Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DNA similarity between Chimpanzee and Human 70%
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 32 (719976)
02-19-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Telesto
02-19-2014 6:56 AM


Re: More Please
All of them indicate large differences 70%-89% between Human and Chimpanzee, which is in contrast to generally accepted difference between 94%-98%.
Psst ... you mean similarities, not differences.
Now, is it "in contrast to" the generally accepted figure? Well, if it was, their results would have been meaningful, and they could have published them in a real journal. But what they've actually done is picked a different method of measuring difference. Your weight in kilograms is not in contrast to your weight in ounces, it's just a different metric.
I think these numbers are taken by different method than previous high similarity results.
Yes.
Now the ideal metric for difference would be one that measures the number of mutations needed to get from one genome to the other; this would be biologically meaningful. As Taq points out, the creationists are ignoring the possibility of indels, so they get a different and less meaningful figure. But it's larger, which is what they're aiming for. But by doing that, they've rendered worthless their conclusion that "this defies standard evolutionary time-scales".
4) Further research: By the same method compare DNA between species inside one baramin (e.g. mouse and rat).
An excellent idea.
From the data I can find, humans and chimps should be further apart than the two sequenced species of macaques, which belong to the same genus; maybe a little further apart than a domestic cat and a tiger; and closer than a rat and a mouse. If the latter is the case, the creationists would be hoist on their own petard.
---
The paper speaks approvingly of this guy. The web page makes his perl scripts freely available, so it should be easy enough to re-use his techniques on other genomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Telesto, posted 02-19-2014 6:56 AM Telesto has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 2:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 15 by Telesto, posted 02-19-2014 4:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 32 (720021)
02-19-2014 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
02-19-2014 4:52 PM


Re: More Please
No, it isn't. Different chromsomes have diverged at different rates.
He means identical. As a way of calibrating the method --- if he gives it two identical bits of data, it should give him 100% as an answer, or there's something wrong with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 4:52 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 32 (720022)
02-19-2014 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Telesto
02-19-2014 4:27 PM


Re: More Please
I am not sure if this algorithm was used in the particular research.
It wasn't, but they cite it approvingly and the code is there for you to use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Telesto, posted 02-19-2014 4:27 PM Telesto has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Telesto, posted 02-19-2014 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024