Question About Creationists

[libalchris]

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Similarities of noncoding DNA or protein coding DNA? If it's the former then we do need to know the function seeing the 99% of noncoding DNA function is unknown. If it's the latter, well that only makes up 1% of the 3+ billion base pairs so it is not an accurate representation of the whole genome (yet scientist still base said claim on it).

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

I actually am aware of that. Are you aware that 99% of the noncoding DNA function is unknown? So good luck trying to pinpoint which sequence controls tail function (or lack thereof). Which is my point. If you are going to prove humans evolved from an ape (or that humans are apes) you are going to have to crack that region and compare the known function to come to an accurate conclusion. It seems like scientist are just dragging their feet in the mud or just plain ignoring it.

Leme make this simple. The similarities are in the base pairs. You don't have to know what the DNA does to know that humans and chimps share almost 99% of their DNA. That means almost 99% of base pairs in chimps and humans coincide.

[Minimalist]

but won’t give you a child to rape when you go to his.

You do understand that science will continue investigating, right? Unlike jesus freaks who want to say goddidit.

Science seeks answers to questions which may not be answered. Religion produces only answers which may not be questioned.

[Abishalom]

He probably could have used fewer as well. Using more amino acids would have allowed for more diversity in life, preventing inters-species viral infection. All life shares the same metabolic pathways. Even with only 20 amino acids though, diversity is still a problem. There are enough different possible genetic codes – all functionally equivalent and all using the same amino acids—for every species that has ever lived to have its own unique code. If there were no common ancestor from whom all life inherited this code it would make sense to expect a wide variety of codes. This would protect each species from inter-species viral infections.

Well seeing that we have over 8 million species I'd say those 20 AA were enough, considering protein coding only accounts for less than 1% of the total genome...

I'll say this again, you don't have to know what DNA does to see similarities. You simply have to look at the fact that the base pairs match up

see previous reply. You can see that the base pairs match up, without knowing what they do.

But you're suggesting that we actually did a side by side comparison of the total 3 billion base pair. No such study exists. Every document study only used a sample and applied the result to the whole genome...makes you wonder...

Yes, this is the actual diagram of human and chimp chromosomes, representing the whole of the DNA, not just the proteins.

I actually edited the post shortly after I first published it (see above post for correction).

Alright, forget the creator. The point is that that need not be the case, and only makes sense in the light of common descent.

As to your questions about the processes, you're making a ridiculous request. The change from chimp-like ancestor to human was very gradual, and it was a number of many many different mutations over a long period of time that caused these changes. It would be absolutely impossible to nail down every change. The best that can be done is, through the fossil record, determine the overall changes that occurred over time.

Those requests aren't ridiculous. If humans and ape evolution is a fact then there should be no problems providing documentation of said mutations. You saying there were many mutations is not a sufficient explanation of said processes. What's really ridiculous is taking 1% of the 3 billion total base pairs and then claiming human/ape evolution occurred based on an insufficient sample size...gee I wonder why that is?

---

Leme make this simple. The similarities are in the base pairs. You don't have to know what the DNA does to know that humans and chimps share almost 99% of their DNA. That means almost 99% of base pairs in chimps and humans coincide.

You have some sort of delusion that we actually compared every single base pair (of the 3 billion total) of humans and apes and then drew a conclusion. No such study exists. We only have studies based on limited sample sizes...

[popeyespappy]

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Similarities of noncoding DNA or protein coding DNA? If it's the former then we do need to know the function seeing the 99% of noncoding DNA function is unknown. If it's the latter, well that only makes up 1% of the 3+ billion base pairs so it is not an accurate representation of the whole genome (yet scientist still base said claim on it).

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

I actually am aware of that. Are you aware that 99% of the noncoding DNA function is unknown? So good luck trying to pinpoint which sequence controls tail function (or lack thereof). Which is my point. If you are going to prove humans evolved from an ape (or that humans are apes) you are going to have to crack that region and compare the known function to come to an accurate conclusion. It seems like scientist are just dragging their feet in the mud or just plain ignoring it.

As both Chris and I have already pointed out the similarities include both the coding and noncoding DNA. It is therefore a representation of the entire genome.

Having established that the entire genomes of humans and chimps is nearly identical, perhaps you'd like to explain to us what knowing the function any given segment makes to its value as evidence for common decent?

[Abishalom]

As both Chris and I have already pointed out the similarities include both the coding and noncoding DNA. It is therefore a representation of the entire genome.

Having established that the entire genomes of humans and chimps is nearly identical, perhaps you'd like to explain to us what knowing the function any given segment makes to its value as evidence for common decent?

Now you're just making up stuff...

Let's get this straight neither one of yall talked about similarities of humans and apes included noncoding and coding DNA nor have you established the genomes of humans and apes as "nearly identical". Chris talked about similarities in the proteins which only make up 1% of the total genome. You also never said that their noncoding and coding DNA was similar. In fact you said the exact opposite...

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

Which is comical because now you're trying to claim that you've established the human and ape genome as "nearly identical"...Well maybe you're not aware that the genome includes both coding and noncoding DNA. So those differences in the noncoding DNA of humans and apes that you've admitted to contradicts your whole "nearly identical" claim considering that noncoding DNA is about 99% of the genome...

But your post goes back to my main point. If 99% of the genome is noncoding DNA and this is where the major difference lie in (your words), then you cannot support the human/ape evolution claim with the 1% of protein coding. By your own admission noncoding DNA serves a different function than that of protein coding DNA despite a vast majority of NCD function being unknown. That in it of itself would suggest that the sequence would be different in humans in apes. Like I've pointed out the only studies we have thus far are based on a small percentage of the total population of 3 billion.

[popeyespappy]

As both Chris and I have already pointed out the similarities include both the coding and noncoding DNA. It is therefore a representation of the entire genome.

Having established that the entire genomes of humans and chimps is nearly identical, perhaps you'd like to explain to us what knowing the function any given segment makes to its value as evidence for common decent?

Now you're just making up stuff...

Let's get this straight neither one of yall talked about similarities of humans and apes included noncoding and coding DNA nor have you established the genomes of humans and apes as "nearly identical". Chris talked about similarities in the proteins which only make up 1% of the total genome. You also never said that their noncoding and coding DNA was similar. In fact you said the exact opposite...

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

Which is comical because now you're trying to claim that you've established the human and ape genome as "nearly identical"...

But your post goes back to my main point. If 99% of the genome is noncoding DNA and this is where the major difference lie in (your words), then you cannot support the human/ape evolution claim with the 1% of protein coding. By your own admission noncoding DNA serves a different function than that of protein coding DNA despite a vast majority of NCD function being unknown. That in it of itself would suggest that the sequence would be different in humans in apes. Like I've pointed out the only studies we have thus far are based on a small percentage of the total population of 3 billion.

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?

The average differences between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees for various "types" of DNA sequences.

Coding DNA:
• Synonymous (silent) substitutions in DNA coding for proteins: 1.11%
• Non-synonymous (amino-acid altering) substitutions in DNA coding for proteins: 0.80%
• Amino acid changes: 1.34%

Non-coding DNA:
Autosomal intergenic DNA (noncoding DNA between genes and not on sex chromosomes): 1.24%
• X-chromosome intergenic DNA: 1.16%
• Y-chromosome intergenic DNA: 1.68%
• Intronic DNA (DNA inside exons that is removed before mRNA is transcribed): 1.03%
• Psuedogenes (genes that have lost their functions due to mutations, deletions, or transposable elements): 1.56%
• Differences in Alus (the most abundant mobile element/retrotransposons in primates comprising about 10% of your genome): 2%

Summarized from

Chen, F.C. & Li, W.H. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. American journal of human genetics 68, 444-56 (2001).

[Abishalom]

---

Now you're just making up stuff...

Let's get this straight neither one of yall talked about similarities of humans and apes included noncoding and coding DNA nor have you established the genomes of humans and apes as "nearly identical". Chris talked about similarities in the proteins which only make up 1% of the total genome. You also never said that their noncoding and coding DNA was similar. In fact you said the exact opposite...
Which is comical because now you're trying to claim that you've established the human and ape genome as "nearly identical"...

But your post goes back to my main point. If 99% of the genome is noncoding DNA and this is where the major difference lie in (your words), then you cannot support the human/ape evolution claim with the 1% of protein coding. By your own admission noncoding DNA serves a different function than that of protein coding DNA despite a vast majority of NCD function being unknown. That in it of itself would suggest that the sequence would be different in humans in apes. Like I've pointed out the only studies we have thus far are based on a small percentage of the total population of 3 billion.

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?

The average differences between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees for various "types" of DNA sequences.

Coding DNA:
• Synonymous (silent) substitutions in DNA coding for proteins: 1.11%
• Non-synonymous (amino-acid altering) substitutions in DNA coding for proteins: 0.80%
• Amino acid changes: 1.34%

Non-coding DNA:
Autosomal intergenic DNA (noncoding DNA between genes and not on sex chromosomes): 1.24%
• X-chromosome intergenic DNA: 1.16%
• Y-chromosome intergenic DNA: 1.68%
• Intronic DNA (DNA inside exons that is removed before mRNA is transcribed): 1.03%
• Psuedogenes (genes that have lost their functions due to mutations, deletions, or transposable elements): 1.56%
• Differences in Alus (the most abundant mobile element/retrotransposons in primates comprising about 10% of your genome): 2%

Summarized from

Chen, F.C. & Li, W.H. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. American journal of human genetics 68, 444-56 (2001).

---

Is you comprehension lacking? Have you ever heard of sample size?

Excerpt from abstract of said study...

To study the genomic divergences among hominoids and to estimate the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, we selected 53 autosomal intergenic nonrepetitive DNA segments from the human genome and sequenced them in a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan.

Do you know what that means when it says they selected 53 segments? But wait they tell us how long these 53 segments are...

The sequence divergences in other regions between hominoids were estimated from extensive data in GenBank and the literature, and Alus showed the highest divergence, followed in order by Y-linked noncoding regions, pseudogenes, autosomal intergenic regions, X-linked noncoding regions, synonymous sites, introns, and nonsynonymous sites. The neighbor-joining tree derived from the concatenated sequence of the 53 segments--24,234 bp in length--supports the Homo-Pan clade with a 100% bootstrap value

24,234 base pairs...out of 3 billion possible...which corroborates another point I made earlier...

[Anomalocaris]

---

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?


Summarized from

Chen, F.C. & Li, W.H. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. American journal of human genetics 68, 444-56 (2001).

---

Is you comprehension lacking? Have you ever heard of sample size?

Excerpt from abstract of said study...

To study the genomic divergences among hominoids and to estimate the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, we selected 53 autosomal intergenic nonrepetitive DNA segments from the human genome and sequenced them in a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan.

Do you know what that means when it says they selected 53 segments? But wait they tell us how long these 53 segments are...

The sequence divergences in other regions between hominoids were estimated from extensive data in GenBank and the literature, and Alus showed the highest divergence, followed in order by Y-linked noncoding regions, pseudogenes, autosomal intergenic regions, X-linked noncoding regions, synonymous sites, introns, and nonsynonymous sites. The neighbor-joining tree derived from the concatenated sequence of the 53 segments--24,234 bp in length--supports the Homo-Pan clade with a 100% bootstrap value

24,234 base pairs...out of 3 billion possible...which corroborates another point I made earlier...

It is far beyond your christian understanding, but probably not beyond the understanding of moderately retarded 6 year old.

The basic idea is if a significant statistical majority of a population of 3 billion were to not possess a certain trait, the probability would be astronomical against a statistical majority of any random sample of 24,234 from that population happening to exhibit that same statistical trait. This is why sampling works.

But because real statistical analysis of any experimental result would actually be illuminating, it is therefore forbidden to christian understanding less the comfortingly obscuring veil of the bronze age bullshit called christianity be pierced.

So go and pick your nose with your bible.

[Minimalist]

Is there such a thing as "xtian understanding?"

[Abishalom]

Is you comprehension lacking? Have you ever heard of sample size?

Excerpt from abstract of said study...
Do you know what that means when it says they selected 53 segments? But wait they tell us how long these 53 segments are...

24,234 base pairs...out of 3 billion possible...which corroborates another point I made earlier...

It is far beyond your christian understanding, but probably not beyond the understanding of moderately retarded 6 year old.

The idea is if a significant statistical majority of a population of 3 billion were to not possess a certain trait, the probability would be astronomical against any statistical majority of any random sample of 24,234 from that population happen to all exhibit that same statistical trait.

But because real statistical analysis of any experimental result would actually be illuminating, it is therefore forbidden to christian understanding less the comfortingly obscuring veil of the bronze age bullshit called christianity be pierced.

But this wasn't a random sample. Do you NOT see the bold words that say they SELECTED 53 segments (that totaled 24,234 BP)?