According to my googling, geneticist Jeff Tomkins has been mentioned before in this website once, by Cordova in 2015. Nobody cared back then. Now here is a recent interview with him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxk1dZrnBR8 (it’s audio rather than video)
In this interview, Dr. Tomkins states that the claim of 98% similarity between humans and chimpanzees is only based on certain “regions of DNA”, i.e. some sequences, not the whole genome. Further specific claims:
- The similarity between humans and chimps, taking the whole genome into account, would be rather 70% or two thirds
- For evolution (of humans and chimps from a common ancestor) to be true, 98% similarity (across the whole genome) would be required, given the rate of mutation
To those who know better: Are these two claims true? Certainly evolutionary biologists would not be so sloppy as to declare 98% similarity of something without proper justification!
Further, at 15m20 mark, Dr. Tomkins says that genes operate in “networks and subnetworks,” apparently so that the whole genome is as if an integral system or organism by itself. This would imply that the genome would be able to evolve/change not by mutation and natural selection, but as predetermined by the inherent nature of the genome.
At 22m50 mark, Dr. Tomkins says, “Every time an unusual creature has its genome sequenced, we are finding unique sets of genes for these creatures.” Apart from the evidently unscientific term “creature,” I am interested in specific examples. Dr. Tomkins mentions “orphan genes” of shrimps, oysters and insects in that section.
How do evolutionary biologists assess Dr. Tomkins’ performance in this interview and his credentials in general?
” Certainly evolutionary biologists would not be so sloppy as to declare 98% similarity of something without proper justification!
Really?!🤔
They would certainly declare 99.9999 similarity if there was no one to challenge that…
(fixed the youtube link so it works)
It is from ICR (Institute for Creation Research).
This was actually discussed recently at PS:
Human and Chimp Similarity
I’m not sure why the percentage matters. It’s obvious enough that we are closer to chimpanzees than to most other animals. Why worry about the precise count?
Given that splicing is active in embryo development and generates different protein configurations I would say 70% is a closer estimate. About 50 to 60% similarity in exon selection.
hahahahaha..!
Good one Neil!
And they would certainly declare 99.9999 percent similarity, if it were true, and then claim this is proof of evolution, because you see, the similarity matters.
And if it isn’t true, well why does it matter, can you see we are the same!
Just wanna make sure I’m not more closely related to a banana than my cousin…😉
How can humans share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but under 1% of our DNA with our third cousins?
https://www.quora.com/How-can-humans-share-50-of-our-DNA-with-bananas-but-under-1-of-our-DNA-with-our-third-cousins-Are-these-measuring-percentages-of-different-things
Besides Tomkins is not a scientist. Because, you know, he doesn’t believe what scientists believe. Scientists are in 100% agreement. Evolution is the most evidenced theory in the history of science. Its ironclad. Every scientist believes it.
Therefore Tomkins is not a scientist.
And the 100s and thousands, and tens of thousands of scientists who don’t believe in Darwinian evolution? Not scientists.
Evolution is believed by more scientists than any theory ever. All of them in fact. Its just like fitness.
According to the interview, the precise count matters because of the thing called mutation rate: Species evolve at a certain pace and not faster. The less similarity there is, chimpanzees and humans could not have had a common ancestor because there was not enough time for the evolution.
Thanks for the other link. Swamidass seems to think the number matters to determine biological “kinds” (“Mice and rats are the same “kind.” Seems that humans and chimps are too.”) Given his overall tone, I am not sure how affirmative he is about this. The way he discusses the data simply puts the whole science of genetics in very bad light in terms of ability to collect and calculate data.
As for me, I am interested in the more fundamental question: Why “similarity” should matter at all? Claiming that two things are similar is a whole different claim than that they evolved from the same source. For the latter to be true, you are presupposing a bunch:
– that the things in question can in fact evolve to the given extent
– that there is some cause or mechanism to the evolution
– given the nature of the things and the nature of the cause/mechanism, evolution goes through certain phases over a certain time, leaving certain traces/evidence
Ultimately, “similarity” should have nothing to do with it. Facts specific to the nature of biological organisms and evidence, e.g. track record of intermediate forms, should be decisive.
This would be nothing new… Most of junk DNA crew that oppose ENCODE claim that evolution is the best evidence for junk DNA…That’s why Grour, Moran, Harshman and the like declared that, “if ENCODE (80% plus) of human genome is functional, evolution is wrong…”
They are already downplaying their estimates…I’d pay to see their arrogant asses humiliated…
We have covered both these topics recently.
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/human-and-chimp-similarity-mind-the-controls/5132
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-on-orphan-genes/4947
Now we are getting somewhere!!!
So if the similarities don’t fit evolutionary paradigm, then it’s caput…
J-Mac,
Percentages, percentages J-Mac…all this talk of percentages, why all the nitpicking about details, details. Have you ever seen a monkey eat? What about people, have you ever seen people eat? Ever seen people eat a banana. Ever seen a banana eat people? Ever seen a banana eat a monkey? I don’t think so.
And what about bacteria, do you know some bacteria eat citrate if they want. But some don’t. See.
Anyway, I think the percent feels like 96, maybe 97%. That’s how it feels to me. And its an epistemic problem, not a metaphysical one (ask Keiths and VJ), so according to my feelings Tomkins is wrong. I feel more closely related to a dolphin however. Like 98.2%. Some days. Other days I am a carnation. 98.3% My brother is not even slightly like a dolphin.
Bottom line, bacteria eat citrate. Evolution.
I thought God had guided the evolution of humans from a chimp embryo?
All I care about is where the genes for consciousness and faith reside in human genome so that they can be isolated and transplanted into chimp genome and prove materialism right….😂
J-Mac,
Better yet, I want the genes for dam building in beavers, transplanted into pigeons, so we can have better roads for free.
And I want the genes for geese flying south for the winter transplanted into police. Because I think it would make for a more harmonious society.
Sorry Florida.
Why does this subject bring out what appears to be a form of mania among the creationists?
The gleefulness! Beyond parody!
@ Erik
I’m not sure how much you understand about what is being claimed so forgive me if I come across as condescending. Your OP title “Are humans 98% chimp? Or 70%?” is an indication of misunderstanding.
What is being compared is genomes, in which the genetic information necessary to grow a chimp or a human are stored. The storage is in long sequences of a material called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that could simplistically likened to a string of beads, of which there are four sorts (collectively known as bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine – A, G, C, T). Sections of these sequences (referred to as genes) used as a template in protein synthesis result in active functional catalysts essential in metabolism. There are also active catalysts which are not proteins but RNA (ribonuceic acid) which are also essental and often at the heart of cell chemistry as in protein synthesis itself.
The problems start with what percentage of the whole genome is functional. In humans, only a small percentage of the genome codes for proteins, around 1 to 2% and perhaps another 8% for regulatory sequences that don’t get translated into proteins. Around half of the genome is non-functional in the sense that it could just as well not be there. It would be hugely unethical to test this in humans but knocking out large sections of mouse genome thought to be non-functional has resulted in healthy mice.
I don’t know the details of how sequence data of whole genomes are established but we now have that for both humans and chimps. The devil is in the detail of how to make the comparison. The basic method is called sequence alignment. One very useful piece of information that emerges from comparing genomes and parts of genomes is another way to establish relatedness. That the pattern that emerges from such comparisons matches analyses done by comparing anatomy (the first classic attempt by Linnaeus is still holding up) is very persuasive (to me) that common descent with modification from a common ancestor is the only plausible explanation for the evidence.
So 98% refers to the similarity in DNA base sequences between humans in chimps. The variation in the amount of similarity depends on what criteria are used to arrive at the percentage. As far as I understand, Tomkins is working with the same raw data and it is how he handles it that produces the discrepancy between his results and the generally accepted figure.
I’m no expert so I hope others will weigh in with corrections as needed.
That’s a total non sequitur
Completely arse about face, as usual. Evolution depends on everything being identical. Sure it does.
And if they do, you’ll accept it?
It’s Bill’s thing.
Could it be the difficulty of accepting the idea that this hairy, arm-dangling, hooting, panicidal ape is the species that is the nearest biological relative to the human?
ETA : added an important adjective to emphasise the notion that chimps and humans share certain behavioural activities.
That was the popular objection to Origin of Species. “I’m not a monkey’s uncle!”
Before genome sequencing, the method used was DNA hybridisation. Raise the temperature of double strand DNA, and it separates into single strands. Reduce the temperature and double strands reform, due to hydrogen bonding between complementary sequence. When the sample is pure, you get 100% bonding – every base has a complement. But when you mix DNA from two species, you get hybrid pairs. They only hydrogen bond in regions of complementary sequence, and so the melting point is lower – less energy is required to separate them again. The technique is coarse but widely considered reliable, and cheap sequencing has not cast doubt on its ability to give decent ballpark figures across the taxonomic range.
So would anyone care to account for this data? How can a true similarity of 70% give a physical measurement indicative of 98% or so?
(As an aside, 70% is the threshold for separate identification of bacterial species. We are not bacteria, of course, there are reasons why similarities are much higher in large sexual eukaryote species).
They seem particularly interested in chimps. 😃
Allan Miller,
I remember that. Just a gross estimate of what sticks when you run DNA extracts (labelled with tritium if memory serves) past each other in a chromatography column.
ETA, I”m not remembering it as well as I thought I did. It was the sixties!
The title basically reiterates the original title of the interview. It only indicates the topic, not my understanding of anything. And my post is mostly in question mode, so that those who know better could contribute. Specifically those who know better about (1) how to convert the DNA into statistical data, how much of it actually gets transformed (Dr. Tomkins says in the interview there are just “regions” or “areas” or “sequences” of it that get converted or included in the calculations, and Swamidass’s comments over at his place seem to indicate there are potential huge simple errors when calculating the result of the “similarity”) and (2) what genome does/encodes, what its function is.
Yes, it is a very big part of the problem – what is the function of this or that particular bit or whether there is no function. What is required is to define the term “function”, not to go in assuming nothing has function unless we have positively established that it has (the way evolutionists do) because there are other people who would like to go in assuming everything has function, we just have not found it yet. A common understanding of function would help a lot.
Spot on. The devil would be in the details and you don’t know the details. So much about that.
The pattern would only be persuasive given a further framework of assumptions and also given the devil-details. Absent those, there is no reason to be persuaded by the pattern, particularly when it is a broken pattern.
Simple examples of how the pattern is broken. On the one hand, the pattern is broken by so-called missing links. On the other hand, assuming that there is a roughly fixed mutation rate, each species of so-called living fossils break the pattern of evolution because they do not appear to be evolving when everything else around them supposedly is.
So there is “true similarity” on the one hand and “physical measurement” on the other? And “true similarity” is done by DNA hybridisation? How is “physical measurement” done?
This depends on the double helix, the amazing, inherent and almost magical property of DNA. As I mentioned, single DNA sequences are linear chains of four bases (also involving ribose sugar and phosphate molecules as bridging but these don’t affect the coding, only the structure). The four bases naturally associate with each other in a specific way, A and T pair with two hydrogen bonds (associations that break and reform more easily than covalent bonds) and G and C with three. In vivo, the DNA sequences or strands form up into double helices (spiralling ladders) with the “rungs” formed from either AT or CG matched pairs. This elegant property is essential to replication.
The double strand can separate (under the control of other molecular catalysts) and each strand (said to be complementary to the other) can then be duplicated to give two copies of the original double strands. Hence inheritance! But in vitro, You can separate the strands reversibly just by raising the temperature. On cooling the strands will reassociate 100%.
Now take DNA from two separate species and perform the same procedure. Some DNA will reassociate from strands from both species. The amount (percentage) of DNA that hybridises is a measure of how similar the sequences are in the two species.
Your bias is showing. Try harder.
That’s actually untrue. It’s a trope.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/11/16/crocodiles-are-not-living-fossils/
And so now the “pattern of evolution” is not broken at all.
Will you re-assess? Doubt it.
In any case, remember the niche. You might as well wonder why streamlined forms in sea creatures have not “evolved”. Has the physics of fluid dynamics changed?
What is untrue? A roughly fixed mutation rate? Particularly, the common ancestor of humans and chimps evolved by leaps and bounds? And this helps and proves the theory how? What is the evidence?
You claim to be good at reading? I quoted what I was responding to. There’s nothing ambiguous here.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=iMxTx3oAAAAJ&hl=en
Go read some. But as you seem to need to be spoon-fed, you are wrong that “living fossils” don’t evolve. They do. They have.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.150439
You were under a mistaken impression. You have had that clarified. Now, does that not make you wonder how many other misunderstandings you are labouring under?
Will you reassess? Clearly, not. Instead of accepting what you’ve just been told you do that instead. Clearly the mark of an open mind!
Sure-sure. But is this about the whole genome or about some select sequences? If select sequences, then selected based on what? Do you have a specific study in mind with regard to chimps and humans to show that Dr. Tomkins has no idea what he is talking about and that 98% is decisively the better number?
Will you get back on topic?
Sure, I get it. You were wrong but won’t admit it. And when called on it you use the “off topic” card.
Good luck with this thread.
You measure the degree of similarity by its effect on melting point. No need for all the arch “scare quotes”, as if every concept is a month-old herring.
Erik,
Whole genome.
Pots & vessels in 3… 2… 1…
Had no idea, that designer was smart.
I can save you 33 – 5 = 28 minutes of your life.
What an awesome Aussie accent, and nice to see a shout-out to JS.
Ever hear of “ snowbirds”?
Wow, just. wow.
Do creationists enjoy being shamelessly lied at like that? I don’t get it
Allan Miller,
Why?
Because the second part does not follow from the first.
colewd, the comparisons that everyone (else) is talking about are genomic comparisons.
Splicing, embryonic development, and protein configurations are utterly irrelevant.
Haha, brilliant. I wonder if this sheds any light on the hybridisation data, Erik? 🤔