Skip to comments.Ultraconserved sequences pose megaproblems for evolutionary theory
Posted on 02/05/2009 7:26:33 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
According to Darwinian theory, in the past we had a common ancestor with baboons, further back with bananas and still further with bacteria. This dogma has spread like a meme, which is a contagious idea that propagates in a similar way as a virus by infecting brains, according to inventor of the word, Richard Dawkins.1 In 2002, Roy Britten dispelled the first monkey meme that human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are 98.5% identical.2 He showed that when indelmutations were also taken into account, the difference suddenly became about 5%. The fact that chimpanzee genomes are about 10% larger than that of humans, a detail few people are aware of, raises the obvious question how a mere 5% difference, not to mention only 1%, could be mathematically even possible...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
Those differences (in counts of the same gene) have to contribute to the computation of raw difference in genomic structure.
I know the feeling. If you ever find the time, it’s a good read. All the best—GGG
You might be on to something. There are so many problems with Darwin’s fanciful creation myth that it’s hardly even news any more. Thanks for pointing that out.
Then why do you even "make" the assumption? In any case, you apparently miss the fact that something which possesses 10% more than something else cannot be 98.5% nor even 95% identical with that other something. To talk about a subset of the comparison without describing the limits of that comparison is not very useful. I would hazard to suggest that a child's DNA is not close to 100% identical to either of the parents, unless there is some unusual genetics going on. I would also say that a child's DNA would be almost exactly 50% identical to either parent.
Before we wear ourselves out arguing about this point, what exactly does the author of the article mean when he says that the chimpanzee genome is 10% bigger than the human geonome? Number of chromosomes? Number of DNA pairs? Number of “genes” (i.e. DNA groupings which appear to effect phenotype).
And on the other hand, what exactly does a geneticist mean when he says that the genomes of two species are 50% or 95% or 99% identical? Or 50% or 5% or 1% different?
The fact which I consider more interesting is that there is much greater variation among individuals within the chimpanzee genome than there is among individuals within the human genome, not withstanding the enormously larger numbers and geographic distribution of the human population.
If variation within the genome is propotional to the age of the species, then Chimps have been around a lot longer than humans.
Crack does terrible things to your mind, find something meaningful to take your mind off of It.
“.........its hardly even news any more.”
He He. Thanks for the ping.
It shows that humans fall in the middle of the size range for mammals, and it is clear that the size range is greater than 10%, but it doesn't give the specific numbers for any particular species.
It is clear that genome size is somewhat independent of other measures of evolutionary advancement (by advancement I mean change over time, not getting better).
But as I said before, the argument isn't that size matters, it's that if you have a 10% size difference, you are at least 10% different, and can't possibly be 98% or 95% identical.
Unless you are still in the "most dna is junk dna and shouldn't be counted" camp, I guess, although nobody is in that camp anymore, are they?
That’s what I like about these discussions, all the real science the evolutionists bring to the discussion.
Thanks you proved my point, the nitwit posted a chat topic in the news section.
It appears you got my point.
I thought you might see the humor, as your post did mention how drugs could effect one’s brain, which is a scientific statement. :-)
But opportunities missed.....