[mbro88]

Genome to god in a few notes. Um starts with the same letter I observe!

[OldManWinter]

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
[DeWitt, D.A. Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. TJ 17(1):8–10, 2003.]

And this was later found to be an underestimate by more than a factor of 2. The actual DNA similarity is less than 86.7%!! And when the presence of other genome (two MHC Class I genes, the MICA and MICB, yet chimpanzees contain only one gene at this location, the Patr-MIC.) is figured in it will end up being significantly lower.
[Anzai, T. Shiina, T. Kimura, N. Yanagiya, K. Kohara, S. Shigenari, A. Yamagata, T. Kulski, J.K. Naruse, T.K. Fujimori, Y. Fukuzumi, Y. Yamazaki, M. Tashiro, H. Iawmoto, C. Umehara, Y. Imanishi, T. Meyer, A. Ikeo, K. Gojobori, T. Bahram, S. and Inoko, H. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100(13):7708–7713, 2003.]

So in the end, yes we are more closely related to Pigs from a DNA stand point.

[mbro88]

Thanks for the update. How about our similarity to pigs has this also changed?

[ebaines]

Please note that the article cited by OldManWinter is from the web site answersingenesis.org - not a reputable scientific source, so take it with a grain of salt.

[mbro88]

Grain noted!

[OldManWinter]

Please note that these were the peer journals not a web site. Take time to look at the citations for crying out loud.

[ebaines]

Please note that these were the peer journals not a web site. Take time to look at the citations for crying out loud.

I did a Google search on "DeWitt, D.A., Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More.," and all that comes up is the suspect web site that I noted, not any "peer reviewed" journals. Is there another citation we should be aware of?

[OldManWinter]

I did a Google search on "DeWitt, D.A., Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More.," and all that comes up is the suspect web site that I noted, not any "peer reviewed" journals. Is there another citation we should be aware of?

These should be adequate web references. If you wish to look for citation titles on the web please refer to Scholar Google it helps.


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111906005749
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/16/5012.short

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates. Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. People may use the appearance method espoused by Darwin's adaptation/evolution theory as support, but not through the use of genetic statistics.

This matters little in relationship to ones religious beliefs or lack of belief. This is a matter of workable science.

[mbro88]

These should be adequate web references. If you wish to look for citation titles on the web please refer to Scholar Google it helps.


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111906005749
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/16/5012.short

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates. Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. People may use the appearance method espoused by Darwin's adaptation/evolution theory as support, but not through the use of genetic statistics.

This matters little in relationship to ones religious beliefs or lack of belief. This is a matter of workable science.

Well I looked around and this 'seemed' to have been peer reviewed : http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

I take the broad brush strokes first, on can always overpaint for detail later!

Not much on pigs!

[mbro88]

These should be adequate web references. If you wish to look for citation titles on the web please refer to Scholar Google it helps.


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13633.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111906005749
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/16/5012.short

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates. Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. People may use the appearance method espoused by Darwin's adaptation/evolution theory as support, but not through the use of genetic statistics.

This matters little in relationship to ones religious beliefs or lack of belief. This is a matter of workable science.

Well I looked around and this 'seemed' to have been peer reviewed : http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

I take the broad brush strokes first, one can always overpaint for detail later!

Not much on pigs!

[ebaines]

The short and the long of the matter is that we differ considerably from chimps and other primates.

Whether we differ "considerably" is a matter if qualitative degree - I'll accept that term for purposes of this discussion, but I wonder if you are in the crowd that thinks humans and pigs differ genetically less than humans and chimps?

Genetically the case can not be made that we evolved from them. ...This is a matter of workable science.

Current theory does not hold that humans evolved from chimps. The prevailing theory is that humans and chimps both evolved from earlier primates. So while I don't agree that the level of variations between species - "considerable" or otherwise - proves whether one evolved from the other or not, it's a moot argument.

[mbro88]

Whether we differ "considerably" is a matter if qalitative degree - I'll accept that term for purposes of this discussion, but I wonder if you are in the crowd that thinks humans and pigs differ genetically less than humans and chimps?



Current theory does not hold that humans evolved from chimps. The prevailing theory is that humans and chimps both evolved from earlier primates. So while I don't agree that the level of variations between species - "considerable" or otherwise - proves whether one evolved from the other or not, it's a moot argument.

There seems to have been descovered other types of human in the bone record as skulls and 'stuff'. Origonaly my own question back when at the start of this topic was that there seemed little diffrence between what was said of the genom between man, as in the us now, and the chimp and the pig.
Personally I have never felt that evolution and survival belong in the same sentence or are good bedfellows.
If we, us humans now, do evolve I think it is from within a pool of the us that makes the environment, and one would not be able to draw an primate in succession turning into a upright human as we are now.
So for me no, not in a crowd. Just interested in the original question, which has expanded, for the most part, in a interesting way!
So for me pigs humans and chimps seem a good comparison to use to compare against. Better than tree say!

[bkcars]

In Islam Muslims believe that pigs and monkeys were originally humans and were turned into these animals. No need to try to find your answers for all the big questions just take a look at Noble Quran. Scientists have estimated the age of the earth and also the time it takes for animals to evolve. The world has too many varieties and species of animals for evolution to add up.