Chimp/ humans 70% Similar DNA
If that number is correct what does that tell you?
If we conclude a common descent with Bananas (50%) then 70% hardly disproves it.
Yes 99, even though you have been arguing on the side of evolution for some time now, you are still half bananas.
MindWalk, thank you for your concern. I just finished a mini-neb and I have a mild case of the albuterol trembles. It would be a dead give-away at an OTB tournament, I'm afraid.
My daughter is in a LD program in high school. The educators felt that "LD" didn't mean "ignorant and misinformed" so they have been teaching her some surpriningly sophisticaed things, one of which is the scientific method.
Heady stuff for someone who will be thrilled if she can hold a job as a hairdresser.
Learning the vocab was initially strightforward. Define: hypothesis, control, dependent variable, independant variable, etc.
When we studied the last three terms, I realized this: not one of 20 posters on the thread understand these simple distinctions: results, inferences, conclusions.
Results: you shake up the flask, run the fluid through a spectromenter, and record the numbers.
Inferences: you try to make sense out of those numbers.
Conclusions: you believe you have made sense out of those numbers.
The posters here routinely confuse these three, and so seriously that it often leads to accusations of one person being a liar because they did not infer the same things from the same set of numbers.
Example: we share 98% of a chimp's genome.
Let's put aside methodology and assume this is true. It is as far as I know, but I don't really care.
Inference: because we share so much in common, we must have a closely related common ancestor.
Inference: because we have so much in common, and we share similar design, it points to a Grand Designer.
Conclusion: Evolution is a fact.
Conclusion: Intelligent design is a fact.
Total horse manure Dawkins assessment: because we share 98% of a chimps genome, we all have a common ancestor, and apes and man, lizards and mushrooms, there is no objective reason to elevate one over the other (Yes, I intend to pound this crap quote right out of his book into the ground until one of you can tell me that even great men say astonishingly stupid things).
Now I know you won't ponder this, that you will flee to talkorigins and pump out the red font by the barrel-full (allusion to Mark twain), and it would be to your detriment.
Elroch states:
Variation occurs and natural selection ensures that successful variations become common and unsuccessful ones don't. Quadrillions of times. It is useful to look at simulations to understand how effective this is.
Let’s talk a little about these simulations. We have given a lot of consideration to “The Selfish Gene”. In 2014 there has been another book written called “The Copernicus Complex” by Caleb Scharf, an atheist. He discusses how simulations of planetary motions using Newtonian laws become less reliable over long periods of time due to unforeseen minor variables and rounding errors even when done on a supercomputer. I recommend giving this a read whether or not you are an atheist. On pgs. 103-104 he examines the work of J.Laskar, G.Sussman and J.Wilson working at MIT and the Bureau des longitudes in Paris. He summarizes with:
Over a period of just a few million years, the motions of the planets show what is called exponential divergence. In other words, after this amount of time, the most-impossible-to-measure variations in positions and speeds end up taking planetary orbits onto trajectories that could not have been predicted.
So, when simulating quadrillions of random events over billions of years you may be able to find one model among quadrillions squared that match what you hoped to find when you began your simulation. Frankly, I take your simulation “evidence” to be highly contrived. Who did this simulation?
And again, how are you able to distinguish the difference between a natural selection event and an artificial selection event?
Sorry, but you are comparing chalk and cheese.
There is no similarity between a deterministic simulation aiming to predict the positions of planets at some time in the future, and a stochastic simulation, demonstrating the general statistical characteristics of evolution of genomes.
All biologists would agree that exact predictions of evolution are impossible over any time scale. The reason is that not only are mutations in a single generation random, but combinations of random mutations can affect the future course of evolution by opening up possibilities for future evolution: there is no reason at all to believe convergence to a specific endpoint is guaranteed (though very simple elements of evolution - combinations of small numbers of mutations achieving some advantage - can recurr more than once, in a random way).
Indeed this has been confirmed in real-time experiments on evolution, such as the Lenski experiment. In this experiment, the most interesting thing that happened was a crucial evolutionary step involving a combination of mutations that permitted digestion of citrate. Because examples were regularly frozen and stored, it was possible to go back and see if the exact results could be replicated. As one might expect, there were substantial variations in the time taken for the mutations to occur in combination. In fact they did not always occur in the time span available (thousands of generations).
What I referred to is that given the directly observed rate of mutation in humans, the amount of divergence between the human line and the chimpanzee line is in line with what would be expected. (To the complete lack of surprise of people who know that the Theory of Evolution is well-established 
).
Elroch. You appear to make a huge distinction between "predicted" and "expected". Did you mean to do this?
Here in America we call those "weasel words". Evolution is a map that can't tell you where to go or how to get there, but once you arrive it will tell you what route you may have taken.
That's not good science.
Elroch's red font pleonastics are at odds with Dawkins:
Actually not. You are over-eager to misunderstand. Moreover, you are discussing SEMANTICS, not SCIENTIFIC FACTS (which merely used semantics to express them).
It was made very clear that this discussion is about the evolution of cellular life on planet Earth. [Abiogenesis is conveniently dealt with as a separate subject.]
“Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the ‘primeval soup’ which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed: they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures. But bacteria and the rest of us are late-comers, and in those days large organic molecules could drift unmolested through the thickening broth.”
Excerpt From: Dawkins, Richard. “The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary edition.” Oxford University Press, 2006. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNkmU.l
As this chapter progresses, he makes the point that Elroch denies:
Not in the slightest. Check my many previous posts on CHEMICAL EVOLUTION.
Darwinism propelled the formation and continuation of the original (maybe non-living, a point he finds moot)
That's because he is very smart and realises this is a question of SEMANTICS, not of SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Replicator, which was sustained by features of fecundity, fidelity, and stability. Darwinian features applied to (probably) non-living molecules, from which all of us, apes and man, lizards and mushrooms descended and there is no objective reason to elevate one over the other.
I am amazed that you cannot understand that the subject of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION (often referred to as Evolution) is distinct from the subject of CHEMICAL EVOLUTION. I can assure you that Dawkins is very well aware of the distinction.
Indeed, when looked at with an enlightened eye, centred on the replication of information, the same mathematics applies to both, and can be used to demonstrate why both can succeed, but as science it is very useful to consider them separately, because of the means available for investigating them.
In the middle of Dawkins scholarly scientific explication he criticizes the authenticity of the New Testament and the Septuagint. No axe to grind here.
I don't recall that, and find it entirely uninteresting. It is very odd that you think his rejection of religious indoctrination is of any relevance to a scientific question which can only be answered using the scientific method.
It would be like a mathematician lapsing into the theory of karma in the middle of what was supposed to be a discussion of Godel's theorem.
Really, Dawkin's book is full of howlers, which is why Elroch probably wanted to have none of it once "the enemy" got their hands on it.
You have not managed to draw attention to even one single error in several weeks of reading the book! The challenge remains open.
And by the way, in the forward to the 30th edition of this gem, Dawkins stands behind every word of it.
Who to believe? Elroch, or Dawkins?
Elroch, Dawkins probably lives right down the street from you. Contact him and set him straight, won't you? Do be gentle. His feelings are easily hurt.
You have not given me a reason to disagree with Dawkins on a point of scientific fact (indeed nothing else either, but don't get distracted).
All you have really demonstrated by this post is that you cannot clearly see the difference between a scientific fact and a semantic issue.
To bang the point home, all of the behaviour and properties of viruses are scientific issues. Whether a virus is considered to be "living" is a semantic issue. The distinction is that the choice of terminology does not make the slightest difference to knowledge about real world phenomena (even though clarity of terminology is important to how facts about the real world are expressed).
Gettit?
Also at Elroch: stop it. Almost without exception, and the exceptions have fled long ago, we all believe in evolution in some form or fashion. Why, right now I'm evolving into the grave sooner or later. My genes must hate me. But I've shot my genome around enough to be expendable at this point. Still, why can't we catch a break from our genetic puppet-masters? Would it offend them if perhaps a few of my body parts retain their youthful function? Just think what it would mean to the propagation of my genome...
Genes might be selfish, and if they are they are also shortsighted and stupid.
But I digress. We all know you are trained in stochastics. I think gopher might be calling your bluff, but I'm not sure. I'd like to see how that turns out.
You're not dealing with flat-earthers now. Stop pretending that you are.
Calm down, Elroch. In your angry haste you did not understand a thing I wrote.
Dawkins Himself said making the distinction between "living" and "not living" is totally semantic. I took him at his word (always risky for someone who believes meaning is fungible) and in fact did not challenge it.
You thought I did, and now you'll just have to calm down.
I pulled the concepts right out of his book. The (mythical) Replicator, whether living or not living (again, Dawkins expressedly stated that it is a moot distinction) was subject to Darwinian processes of fecundity, fidelity and stability.
If you have problems with any of the above statements, you need to go back and read the chapter.
If you suggest I am a liar, I will have nothing further to do with you, either. That would be a shame. I don't miss Sillius Soddus (Life of Brian, for you Monty Python fans) but I enjoy our chats, unless you start calling me a liar.
Ignorant, misinformed, flu-infested, vulgar Philistine: I'll accept those because they have some truth to them.
Elroch. You appear to make a huge distinction between "predicted" and "expected". Did you mean to do this?
Characteristically, you have missed the real difference, between a DETERMINISTIC prediction and STATISTICAL predictions. This difference is huge.
Here in America we call those "weasel words".
That's what those of us who contribute to Wikipedia call statements that appear to meaningful but which are insubstantial.
Predictions of the major similarity between human and chimpanzee genomes (made before ANY of the DNA had been sequenced) are not in any sense "weasel words"!
Evolution is a map that can't tell you where to go or how to get there,
I suggest you ignore evolution and go watch the Travel Channel. Presumably, you don't consider astronomy a science either?
but once you arrive it will tell you what route you may have taken.
Yes, as well as everything that was involved in determining that (partially random) route.
That's not good science.
Evolution is the backbone of the biological sciences, as generally agreed by people who do the science. You are spineless to make such a statement: it betrays not only that you are not such a scientist (there's no shame in that) but that you have an arrogant attitude to the entire body of scientists working in the field, based on your indoctrination by scientifically ignorant people.
Elroch, you are just pouring forth invective now. I'm just seeking the truth, like everyone else.
I'm giving this thread a 24 hour cool-down. You are saying things you won't be proud of by the morning.
But one last word, because I have a short attention span and will have forgotten this by Friday: post 1020, first red font offering. Given chaos theory, I suspect the point you are trying to make is bogus. But maybe not. Go to bed and maybe you can patiently explain it to me tomorrow.
A deterministic simulation and a stochastic simulation have one thing in common. Niether one is able to accurately predict the general statistical characteristics of evolution of genomes.
But one last word, because I have a short attention span and will have forgotten this by Friday: post 1020, first red font offering. Given chaos theory, I suspect the point you are trying to make is bogus. But maybe not. Go to bed and maybe you can patiently explain it to me tomorrow.
I had chaos theory in mind as I wrote: the three body problem in gravitation is a classic example for this subject.
The point is the opposite of what you appear to be thinking: long term deterministic predictions are generally impossible (quantum mechanics alone limits the precision necessary for long term predictions of the positions of planets - the butterfly's wing writ large). But long term statistical predictions are often possible. A very challenging and important example is the comparison between weather prediction (which is infeasible a few weeks in the future) and climate prediction. But let's close that can of worms, as there are still die-hard climate change denialists around!
As it happens, I am currently doing research into applications of statistical inference in spaces too high-dimensional for deterministic calculations to be possible. The space of genomes is one such space, being six billion dimensional in humans (in terms of bases taking 4 values).
To see why, observe that the mutations in a single human individual (about 80 SNPs) provide more possibilities than there are particles in the observable Universe. (Very crudely, {3,000,000,000 choose 80} possible combinations of mutations. Drop a few zeros to conservatively allow for fatal mutations.)
elroch - what kind of a slide rule do you use?
Elroch, you are just pouring forth invective now. I'm just seeking the truth, like everyone else.
Really?
You stated "Dawkin's book is full of howlers". You have not quoted one scientific statement by Dawkins that you have claimed is a scientific error.
Seems to me you writing cheques you can't honour here.
[And yes, you did succeed in riling me by such comments as this and the one that falsely claimed evolutionary biology was "bad science", when it is in truth powerful, explanatory, predictive, general science. This is an insult to better scientists than you and I].
elroch - what kind of a slide rule do you use?
A logarithmic one, of course. 
I actually started my education in the era of log books and slide rules, only to see calculators permitted a couple of years later. Computers had to wait a few more years, and ones capable of dealing with big data rather a little longer!
Elroch, I quote Dawkins where you and he differ, which appears to be quite a lot. That explains why you were unwilling to stand behind his book.
Collected howlers:
1. We all are descending from a common ancestor, (therefore) there is no objective reason to elevate one species over another.
2. We are machines controlled by our genes (that is a direct damn quote, but I'm sure you will insist it was a metaphor. As I said, with Dawkins meaning is fungible).
3. Errors in replication are bad, but sometimes they are good, because without variation in replication we could not have evolution (so far this is OK, but here comes the howler); but in religion they are always bad, which is why you can't trust anything you read in the New Testament, especially when it comes to use of the Septuagint to support patristic interpretation. Now really, WTF does that have to do with genetics? And I'm being overly gracious to Dawkins. I doubt he knows what patristics is.
4. And the Replicator, the big daddy of it all, the molecule that proved to be to common ancestor of ape and man, lizard and mushroom...this stuff doesn't read like science, it reads like a Marvel comic book.
And I just finished with chapter two.
As I've said enough times to grow weary of it, hard facts like mutation and genetic drift are one thing, Replicators and puppet-master genes are entirely different. And if a lot of educated people believe it, one may reasonably infer that a lot of educated people are damn fools.
Elroch, I quote Dawkins where you and he differ, which appears to be quite a lot. That explains why you were unwilling to stand behind his book.
Collected howlers:
1. We all are descending from a common ancestor, (therefore) there is no objective reason to elevate one species over another.
This is not a quote from the book (indeed it contains bad grammar). Try again, using exact quotes. Also, for each quote, provide an objective scientific statement you do agree with that contradicts Dawkins statement, and explain the scientific basis for it.
2. We are machines controlled by our genes (that is a direct damn quote, but I'm sure you will insist it was a metaphor. As I said, with Dawkins meaning is fungible).
This is DEFINITELY NOT a quote from Dawkins' book. You have made an more serious error in your attempt to quote Dawkins than in the first misquote. Look it up: the difference is CRUCIAL.
Also, you have not yet given me the slightest reason to disagree with a scientific statement by Dawkins, and I have not done so, notwithstanding your confusion about semantics.
Nitpicking on grammar and spelling is the sign of someone who feels he is losing an argument. I'm waiting for the inevitable "he calls himself a Christian and he said damn and wtf". When that comes I'll sleep soundly.
Here is the exact quote from the book, extended as much as copywright will allow:
“The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty. To an evolutionist this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection”
Excerpt From: Dawkins, Richard. “The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary edition.” Oxford University Press, 2006. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNkmU.l
I reviewed about 2000 posts ago about how this represents a classic enthymeme. No one took issue with it, because they didn't understand the concept, but that's not my fault.
For about the tenth time Elroch, no one has the power to modify direct quotes from Dawkins out of thin air. I'm pulling quotes and representing concepts right from the very pages of the Holy One. If they seem goofy, it is only because they are not being filtered by the adoring eyes of his devotees.
The Replicator? The molecule that self-assembled and self-replicated, free of Darwinian constraints because it was not a living organism (although that is not what Dawkins said; I'm calling your bluff on that one), giving rise to ape and man, lizard and fungi...and you are a cold-blooded objective scientist?
Now I have hidden an Easter Egg in this long discussion; the fact that no one has found it yet signifies that you boys are lazy and can't be bothered to read anything that hasn't been summarized for you at talkorigins.
OK, that was a bit mean. Still, how long will it take you to figure it out? Thousands of millions of years?
Elroch's red font pleonastics are at odds with Dawkins:
“Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the ‘primeval soup’ which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed: they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures. But bacteria and the rest of us are late-comers, and in those days large organic molecules could drift unmolested through the thickening broth.”
Excerpt From: Dawkins, Richard. “The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary edition.” Oxford University Press, 2006. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNkmU.l
As this chapter progresses, he makes the point that Elroch denies: Darwinism propelled the formation and continuation of the original (maybe non-living, a point he finds moot) Replicator, which was sustained by features of fecundity, fidelity, and stability. Darwinian features applied to (probably) non-living molecules, from which all of us, apes and man, lizards and mushrooms descended and there is no objective reason to elevate one over the other.
In the middle of Dawkins scholarly scientific explication he criticizes the authenticity of the New Testament and the Septuagint. No axe to grind here.
It would be like a mathematician lapsing into the theory of karma in the middle of what was supposed to be a discussion of Godel's theorem.
Really, Dawkin's book is full of howlers, which is why Elroch probably wanted to have none of it once "the enemy" got their hands on it.
And by the way, in the forward to the 30th edition of this gem, Dawkins stands behind every word of it.
Who to believe? Elroch, or Dawkins?
Elroch, Dawkins probably lives right down the street from you. Contact him and set him straight, won't you? Do be gentle. His feelings are easily hurt.