Why do humans share 98% of their DNA with apes?
Actually, 95% (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129726) for chimpanzees, who are closest to us genetically. Even if you go with the 1.2% difference, it "Although this difference may appear small, it accounts for more than 35,000,000 nucleotide substitutions, not including such differences as insertions, deletions and duplications. The majority of these differences; however, even those affecting the amino acid composition of proteins, are likely to be selectively neutral and thus have no detectable effect on phenotypic traits [3]. It has long been argued that, in addition to gene sequence differences, changes in RNA and protein expression may provide additional and crucial perspective on the evolutionary differences between humans and chimpanzees [4]. However, similar to DNA sequence differences, the majority of gene expression differences seen between species are likely to be selectively neutral [5]. Thus, the identification of genes affected by positive selection on either DNA sequence or RNA and protein expression levels during human evolution represents a challenge. Nevertheless, this is a challenge worth perusing—identification of positively selected genetic changes in humans can shed light on the molecular mechanisms underlying human-specific abilities." (from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (http://www.science.ngfn.de/10_264.htm)).

So we have 35 million nucleotides that are entirely different from chimps.

Of course, we share somewhere around 50% of our DNA with bananas. The devil's in the details. :D

Now there's possiblility humans evolved form Bananas? oi... now that 90+ % Similarity doesn't seem like nough to warrant evolution of humans form monkeys fully with 35 million different nucleotides... lolz. i'm related to a banana by 50% now...

God would make monkeys and humans similar as a test of one's faith in him. Mental gymnastics FTW!

that, i expect only one who has an open mind to understand.
<snip>
i won't give up God, no matter how much 'evidence' and fact you use. Well done.

Actually, 95% (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129726) for chimpanzees, who are closest to us genetically. For the sake of argument, let's forego dueling sources and just go with your number. I will take a moment to point out that the margin of error is smaller than the difference between 95% that they "probably" feel is more accurate and the previously accepted 98%.

Now, how does that come close to negating any of the other points that I raised?

So we have 35 million nucleotides that are entirely different from chimps. Ok, figure about 200 million nucleotides in a chromosome times 46 chromosomes in a genenome = 9.2 billion nucleotides. These 35,000,000 nucleotide substitutions would make up approximately 0.4% of the geneome. Let's assume my numbers are wrong by half and there are only 4.6 billion nucleotides in the human geneome. 0.8% of the genenome. Not even 1%.

Let's also not forget that all other primates have one more chromosome pair than humans (human chromosome 2 is fused giving us 46 instead of 48 chromosomes). If one chromosome has 200 million nucleotides (or 100 million going with my 50% margin of error), how significant is 35 million hold up against the 400-200 million "extra" nucleotides that chimps have which we don't?

Plus the fact that estimates put "junk" dna at 80-90% of the geneome. Very convincing.

Of course, we share somewhere around 50% of our DNA with bananas. The devil's in the details. :D I wonder which creationist website you found that on.

Right let me clarify several things before I begin; I am a devout Christian and scientist, however I am going to have to defend and back up Achilles on a few points here;

Yeah, but i'm still skicking with God.

With the science cannot prove anything that cannotb e witnessed thin, here's what i manet: the origin of the universe- an event that is all but unobservable.

The origin of the universe unobservable? That my friend is a matter of conjecture; to my mind Big Bang Theory has been proven beyond a doubt now from all the information we have; although as I'm sure Achilles will admit there are perhaps one or two problematic questions science has yet to answer with that reguard if you are an athiest.


With your saying huh? abotu my tectbooks thing, i go to a christian school with christian science books.

Science should be free of all slants to provide a fair answer. What do these 'science' book says? If they say that the eart is 6,000 years old I would contend that they are psuedo science

God would make monkeys and humans similar as a test of one's faith in him.

Extraporlate, I disagree, God may test faith in many ways, but I do not see how monkeys are a test of that faith.

God creates a fallible race becasue out of goodness he woulg later make them infallible and perfect along with him in the end. [QUOTE=Arcesious]

Re-read Genesis m8, you may see God did great man as infallibe, but then this pesky dude called Satin came along and the rest is history... (or not if your Achilles ;))

[QUOTE=Arcesious]there are some things i cannot explain about as to why because you do not see it the way i do, whuich i don't expect that to be understood. If you were a perfect God, a beign that could do anything, the you wouldn't make a race greater than yourself, but you would make them fallible. As God, you would be so good that you have a desire for others to experience perfection along with you. and in perfecting mankind out of fallibleness in the end, you would therefore be able to be perfect by having someone to prove your perfction to. Man's flawed concepts of Go are what arise many speculations suhc as 'the God paradox', and as one Bible verse says, can't rember what it was- tihnk it was Isiah something, it pretty much says "no one can think at the level of God, and their limited understnading of him often leads them to having flawed concepts of him'. that's not exactly how that bible verse goes, but ithat's what it means. God is perfection, and therefore nothing can fully undeerstand him. He is almight, but he intentionally created humans as fallible, a great plan i do not expect you to understand. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but there are some things that only a person who believes in God fully and faithfully can understand that one who doesn't believe in him cannot because he thinks the bliever of it is the one who is decieved. that, i expect only one who has an open mind to understand.

No offence but thats just rubbish. I've got to run, so will debunk most of what you have said when I return, however you may want to consider this;

We are called to always have an anwer for all those who ask; 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect". The sign of a cult is when peole say; "you should just believe". Finally your Biblical understanding is not great I would advise you to go back and READ your Bible more.




i won't give up God, no matter how much 'evidence' and fact you use.

In many respects what is the point of saying such things, you attack Achilles for not having na open mind, yet you yourself do not have one.

To be fair, saying Monkeys are a "test of faith" is just like saying Bananas being a "test of faith to atheism"

No, there is no faith-testing monkeys. Monkeys are just, monkeys. They are not trying to test you, they are just creatures on this planet, like anything else.

The whole ordeal with "this must be faked", or "its a test" or "this guy works for santa" is just a way to NOT look into a counter-theory before making a comment.

Yes, I do know that there are bad apples where people are faking scientific result, so did some fake-theists faking miracles. But generally, I urge people to understand a theory, then pass your judgement of your believe or disbelieve in a matter, and not just shutting the door before giving it any chance of explanation.

For the sake of argument, let's forego dueling sources and just go with your number. I will take a moment to point out that the margin of error is smaller than the difference between 95% that they "probably" feel is more accurate and the previously accepted 98%.
That was just an fyi, not a dueling issue. I thought the article was interesting and wanted to share it more than anything else.

Ok, figure about 200 million nucleotides in a chromosome times 46 chromosomes in a genenome = 9.2 billion nucleotides. These 35,000,000 nucleotide substitutions would make up approximately 0.4% of the geneome. Let's assume my numbers are wrong by half and there are only 4.6 billion nucleotides in the human geneome. 0.8% of the genenome. Not even 1%.

Approximately 3 billion nucleotides, actually. (link) (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761580681)
So closer to 1% in this case, which isn't adding up to either of our numbers. :) I hate it when that happens. :)


I wonder which creationist website you found that on.
Ah. You assume a lot there. :)
May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000
Science journal of WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1018544984675195320.html)
from University lecture (http://www.bmsf.unsw.edu.au/training/CHEM7116/downloads/lectures/7116ProteomicsMS01.pdf). See page 2. Note this comment:
Human proteome: 2^60,000 possible
states!!! + post translational
modification
What's the probability of that happening by chance, by the way?

That was just an fyi, not a dueling issue. I thought the article was interesting and wanted to share it more than anything else. Glad we're still being honest :)

Approximately 3 billion nucleotides, actually. (link) (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761580681)
So closer to 1% in this case, which isn't adding up to either of our numbers. :) I hate it when that happens. :) Hmmm...I wonder if that's why you didn't provide that source the first time (being potentially contradictory to your argument and all).

Ah. You assume a lot there. :) Yes, Jae, because experience tells me that when you post definite statements like that without a source, you've either made it up or are citing a creationist website that you know I'm going to question.

May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000
Science journal of WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1018544984675195320.html)
from University lecture (http://www.bmsf.unsw.edu.au/training/CHEM7116/downloads/lectures/7116ProteomicsMS01.pdf). See page 2. You know what I don't see from either source? A cited study. I'm sure that you're more than happy to take the ultra-conservative WSJ at face value (which is what Prof. Guilhaus did, for all we know), however I'm not.

Also, your New Scientist source doesn't mention banana DNA once, let alone how it compares to human DNA. In fact the only reference to non-human DNA is a closing paragraph about how researchers hope to sequence rats, mice and zebrafish in the near future (article published in 2000).

FWIW though, your sources really don't matter because even if the 50% number was correct, I'm not sure what your point is. Are we half banana? The fact that human beings and bananas shared a common multi-cellular ancestor billions of years ago hardly blows my hair back (nor does it blow back the hair of anyone with a working knowledge of evolution or genetics).

So yeah, if there are five (two?) little percentage points separating us from chimps (which are part of the ape family, btw), then 50 percentage points between us and bananas is completely plausible.

Note this comment:
<snip>
What's the probability of that happening by chance, by the way? I don't know, Jae. Math was never my strong point. However whatever it is, evolution was obviously more than capable of taking care of it (us being here and all).

Yes, Jae, because experience tells me that when you post definite statements like that without a source, you've either made it up....

I NEVER have, nor ever will, MAKE UP A SOURCE. I may be mistaken at times, but I HAVE NEVER LIED ABOUT A SOURCE. Your accusation that I'm that dishonest is extraordinarily offensive and extremely hurtful. I thought you were a far better person than accusing someone of lying in order to further your own 'arguements'. If you want to engage me, do so, but don't accuse me of dishonesty in order to distract from the discussion.

I thought you were a far better person than accusing someone of lying in order to further your own 'arguements'.My statement had absolutely no bearing on my argument. You accused me of jumping to conclusions. I explained why (i.e. when I ask someone for a source and they gloss over the request, claim that they can't find it, or abandon the thread, I tend to assume that they made it up). If the shoe doesn't fit, then you shouldn't have much to worry about.

If you want to engage me, do so, but don't accuse me of dishonesty in order to distract from the discussion. My statement was a response to yours. Who's the one distracting from the argument?

PS: Shouldn't this have been a PM, Moderator Jae?

Thanks for reading.

My statement had absolutely no bearing on my argument. You accused me of jumping to conclusions. I explained why (i.e. when I ask someone for a source and they gloss over the request, claim that they can't find it, or abandon the thread, I tend to assume that they made it up).
You know what they say when you 'assume' things. :rolleyes:

Everyone needs to take a step back and cool down. Discussion in here should be friendly, not pointed and angry. Achilles, there's nothing wrong with asking her to cite sources in a nice way. You need not 'assume' such things, because that attitude is counterproductive to friendly discussion. Jae, no need to get heated about accusations, that ain't conducive to a friendly atmosphere either.

Oftentimes people forget that this place isn't the Senate. It's discussion here, not formalized debate. Please do well to remember that.