No DDX11L2 genes or homologs found on chimp 2a or2b.
No telomere found at supposed fusion site. Extraneous telomere information not important, since only human telomeres have 10 kilobases of AAGTT.
Your BS can't even qualify as sloppy because it's so bad!
From this, I am confident in the explanation that McLatchy (whoever he is) is incompetent on the subject and either uses models that are invalid or makes errors in the use of valid models due to his incompetence. I am sure an expert would be able to point out where he goes wrong in a way that would be convincing. If not, there's nothing to stop him from getting his work peer-reviewed.
One thing that is worth bearing in mind is that evolution is gradualist in terms of genes, but single mutations can have quite large, sometimes multiple effects. For example, consider the mutation that causes dwarfism in humans, and mutations that cause missing or atrophied limbs.
Meanwhile, what is your explanation for the gradual development of ancient organisms over tens of millions of years that we scientists interpret as the evolution of whales?
See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Evolutionists can't even explain how most of the Cambrian animals arrived in 6 million years. Clearly no precursors there. 16 phyla, 30 classes, many more orders and species,
all in 6 million years.
If evolutionists don't have a clue on the biggest life event in history then how can anyone believe them on anything else.
Besides, Elroch, every one of those creatures looks like God designed them optimally for their environment, just like the Cambrian animals were designed by God for their environments. Of course he designed genomes for a non random evolution through phenotype plasticity, so they can adapt to new environments.
A glorious and wonderful God rules this earth!☺
DNA degrades beyond recovery after 100,000 years Bob, what are you smoking over there? 😕Sorry, no DNA sequencing possible! 😭
Try this one out guys. The leading primate evolutionist in the world is on record saying the following:
It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimps are far more extensive than previously thought, Their genomes are not 98% or 99% similar. ( Todd Preuss, Yerkses primate center at Emory university, Proceedings for the National academy of Sciences, 2012, p. 10,709.)
Is someone out here smarter than this guy?😕
I really wouldn't know about the bible. As you pointed out, and well-backed by scientific research, Christians don't bother to read it. We'll all just liars. And we insult people to boot 😃
How true. We finally agree on something. But I think you are being unkind: "We'll (sic) all just liars."
Some are, especially priests, bishops, cardinals, ministers, popes. But the great majority are simply ignorant, superstitious, hypocritical, easily fleeced of their money...that's why they are referred to as "sheep". You strike me as a sheep. e99 is more in the first category.
Anyway, enjoy the book. I never meant to say that the book is a "hard read". It is a book written for the layman. It is a rather "easy read". The hard part (at least for me) is digesting the technical aspects of microbiology.
Part of the reason is that I don't have the time or inclination to make microbiology a major undertaking in the short span of years that I have left. Chess already chews up a goodly chunk of my time. lol
Anyway, old sport, I am very pleased that you are taking off your blinders and digging into some science for, apparently, the first time in your sordid life (hey...I couldn't resist...just joking, of course).
From this, I am confident in the explanation that McLatchy (whoever he is) is incompetent on the subject and either uses models that are invalid or makes errors in the use of valid models due to his incompetence. I am sure an expert would be able to point out where he goes wrong in a way that would be convincing. If not, there's nothing to stop him from getting his work peer-reviewed.
One thing that is worth bearing in mind is that evolution is gradualist in terms of genes, but single mutations can have quite large, sometimes multiple effects. For example, consider the mutation that causes dwarfism in humans, and mutations that cause missing or atrophied limbs.
Meanwhile, what is your explanation for the gradual development of ancient organisms over tens of millions of years that we scientists interpret as the evolution of whales?
See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
You blew him off and you don't even have any idea what his objections were.
Well, he's up against the entire scientific consensus about a theory which has been tested to an extraordinary extent. It's a very safe hypothesis.
It's a simple fact that there are a lot more crackpots out there than there are Einsteins (the real one, not the one who insults him by taking his name).
But you were convinced by him. Is your memory good enough to explain his reasoning, or can you find some accessible version of it?
You're the only one I see who uses these old outdated figures anymore Elroch. The scientific community has already moved on from these biased, fudged, and cherry picked numbers. The entire sequenced MSY human/ chimp comparison shows only a 43% optimal alignment. You have seen the latest ideogram on the two chromosomes I take it.
You're on the loosing side of this one ol' chap.
When every nucleotide has been sequenced for chimps and put in Chromosomal comparison, you're gonna look like a chump, and I'll be the champ, no chimps though.
My question is are you gonna concede that you've loss
or keep throwing your same old horse manure at us!😛
Try this one out guys. The leading primate evolutionist in the world is on record saying the following:
It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimps are far more extensive than previously thought, Their genomes are not 98% or 99% similar. ( Todd Preuss, Yerkses primate center at Emory university, Proceedings for the National academy of Sciences, 2012, p. 10,709.)
Is someone out here smarter than this guy?😕
Well, he is an anthropology PhD, so it's pretty safe to say there is. 
I am sure he would not disagree with the results in the state of the art paper on the subject: he must be using a different definition of similarity, probably one that is not allowing for gene duplications.
Anyhow, what matters is how many mutations are needed to arrive at the difference between the two species. The answer is around 40,000,000. Obviously these mutations have occurred in both lines, so it amounts to about 20,000,000 mutations in each line. Most of these mutations are SNPs, others are gene duplications, deletions, and various sorts of rearrangement. Still others are duplications of parasitic DNA.
The average number of mutations per generation in humans has been measured quite accurately in Iceland and amounts to just under 100, if I recall. By a curious co-incidence, this corresponds rather closely to the observed distance between the two genomes.
All that matters to the theory of evolution is that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are capable of producing the observed difference and it turns out they are.
Note that because of sexual reproduction, evolution is not limited to the number of mutations in an individual in one generation. What can happen is that you have a large number of individuals, each has some mutations, and the best of those mutations are the ones you find still around many generations later, as they get combined and recombined across the population. Using a simplified but enlightening model, the limit to the information gain per generation is the square root of the population size. But as well as genuine fitness gains, there is genetic drift which is a random effect not driven by natural selection, the results of evolution are not entirely predictable, even starting the same cloned organisms in the same environment, because of the random nature of mutation, and the random aspects of interaction with the environment (eg an organism may have an expectation of 3 viable offspring, but the variance of that statistic might be 1).
You're the only one I see who uses these old outdated figures anymore Elroch.
Let me remind you that the source of the 98.7% statistic for autosomal DNA is based on the most up to date genomes for humans and our primate cousins:
The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes (Nature, 28 June 2012)
Please do direct us to the retraction you seem to believe exists.
Believe nature when they got it so wrong in the first place ol' chap.
Their Y Chromosome comparisons look nothing like the current MSY human/chimp comparisons which proves my point that they fudged all their data.
Try this one out guys. The leading primate evolutionist in the world is on record saying the following:
It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimps are far more extensive than previously thought, Their genomes are not 98% or 99% similar. ( Todd Preuss, Yerkses primate center at Emory university, Proceedings for the National academy of Sciences, 2012, p. 10,709.)
Is someone out here smarter than this guy?😕
You keep coming back again and again with this, so I looked it up. Your citation is from the abstract of the article, which is available as full text online: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10709.full.
So what may Dr. Preuss mean with "the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought"? Maybe 70%, maybe even less?
Thankfully, he states that in the text: "One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96%" - OMG...
The bird'explosion' just appeared in Science magazine ol' man. 95% of the birds in less than 10 million years, sound familiar? 😣
The question is what is such a view worth from someone who has very little idea what they did?
As an outsider to this particular conversation, what is the issue with chimp/human genetic concordance? It's either high or low isn't it? Does the data change based on which sets eyes look through the microscope?
Elroch, even though you've taken up five pages essentially debating what the meaning of "is" is (it helps to be an American to understand the reference) and have little credibility with me, STILL data is data, and it does not sound like it should be open to interpretation.
Can't you fellows refer me to your single best source for review?
Really, it just shouldn't be this contentious.
Try this one out guys. The leading primate evolutionist in the world is on record saying the following:
It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimps are far more extensive than previously thought, Their genomes are not 98% or 99% similar. ( Todd Preuss, Yerkses primate center at Emory university, Proceedings for the National academy of Sciences, 2012, p. 10,709.)
Is someone out here smarter than this guy?😕
You keep coming back again and again with this, so I looked it up. Your citation is from the abstract of the article, which is available as full text online: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10709.full.
So what may Dr. Preuss mean with "the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought"? Maybe 70%, maybe even less?
Thankfully, he states that in the text: "One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96%" - OMG...
This is consistent with my guess that the reason for the difference between the two figures is that he is counting duplicated genes as differences. 2.7% of the genomes are the results of gene duplications in one that don't exist in the other. Allowing from that, the difference in the autosomal DNA is 1.3 %. If this was all the DNA, this would make the difference 4% (i.e. 96% identical). But the X and especially the Y chromosomes have more differences, which brings the similarity down to somewhere between 95% and 96% if you define it that way. This would mean no disagreement between the two statements.
Not the Monster Raving Looney Party figures that come from 99.
99, you are echoing the views of people who do not have established expertise in the field. They contradict the views of people who are expert. It's easy for anyone to claim that something is impossible or that it proves something, but you have been removed from the field of science for over 30 years, and you can't see how loose those sorts of arguments are.
The sloppiness of your thinking is indicated by the huge number of unwarranted assumptions in your recent posts (eg that there are only human telomeres and chimp telomeres in the ancestry - no other hominids, that these telomeres have to remain complete forever, that no gene copying or rearrangement can occur. In truth this latter type of mutation is the explanation of DDX11L2, I understand, a mutated copy of a gene known from several primate lines. For details see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476624/)