Of Primates and Percentages: No, Humans Aren’t 99% Chimp Whether we are 99 or 84% similar to chimps genetically, there is clearly more going on than materialists can account for.

breakpoi ^ | 03/13/23 | John Stonestreet and Shane Morris

[daniel1212]

In a recent discussion on The Discovery Institute’s ID the Future podcast, geologist Casey Luskin explained that the original “98-99%” figure was derived from a single protein-to-protein comparison before the chimp genome was sequenced. Since then, we’ve gained a great deal more precision.

According to Luskin, humans and chimps have about 35 million single base-pair genetic differences and five million insertion-deletion differences. Humans also have 689 unique genes not found in chimps. And while there are different ways of quantifying the differences, almost none of these ways yield the famous “98-99%” number.

For example, in 2018, Queen Mary University of London evolutionary geneticist Richard Buggs performed a one-to-one analysis of human and chimp nucleotides. He reported that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.”

Other methodologies have yielded numbers ranging from the mid-80s to 90s. Why the different results? Well, because as Luskin explains, it is not entirely clear how we should compare human and chimp genomes:

Are you comparing the number of genes or copies of genes that the organism has? Are you comparing one-to-one nucleotide similarities? Are you including just the protein-coding DNA or also the non-coding DNA? Are you looking at certain segments of the genome that aren’t even necessarily places where the sequence matters, like the centromeres … ?

It turns out you’ll get a different answer depending on which method you choose. And there is an even deeper problem, says Luskin:

All of the chimp genomes we have today were effectively humanized. … The human genome was used as a scaffolding during the construction of these chimp genomes, which essentially makes the chimp genomes appear more similar to humans than they truly are.

None of this is new. Back in 2007, a paper in the journal Science admitted that the “1%” statistic was a myth and called for the truism to be retired. Yet 16 years later, this zombie idea shambles on, perpetuated by publications like Smithsonian Magazine, Nature, and the American Museum of Natural History website...

“There’s a vast cognitive and behavioral gulf” between humans and apes:"

[Blueflag]

For my learned friends and family members with extra letters before and after their names, who argue for “real science,” not “superstition,” I ask them one question none can answer:

Let’s suppose Mr and Mrs Chimpanzee gave birth to the first genetically human baby, (effectively a random large genetic defect that happen to be viable) when it reached sexual maturity, what did it mate with that would produce fertile human offspring, given the known genetic differences?

Locks them up. It’s scientifically impossible for a sperm with 46 chromosomes to form a zygote with an egg with 48 chromosomes. Nope. Ain’t happening.

[cgbg]

These days most humans are dumber than chimps.

Devolution.

[Bounced2X]

IDK. In some instances it appears to be pretty darn close.

[alexander_busek]

Of Primates and Percentages: No, Humans Aren’t 99% Chimp Whether we are 99 or 84% similar to chimps genetically, there is clearly more going on than materialists laypeople - already suffering from a confirmation bias - who skim this article and compare it with the few fragments they barely remember from high school Biology, 40 years ago, can account for.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

A non-functioning computer might be 99% identical to a working computer. A high school sophomore running the 100-meter dash might be 99% as fast as an Olympic World Record breaker. Etc.

I therefore submit that the entire "hook" for this article - a pointless argument about whether humans are 99% or 84% similar to chimpanzees - is a distraction and a diversion, and should be tabled forthwith.

Because, apparently, that last ONE PERCENT (or whatever the genetic difference is) is ENOUGH.

Now, to your posting:

Humans can use language to communicate complex ideas and concepts. Humans can reason abstractly about things that are not present in the physical world. Humans have a sense of morality and can distinguish between right and wrong. Animals do not have these abilities.

The part I marked in RED and HIGHLIGHTED is an example of circulus in probando, or circular reasoning. That's because, by using the word "morality," you have already posited that human beings possess some "spiritual" characteristic; you might have well as argued that, since humans have a "soul," materialism is an inadequate explanation.

Also: Any use of the word "morality" instantly violates the limitations of the domain of the discussion. Physical science and Theology are two separate domains.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Let’s suppose Mr and Mrs Chimpanzee gave birth to the first genetically human baby, (effectively a random large genetic defect that happen to be viable) when it reached sexual maturity, what did it mate with that would produce fertile human offspring, given the known genetic differences?

This passage is garbled / syntactically flawed and makes no sense.

Also, your whole argument - such as it is - is also logically flawed. It would be akin to my asking you:

"Let's suppose that Jesus Christ were to appear back on Earth today and claim that he wasn't really the Son of God..." or

"Let's assume that God suddenly forced every living human being to believe in Him, and made it impossible for them to ever stop believing or to commit any further sin..."

Your initial supposition is namely so implausible - bordering on shear impossibility - than any further discussion is contaminated from the get-go. Any subsequent "apparent paradox" or "self-contradiction" that you then claim to "reveal" - supposedly refuting your opponent's position - was merely the result of your initial flawed supposition.

Regards,

[daniel1212]

Good delineation.

Meanwhile, a Liberal is one who has the ability to reason that,

human life is only sacred once outside the female body, and to be exterminated if it would result in a burden, and or would interfere with career, education, etc. or possibly present a psychological danger to the women;
men can give birth, and chest feed;
gender is fluid (thus "they babies") once born, the product of the womb is to be treated as gender dysphoric, thus giving the parent, teacher etc. a sense of god-like power;
transitioning should not be delayed, and is to be paid for at tax payer expense;
homosexual relations are healthy and to be promoted;
all who deny that are to be maligned with disparaging labels, imputed guilt, and penalized, punished with economic sanctions, and worse;
that while smokers are to be warned, shamed, and penalized, those who practice sodomy are to be encouraged, and with a means of protection from and or treatment for HIV other resultant diseases paid for at tax payer expense. Likewise for all fornication in general;
all white persons are racists. and in denial if they claim otherwise (unless a member of the Left protected class);
black persons who deny that are not really black;
that race and ethnicity are to be determining factors in hiring and enrollment, over that of ability, character and compatibility;
that charges of such Affirmative Action et al being racist are to be denounced as racist, hateful, etc. as part of psychological warfare;
most anything negative can be blamed on anthropogenic Climate Change or racism, or some form of injustice;
the Liberal is to foster both guilt over such and a victim-entitlement mentality in order to obtain power, by presenting themselves as saviors of the oppressed;
that as members of the protected class of the Left, they can possess power, position and prestige without being charged with being selfish, arrogant, proud, lustful seekers of power;

You may want to add to this.

[daniel1212]

laypeople - already suffering from a confirmation bias - who skim this article and compare it with the few fragments they barely remember from high school Biology, 40 years ago

You mean when sources such as the American Museum of Natural History website state that "Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA" which is the only percentage mentioned, then they are also comparing it with the few fragments they barely remember from high school Biology, 40 years ago?

Likewise MIT: Researchers have learned that despite the 99 percent similarity between the DNA of humans and our closest relative (https://news.mit.edu/2005/chimp)

And https://www.science.org/content/article/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives: "Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA."

The parroting of this claim even today, with confirmation bias, which is not even from 40 years ago and is often unqualified, is what the article counters, and explains.

[Ikeon]

if we desended from apes, why are there still apes? evolution favors those who adapt, not dyay the same.

[daniel1212]

if we desended from apes, why are there still apes? evolution favors those who adapt, not dyay the same.

Politically speaking, liberal candidates could be: Transphobia; homophobia; gender dysphoria Racism; climate change; _________

[Elsie]

Didn’t take long.

[sit-rep]

well.... when I see pictures of Whoopi Goldberg, I would believe if they said some humans are only a few generations evolved from apes...

[Elsie]

Do they ever do it TWICE?

[Elsie]

Why are we messing around with higher life forms?

Let’s get to the WHY there are ‘plants’ and there are ‘animals’.

TWICE ‘life’ evolved from GOO and went it’s separate ways??

[Verginius Rufus]

A man was once given a baboon heart--but did not live very long afterwards.

If chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes and people have 46, why the difference? Did our ancestors lose some? How do other apes compare to chimpanzees in terms of chromosomes? Have they managed to figure out how many chromosomes Australopithecines had? Or Homo erectus?

Chimpanzees and gorillas may not be able to speak, but a few of them have been taught sign language or using plastic symbols to convey meaning--they do have a certain level of intelligence (they can even "lie") although far below that of human beings.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[Fuzz]

Not how it works. And no, I won’t explain it. You can research it and hopefully realize your question is flawed.

[Blueflag]

I understand how it works.

So you don’t have to explain it to me.

You’re fine.

Net: believe what you want to.

[Blueflag]

You’re trying too hard.

Net: fundamentally if the first 46 chromosome human, effectively a genetic error that was viable, was born to a set of 48 chromosome parents (chimps) ... then when that 46 chromosome human was sexually mature, there would be no genetically compatible humans to mate with.

Grammar be damned. God made humans, not evolution.

[Fuzz]

If you think Mr. And Mrs. Chimpanzee can give birth to a homo sapien, you don’t know how it works, at all.