance to further understanding of the total difference between the species because there’s other things at work that HAVE to be taken into consideration. He’s not saying that the 1% number is invalid, only that it limits understanding if you limit your thinking to that 1%....when that 1% actually leads to genetic expression and physiological differences greater than 1%.

The 1% number is still valid because it’s a simple comparison of the DNA sequences, no matter how much you think it’s been disqualified....that it’s a sham....when it is not...even according to your article. So nice of you to give me all my ammo. “But truth be told....it’s not the WHOLE STORY”....meaning that the 1% is valid. “On TOP OF THE 1%”...meaning that the 1% number is valid.

Everything you’ve shown backs up that the 1% number is valid.....because it is.

One cannot disqualify the 1% because it is simple fact generated by a DNA sequencer....not by an analysis or a conjured up formula or an opinion. The sequencer spits out the sequence and it’s compared objectively to another sequence.

[Coyoteman]

The 1% number is still valid because it’s a simple comparison of the DNA sequences, no matter how much you think it’s been disqualified....that it’s a sham....when it is not...even according to your article. So nice of you to give me all my ammo. “But truth be told....it’s not the WHOLE STORY”....meaning that the 1% is valid. “On TOP OF THE 1%”...meaning that the 1% number is valid.

Everything you’ve shown backs up that the 1% number is valid.....because it is.

One cannot disqualify the 1% because it is simple fact generated by a DNA sequencer....not by an analysis or a conjured up formula or an opinion. The sequencer spits out the sequence and it’s compared objectively to another sequence.

Awwww. You're going to spoil all of their fun with a few inconvenient facts.

(And they were so hopeful that the creationist website they got this stuff from was accurate, when in fact it was lying to them.)

[GodGunsGuts]

Look, you can try to rationalize it all you want. They admit they knew that the 1% was not the whole story thirty years ago. They pushed this myth all the way up to the present time because the “1% difference served us well”. In other words, they deliberately pushed this lie to dupe a mostly unsuspecting public (to include school children!) into believing that humans and chimps are more similar than they actually are in order to make their myth of common descent more plausible. Again, in the words of the zoologist quoted in Science:

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

And if that isn’t enough, the author of the science article ADMITS that they new the 1% figure was a myth right from the beginning: “But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.” They left this lie intact for thirty years to give the impression/”increase our appreciation” of the Church of Darwin’s phony theology of common descent.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Actually, from what the article says, the article IS accurate....it’s the conclusions drawn FROM the article that’re incorrect....inarguably incorrect.

It just doesn’t say what “they” think it says...just like everything else “they” look at and translate incorrectly. IT never says what “they” think it says....only what “they” WANT it to say.

All it’s saying is tht there’s more of a difference between humans and chimps than the simple 1% difference in DNA sequences....that there’s more to the story than the 1%...and there is.

Wow...such insight...we don’t know everything and there’s more to the story. I smell a research grant...

[Coyoteman]

All it’s saying is tht there’s more of a difference between humans and chimps than the simple 1% difference in DNA sequences....that there’s more to the story than the 1%...and there is.

Right.

Its been fascinating to watch these past few years, particularly those folks who know very little about science but who are sure its all wrong because it neither confirms nor conforms to their religious beliefs.

The attacks they make on science are ridiculous to those who actually know something about science.

One of my fields is radiocarbon dating and its really interesting the distortions, misrepresentations, quote mines, and fabrications that the creationist websites try to pass off as science. And then posters from here visit those sites and try to pass their silly stuff off as "proof" that evolution didn't happen.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Look, you can ignore the 1% number all you want, but the 1% number is still valid...as EVERY quote you have thus far quoted HAS PROVEN by leaving the 1% number intact...by including it as "part of the story"...as a "hindrance" and not as "infactual/untrue/refuted". Actually, it varies from around 0.8% to about 2% depending on the areas compared.....with most compared areas being around 1%.

It's a simple fact of comparison.

The zoologists quote cannot in ANY way be translated to what you want it to say.

"Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help"

He's very simply stating that relying solely on the 1% number is a hindrance to understanding the whole picture. Go on, translate is all you want and it'll say the same thing....that it's a hindrance to rely on the 1% number...because there's...get this...MORE TO THE STORY.

Once again, the quote provided PROVES you wrong. "But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. "

Read it VERY slowly a few times. Maybe, just MAYBE it'll sink in this time. I really doubt it, but can hope once in a while. Engage the noodle....If the 1% number isn't "the whole story"....then it's PART OF THE STORY...that "there's MORE to the story than the 1%". Anyone that's a biologist can tell you "there's more to the story" than a simple comparison of DNA sequences. It's common knowledge amongst us biologists that've actually studied this stuff.

Comprehension is the key.....your personal views are getting in the way of simple english comprehension. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

[GodGunsGuts]

I would supply more evidence that conclusively proves they mislead the public, but it is clear that you will find a way to excuse the Church of Darwin come hell or high water.

[doc30]

Sorry Strawberry, the zoologist is named and quoted in the AAAS/Science article. They knew that the 1% difference was a sham all along. That’s deliberate fraud in my book, or at the very least (as another FReeper pointed out) “spin” bordering on fraud. If you refuse to see this for what it is, that’s your problem, not mine:

Doesn''t say that anywhere in the article. Quit lying and fabricating falshoods. The fact is that on a gene by gene basis, the diffrence is 1%. The point of the article is that sciecne is learning that gene expression is responsible for more differences than simple genomic variances.

So when you say there is fraud involved you are a LIAR!

[GodGunsGuts]

==Doesn''t say that anywhere in the article. Quit lying and fabricating falshoods. The fact is that on a gene by gene basis, the diffrence is 1%. The point of the article is that sciecne is learning that gene expression is responsible for more differences than simple genomic variances.

They have known about these differences for a long time now. Even the authors of the 1975 paper that got this whole 1% myth started admitted the following, in the words Science's Jon Cohen: "But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes."

But that didn't stop the Church of Darwin from shifting into high gear and using this clever myth in a disingenuous attempt to further "convince" the public that humans and chimps are related via common descent. Indeed, as recently as October of 2006, Time magazine ran the following article ("What makes us different") with the following picure. The Church of Darwin is nothing but a religion preached by a pack of liars who will tell almost any lie to gain a few more converts:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html

[metmom]

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

fraud

1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

synonyms see deception, imposture

But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired. “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

Yes, please let the truth be told. It's about time. But then, science isn't about truth, or so we've been told.

Anyway, I find it quite interesting that the evos on this forum are trying to excuse, justify, gloss over, whatever, the fact that deceit was knowingly perpetrated on the public, spinning, twisting, dancing like a kite in the wind to avoid admitting that fraud took place. The same thing that happens whenever Piltdown Man is mentioned.

Instead of admitting that someone did something wrong, the knee-jerk reaction is to declare *but it was a scientist who exposed the fraud*. No recognition of that fact that one of their own perpetrated it, no condemnation of him, no saying that this doesn't represent mainstream science.

The defense and silence is very condemning. If they won't admit wrong doing, that's more deceit so why should we trust them in other matters?

If there's no condemnation of the behavior as not representing mainstream science, then one can conclude that this does, in fact, represent mainstream science.

The unwillingness to admit to wrongdoing and lies, taints all of the scientific community and cuts deeply into their credibility.

[metmom]

No anonymous. Keep reading the thread and follow the links that contain references to back them up.

[metmom]

You’re changing the subject. The guy admitted that lying and deception occurred.

[tacticalogic]

The link given in the post reference provided took me to a paid subscription site. It appears I’ll have to purchase a subscription to the site to read the article. I’ve noted this once already.

[tacticalogic]

If they won't admit wrong doing, that's more deceit so why should we trust them in other matters?

They've told you you won't get radiation poisoning from you monitor. Why are you still sitting in front of it?

[toddlintown]

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!

[GodGunsGuts]

==The unwillingness to admit to wrongdoing and lies, taints all of the scientific community and cuts deeply into their credibility.

Thanks for your reply! That’s why we need to do our part to save real science and expose the Church of Darwin for what it really is: an unsupportable religion.