Customer Discussions > Science forum

Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 170 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 15, 2012 10:47:54 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
We cannot see "how" it is wrong if you do not explain how. Just claiming it is wrong is empty.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 10:54:07 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
What about, stop a speeding train?

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 11:05:54 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.
Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.
- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. - Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans - 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans - The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
Sounds to me a bit like different translations of books.
Certain genes are so important to living processes that they are almost the same in all living creatures.
The bald percentages are rather difficult to interpret in a genome with billions of base pairs

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 4:10:51 AM PDT
HelVee says:
Christine M. Janis says:
""Do not tell me what I did learn about or currently do. How could you know?"
Bet'cha can't lift 300 pounds in a "jump from squat*. Only a truly medically qualified doctor could do that!

*Check out MFEH's profile "

Christine you made my day!........

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 9:46:05 AM PDT
Doctor says:
Professionals holding MBBS degrees are referred to by the courtesy title of "Doctor" and use the prefix "Dr".

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 9:47:50 AM PDT
Doctor says:
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 10:06:09 AM PDT
ErikR says:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/chimphumanproteins.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 10:06:43 AM PDT
ErikR says:
Oh, and why did you leave out the last line of the abstract?

"Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters."

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 10:26:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2012 10:33:53 AM PDT
So what?

BTW ~100 of the 127 proteins discussed in this paper showed 98% aa sequence identity. So even though 80% of proteins are different btw humans and chimps, these differences are for the most part very small.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 10:50:57 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
I wonder how many proteins are different between you and I? Will most be different and incompatible? or trivially different?
The measurement is different if you are looking at identical versus non-identical proteins compared to the number of analogous genes on similar places in chromosomes coding for the same type of protein.
Is haemoglobin A analogous to B?
Is alcohol dehydrogenase the same in a chimp or yeast?
How do you decide for these purposes?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 11:01:07 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
Mine are Actually M.A. B.M. B.Ch F.R.C.Psych.
So come on Doctor what are your qualifications?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 11:05:29 AM PDT
Most differences would be neutral. A few may be advantageous as far as environmental fitness is concerned and so would be under positive selection.

Probably the most important mutations as far as evolutionary change is concerned are in genes whose products regulate the expression of other genes, such as transcription factors and micro-RNA. One can detect genes whose evolution is "accelerated" compared to the background rate of mutation between two species, such as chimps and humans, which are most likely to be significant contributors to the differences between the two species. Thus comparing chimps and humans one finds "human-accelerated regions" which are relevant to human language production, brain development, and development of the opposable thumb.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 1:29:04 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
I am truly shocked about medical colleagues and their knowledge of ....well you can guess.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 1:34:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2012 1:36:56 PM PDT
Dr. Paul S. J. Smith wrote:

"Mine are Actually M.A. B.M. B.Ch F.R.C.Psych.
So come on Doctor what are your qualifications?"
==================================

There is nothing in those diplomas that confers on you the title of "Dr.".

The B.M, B.CH., commonly known as bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery, is an undergraduate degree in medicine and surgery, split into two years basic sciences, two years clinical sciences, and 12 months clinical training. You carry the title of "M.D.", not "Dr."

The diploma M.A., also, does not confer upon you the title of "Dr." which requires four years of graduate, innovative research leading to peer-reviewed publications.

I am not familiar with the F.R.C. Psych., which in my days amount to Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has been trashed by American Psychiatric and Medical Associations and its holders are not permitted to obtain license in the USA and cannot obtain green card or J-1 visas on its basis.

Nothing you said raises you to the level of "Dr." which is a prestigious graduate level of education, and most holders of doctorate degrees do not go around discussion fora flashing their diplomas, which amounts to childish narcissism.

You do not see Christine M. Janis bragging flashing the Professor Doctor card when all that counts is the merits of her argument.

You also do not see Christopher Haynes bragging about his direct links to Jesus because all that counts is his stunning logic that paralyzes the hearts, and captivates the souls.

So, please, lower your rhetoric, stay pointed.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 3:18:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2012 3:28:15 PM PDT
Re OP: One could wish that all of this would leave creationists unable to respond -- but the evidence is conclusive that it has done nothing of the sort. They continue to infest forums such as these with misinterpretations, confusion, and downright lies.

For anyone who questions your reference, see:
Ijdo, et al, Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 88, Oct. 1991, p. 9051.

Postscript: I subsequently noticed another post, which contained this reference and several others.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 7:28:21 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 7:29:46 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 7:31:16 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 8:24:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2012 8:25:56 PM PDT
noman says:
1) Not peer review research. Personal opinion piece

****
2) Richard Buggs

Buggs is a former member of the scientific panel of Truth in Science. Its web site says that he "holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford". His 1st degree is from Cambridge, where he graduated with a 1st in Plant Sciences (within the Natural Sciences Tripos) in 2000.

3) Buggs is a young earth creationist, confirmed by an e-mail received in 2007 from a friend of his. While at Oxford, he was involved in the Woodstock Road Baptist Church. The pastor at this church is a Dr Keith Stokes who is on the Council of Reference of Biblical Creation Ministries.

4) We now have two sources from his days at Oxford who state that Buggs is a religious fanatic - one says he has been since childhood. One, now an academic in his own right, has told me that Buggs "refuses to believe that science (either the method or the result) can be correct if it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. i.e. he will accept scientific results only insofar as they do not contradict a literal interpretation."

The same academic suggests that his ambition in obtaining what are essentially world class qualifications in the biological sciences, were never to develop a mainstream scientific career but "tout creationism from a position of authority."

5)Buggs is currently employed at the Soltis Labs of Florida Museum of Natural History - well, at least according it its web site at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/soltislab/Members.htm. He is a postdoctorial associate.

2-5 from:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RichardBuggs

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 8:31:18 PM PDT
noman says:
The *original* quote(rather than the *Doctor-ed* quote)
********
Gene. 2005 Feb 14;346:215-9.
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees.
Glazko G, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Makałowski W.
Source

Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Abstract

The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 8:51:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2012 8:54:48 PM PDT
Doctor: You do not have the least idea of what you are talking about.

Do yourself, and all of us here, a favor by shutting up.

[EDIT: BTW, if so many scientists thought that humans and chimpanzees are almost identical, why don't we have more human/chimp marriages?]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 8:57:57 PM PDT
Noman--"[Buggs] is a postdoctorial associate."

>>JGC: Oh, great. We have the opinion of a post-doc! Surely one so eminent will show us all the truth!

Ehhh, what's up, doc?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 11:08:27 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
You are just wrong. In the UK I am a doctor whatever you claim.
My qualifications are as much "trashed" in the US as US qualifications are in the UK.
M.D is American. in this context.
Your comments are just rubbish.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 11:11:43 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
So what are your qualifications?
Also what are "Doctor's"?
Very quiet aren't you both!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 11:14:26 PM PDT
Sceptic says:
What are your qualifications?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  170
Initial post:  Oct 14, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions