Replies

Frankly, I haven't been completely convinced that measuring an x.x% difference in human and chimp DNA is a particularly meaningful calculation in the first place. It makes for a great sound/word-byte, but what does it actually tell us that makes it worthy to include in the debate? People on the creo side love to toss out these numbers as a blow to evolution, but very few on either side are well-versed enough to understand what is actually being measured, and more importantly, the conclusions indicated by that number. (Although, while we're slinging calculations around willy-nilly, don't forget that whatever ulitmate number one arrives at for total mutational differences, that must be divided in half for rate of change calculations. After all, once the populations separated each began to drift independently.)

As jennyp has pointed out, there are several different types of differences that can be measured, from direct 1:1 comparisons straight up the line, to other analyses designed to account for insertions, deletions, reversals, and partial or complete gene duplications, in addition to other more exotic mutations.

I also wonder which chimp genome is being compared with which human genome. And how does this compare with a genome comparison between an African bushman and say, an Alaskan Eskimo? Or an Australian Aborigine versus a Brazilian Wari'?

But I think the larger point is this: No one doubts the similarity of chimps and humans. The physical and behavioral similarities are reinforced by genetic analysis, which points unquestionably towards common ancestry. The mechanisms of genetic variation are still under investigation, and the creo side, instead of triumphantly crowing about how these mechanisms couldn't possibly have caused X degree of diffence in Y amount of time, need to present evidence for something that could.

I also wonder which chimp genome is being compared with which human genome. And how does this compare with a genome comparison between an African bushman and say, an Alaskan Eskimo? Or an Australian Aborigine versus a Brazilian Wari'?

It hardly matters which human genome is measured, as you are closer genetically to any other human being on Earth than are two chimps living on opposite sides of the same mountain in Africa. More evidence that the human genome is slow to change.

I agree with your point that we need to keep refining numerical models so that the numbers better reflect reality- that is what we are trying to do. The answer is to keep at it, like we are trying to do, not tip over the chessboard and speculate that we can't use numbers to calculate anything meaningful. Of course we can, if we try. What scares some is that the meaningful calculations will show the vast improbability of the chimp-man common ancestor.

But I think the larger point is this: No one doubts the similarity of chimps and humans. The physical and behavioral similarities are reinforced by genetic analysis, which points unquestionably towards common ancestry.

Your bias is showing. The common ancestry is unquestionable only to a person who accepts it on faith to begin with. Common Designer is just as valid a hypothesis, unless one dogmatically rules it out in advance regardless of the evidence due to a personal choice.

The mechanisms of genetic variation are still under investigation, and the creo side, instead of triumphantly crowing about how these mechanisms couldn't possibly have caused X degree of diffence in Y amount of time, need to present evidence for something that could.

You have it backwards I am afraid. It is up to the EVO side to show that there are mechanisms which can reasonably produce these changes in the time allowed. We already have "something that could"- an intelligent designer.

The mice that scientists recently inserted jelly-fish glow genes into can now glow in the dark. Should civilization end and these critters escape into the wild I suppose some scientits 500 years from now could speculate that these genes evolved. Others could hypothysize that these genes were the results of intelligent designers manipulating genes.

I don't think the first group of scientists should demand that the second group produce the bodies of those long gone researchers as "proof" of the design hypotheis. The second group should be able to use stats to show how absurd is the idea of evolution in this case, especially within 500 years.

(Although, while we're slinging calculations around willy-nilly, don't forget that whatever ulitmate number one arrives at for total mutational differences, that must be divided in half for rate of change calculations. After all, once the populations separated each began to drift independently.)

I'm assuming we're using 10 million years in our calculations instead of the more correct 5 million, for that reason.