apes and humans

Oh kewl beans, just shows we humans must be evolving even more lately!
Gina

 

The researchers have partially compared the genes on one chromosome. In the portion they checked, 199 of 235 genes were identical.

The rest of the respective genomes have not been checked by this method.

Since we know that humans and chimps are much closer in DNA than the variations commmon in many species (using other methods), it remains to be seen if a complete analysis will confirm their tentative findins, or if varition within species will also be much greater by their new method.

Right now, it's apples and oranges.

 

Or maybe the chimps are evolving faster!

They do have an advantage...that opposible thumb for a big toe. Myself, I have trouble peeling a banana with my feet.

 

Er, apples and bananas. Sorry.

 

The "evidence" or data that man and apes, particularly the chimps, share a common ancestor seems to not be as certain as once proclaimed by evolutionists (e.g., the better than 98% "similarity" between human and chimp genes appears to be fadding somewhat}.

See also these older related newstories with a creationist comment: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1002.htm#earlyman51 - Human-Ape Differences Grow Wider 10/25/2002
as well as http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0203.htm#gene110 - Mitochondrial DNA Database Full of Mistakes 02/19/2003,
and http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0503.htm#gene127 - Treasure Found in DNA Junkyard 05/23/2003).

[ July 06, 2003, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Steven O. Sawyer ]

 

I noted a bit of inadvertent self-criticism in one of your links:

Note that the results are based on a portion of one chromosome. They aren't ready to give a percentage, because they have no way of knowing what it is.

That might not be "incomprehensible", but apparently it was set aside for something easily-understood.

Genetic variation of 20% or more within a species is has been observed. I can't seem to find what the variation between two-closely related species might be.

But it would normally be a lot less than 98%. My guess is that earlier estimates of 92-95% are more likely. But when we actually have data, that will be clearer.

Here's an interesting site on the comparison of human genes with those of other apes:

"How one defines similarity between species can be a subjective matter. If we consider only highly-similar regions between chimp and human then we are on the order of 97-98% similar. However, if we take into account larger insertions and deletions, then the similarity drops to 94-95%."

Todd D. Taylor, The Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Sequencing Consortium
RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center, 1-7-22 Suehiro-cho, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 230-0045 Japan

http://hgm2003.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/Plenaries/Plenary01/hgm01.html

 

Why do some "christians" try so HARD to support
a Theory that is so contrary to everything the
Word of God reveals and yet are so keen on
accepting that the Old Testament is allegoric.

Seems like they are putting their eggs in the
wrong basket.

 

I suppose it's because they don't want to accept that He created life by natural means. I think I'll never understand why.

Most people who object to the notion that the earth and waters brought forth life somehow still claim to accept Genesis literally. I have no idea of the mental processes required for that feat.

 

Why would apes an humans share *any* genes under the creationist idea?

 

I sat down and studied this for quite a while so I could reply intelligently...
Oh, wait, I typed in "why do apes share genes with humans" in my search bar and this is the first site it gave. Took a second. LOL
Anyhow, who is this guy and what do you think of what he's saying?
Gina

 

Oh yeah, you might want the link, huh?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm

 

That's an incredibly simple answer, and it's not entirely accurate. Do you think that the similarity in genes only involves what those genes are made of? Why aren't we just a similarly related to a banana? A rhino?

 

Originally posted by Helen:
Because all life is made up of the same basic proteins.</font>[/QUOTE]But the question has neven been sufficiently answered as to why we share the same mutations. To repeat quotes I made a couple of weeks ago (see the Vitamin-C thread for references and discussion):

So, as the theory of evolution would predict, not only do the apes and humans share the same genes they also share genes in the same locations and orders and they share mutations down to the base pairs. You can say YEC would predict the same genes as being essential to life but having the same mutations is not a logical predection from YEC.

 

Hey, Gina. Thanks for the link! I think the article underscores a lot of the problems with really understanding exactly what is compared between two species and why the resulting statistics can be sooooooo very misleading.

It would also seem by the logic of most evolutionists that since chimps have more genetic similarity to humans (supposedly only 1.5 - 5% difference) than most humans have to each other (I believe the human population has about a 7% variation), then it should be easier to mate with a chimp then other "distant" humans. However we KNOW that such comparisons are not true and only serve to promote racial bigotry (as Darwin and the early evolutioniosts did) and possibly some demented exercises in beastiality ("Oooooh! That's not right!"). This is partially due to the fact that chimps have 48 chromosomes while humans only have 46. As the article in your link points out, "A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan’s mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes."

Here are a couple more sections from the link
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm
DO HUMAN AND CHIMPANZEE DNA INDICATE AN EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIP? by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

That “something” actually is “Someone”—the Creator. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

That site was a storehouse of misinformation and hilarious misunderstandings. One of the funnier ones:

"While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs."

I doubt if any of them would be dumb enough to allow the vast majority of humans to donate organs to them, either. To make it work, the match has to be exact, or so close to it that one's immune system can't recognize the organ as foreign. Often, even a sibling isn't good enough.

 

The article by Harrub and Thompson is not a very good one. They discussed chromosomes a little, and overlook important publications in regard to chromosomes. Their most recent reference on chromosomes was in 1968! They are not good scholars, those two.

 

Wow those some big jumps in assumptions Helen!

If only we could see the rest of the article and not have to rely on your bais "interpretations".