Re: Intelligent Design...
[quote=WitchDr]
......The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).
......It appears that only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of “non-coding” DNA (frequently referred to as “junk DNA”) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.
junk DNA is very negatice term used by scientists who felt their pride threatened by their ignorance of this DNA functiun, but as science progress it appears that this DNA could be involved in the "mysterious" processes, such as the expression or the inhibition of some genes, which is a VERY important process for all musticellular organims as it allows the formation of differentiate parts of the body/plant and is also the source of one of our most deadfull desease: cancer!
Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”?** The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! **
well this argument is twisted as it is going opposite to logic, as human is a recent creature (200 000 years at most for homo sapiens) compare to plants who appeared hundreds of millions years ago in the fossil record, thinking plants could be "humans" is exaclty ridiculous, but no serious evolutionist would do that. Evolutionists do place plants and humans are descents from primitive bacteria who hadve a cell containing DNA included in a core, these are called eubacterias. So they do relate plants and animals and humans, but never pretend that plants are humans.
There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans **(B-7, emp. added).The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?
well they do also underline that this difference related to the rate of mutations in genomes and the speed of trnsmission of mutations to children, make the first common ancestor between human and chimpanzee around 5 million years ago. So it gives a real relativity to the claim of some opponents who think evolutionists says humans are chimps, while we do claim they have evolved differently from 5 milions years at most ( they believe some gene exchanges can have occured during 5 to 8 million years ago), while we humans, have existed around 200,000 years, which means 4% of that time only** in our modern form , homo sapiens
(i am not counting homo ergaster here, as some might oppose me that they do look too much like apes)
/quote