Actually I would
So, regardless that I did not exactly say that, what do you find strange about it?
Hi Faizal, I did already reply to you on the channel.
Now I am confused where to find whatā¦
I want to return to answer the comments I missed last weekā¦
How can I do that?
Will you point me to where the 71% comes from pleaseā¦?!
@Ahmed_AbdelSattar , sure, just head to Public discourse in origins: here be dragons
Here:
1 Like
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 2005; 437:69-87.
And I should mention that this has been cited to you several times already.
2 Likes
Great! So, when you find an SNP that changes a protein, and you see what that does, you know that the kind of SNPās that took place between humans and chimp ancestors must be of a different type!
Mutations in human lineage kept us still humanā¦
The alleged mutations that occurred to the alleged chimp ancestor obviously didnāt!
Does it add up?
When it is detected as a different protein, then your assertion that it is minor and neutral is unfounded and just speculation.
I already responded to that in the discussion with Josh.
Coalescence is irrelevant to new traits in humansā¦ we are not tracing back alleles in existing genes to use coalescence in the first place!
We are not in the context of discussing the neutral changes! this is the whole point!
And I quote from the article:
In the 1960s, Swedish biologist [Lars ] wanted to know if this industrious behavior was learned or innate. He decided to capture four adult beavers with the intention of raising them in different habitats. Some were kept in an outdoor enclosure and others in a glass-walled terrarium indoors.
When a new generation of beavers was born, he chose a few of them to raise in isolation in order to study which of their behaviors were instinctual. He discovered that when released into running water, the young beavers built near perfect examples of dams on their first try.
END QUOTE.
Now, it makes no difference whether the sound of running water or any other thing triggered them! The question is: āFrom where do they get the knowledgeā.
Will you address the question?!
And saying that the are ācompelledā do not also answer the question of from where they get the knowledge.
1 Like
Usually, we donāt call proteins that differ by a single amino acid ādifferent proteinsā. And you are asserting without evidence that such differences are never neutral. The evidence from human protein polymorphisms suggests otherwise.
2 Likes
So, you just want to ignore the proteome comparison, ignore the obvious morphological, phenotypic, behavioral, and cognitive difference between the two species, and insist that all what happened was predominantly neural contrary to all observationsā¦
Is there any observation that will convince you otherwise?
Donāt you feel there is systemic bias in your perspective?
Can you explain the context so I can understand the point you are making?
No, we want you to do the proteome comparison properly. Which you have thus far refused to do.
2 Likes
And you think this is evidence for which one of us? (Are you serious to think it is towards your argument?)
PS: Why are you ignoring 5 million indels?!
which you think we understand?
We donāt!
First, they are thought to be junk of remnants, and thenā¦ we start finding functions.
Maybe someone should have given ENCODE a real chance instead of resenting/resisting its findings! Maybe we could have known better by now!
Quote the reference that will support you, please.
Can you explain the context so I can understand the point you are making?
Your comments properly depict the status quo of science that is biased by a preset direction āevolution (the Darwinian way) must be trueā!
Alas!
1 Like
Where did I say any of that? As time goes on, it gets harder and harder for me to interpret your comments as good faith. I donāt want to ignore the proteome comparison at all - literally my entire comment that your replied to was specifically about the proteome comparison, and trying to explain to you how youāre wildly misinterpreting quite basic data.
5 Likes
The essence of that comment was to correct your misunderstanding of what the ā71%ā meant and that observation is consistent with our relatively recent shared ancestry with chimps and bonobos.
In addition, indels are not ignored in the sequence comparisons between humans and chimps. When they are taken into account, the percentage genome sequence similarity between humans and chimps drops to about 96%, which still indicates our shared ancestry.
Donāt change the topic. You claimed we understood just 1.5% of the human genome and I pointed out that 8% of the human genome consisted of ERV elements. This alone was sufficient to show that we understood more than 1.5% of the human genome, nullifying your claim.
If most mutations affecting our genome werenāt neutral, our species would have gone extinct by now.
4 Likes