It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 53
16
<< 50  51  52   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I've admitted I am wrong plenty here. However you have repeatedly shown that you are not o fey with the biological sciences, and Chemistry. Perchance you are trained in another discipline?


Because I don't agree with your conclusions regarding these fields? Step down from your pedestal, everyone is living quite well down here below the cloudy megalomania in high places.
edit on 21-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No because you make mistakes that someone trained in Chemistry would not, but someone who took a paper once might.

Lets make this easy. What was your specialist in chemistry? Physical? Organic? Inorganic? Environmental/Aqueous? Mine was organic, though my PhD was also full of Physical Organic, due to the measurements taken, and calculations run to show the likely mechanism products formed from.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%



Not any more its closer to 95 to 96 for possible variances.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 11/21/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah the more we sequence whole genomes the better the data goes. The problem is over what was being compared. We share about 99% of the same DNA, but gene repeats and mutations make it more like (as you say 95%, so it is still quite high.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah the more we sequence whole genomes the better the data goes. The problem is over what was being compared. We share about 99% of the same DNA, but gene repeats and mutations make it more like (as you say 95%, so it is still quite high.


The amazing thing is we have moved on to sequencing other animals. As we do that and build a large enough data base with cross comparisons we should fully understand genetics.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

When I came back to retrain in Bioinformatics in 2010, there was the competition for 1000 genomes, that is nothing now. One day soon it will be a regular test to have done by your doctor, or the veterinarian, to see what his hiding in your genome (roll on Gatica?)

The more information we get, the more dodgy the creationist stance becomes



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%



Not any more its closer to 95 to 96 for possible variances.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...


To be fair, your citations are 12 years old. This genomic wide comparison of Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Humans from 2012 says

On average, the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi genome are approximately 99.9% identical to each other, 99.6% identical to corresponding sequences in the chimpanzee genome and 98.7% identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome. A comprehensive analysis of the bonobo genome is presented in Supplementary Information.


Link

It's a good read.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%



Not any more its closer to 95 to 96 for possible variances.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

At what point is someone going to count what they refer to as "indels" (claimed mythological insertions and deletions) as differences in their (whole genome) comparisons? Rather than ignore it and pretend it's not a difference, thereby altering the raw data (by removing almost all the sequences that don't match up in their comparison between human and chimp) so all you're left with is that which does match up (barring the few exceptions that you haven't left out of the comparison, allowing to get as close to 100% as one desires by using different methodologies in deciding what differences to ignore and not count in the overall similarity percentage number). Any chance we'll be getting some honesty regarding this issue with indels anytime soon? Or the comparitive genome size between chimp and human genomes already exceeding the proposed numbers in terms of difference? Or the number of N's (gaps) used in the chimp genome to get a better match (and also not counted as differences)? Or only talking about the percentage similarity of "the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi genome" and then pretend it's not misleading to refer to that as a "genomic wide comparison" just because you were searching through it (genomic wide) to cherry-pick a relatively short sequence that was nicely similar while ignoring to mention any numbers for the rest of the genomes you're comparing?
No need to bother with answering any of those questions without watching the background story below regarding historical claims made in relation to human-chimp genome comparisons.

Best not watch beyond 2:20:

Relevant from 7:19 - 18:01:

Relevant from 31:42 - 37:42

edit on 21-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 50  51  52   >>

log in

join