Since it’s a waste of money, that’s why.

More silliness: He claims that mitochondrial DNA differences in Bornean and Sumatran orangs are greater than between humans and chimps. I checked the article and this claim is wrong.

Here’s a little teaser for you all:

from P. 236 of the 2005 edition of “The Red Ape” by Professor Jeffrey Schwartz:

“But cranial and dental morphology does contribute to an understanding of evolutionary relationships — especially when it is backed up by an array of other, not-hard-tissue features. As we’ve seen, though, the most robust theories of large-bodied hominoid relationships — human-orang and chimp-gorilla — contradict the preferred molecular scheme of relatedness. Nonetheless, since the ‘molecular assumption’ grew out of a general agreement of molecular schemes of similarity with an arrangement of organisms based on the study of morphology, one should be able to question the interpretation of molecules or sequence data. Why, for instance, should molecular similarity always reflect recency of molecular change? Why, as is often concluded in morphological analyses, couldn’t similarity in molecule or DNA sequence reflect primitive retention (and, therefore, nonrelatedness), while difference indicates that a taxon changed relative to those that remained primitively similar?”

Then YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION !! How convenient!

That’s science? Try ideology!!

Read Schwartz book.

He’s not at all running away from DNA analysis — in fact quite the opposite — Schwartz is scrutinizing in the larger context of evolution.

In fact the 83% difference in code sequences amounted to a 20% STRUCTURAL change in proteins — but then to state “Even if a different amino acid is called for at some point in the sequence of the protein, that change may or may not have much functional impact,…”

Such lack of information in DNA analysis is accounted for by the other sources of information which Schwartz analyzes.

So why refuse to read his book? Scared?

Back to the herd!

No, he was trying to downplay the relation. “DNA is not the blueprint”, remember?

The “sequence” quotation remains somewhat elusive. Whether we are talking single-letter changes in the coding sequences or “indels,” we still don’t necessarily know the ultimate impact on the functionality of the protein. Some mutations will add or drop one of the amino acids, or swap two of the existing amino acids around within the length of the (resulting) protein. Some “spelling errors,” whether involving one letter or something more complex, may not cause any functional change whatsoever, because several different triplets redundantly code for each of the amino acids.

Even if a different amino acid is called for at some point in the sequence of the protein, that change may or may not have much functional impact, depending upon whether the change causes some sort of significantly-different folding or other stuctural change, and upon where any such hypothetical changes fall along the length of the protein–say in a “structural backbone” area or in an “interactive area” (a technically incorrect term by which I mean to include a number of possible concepts, including the “lock” or “key” areas that may be brought into bear as the protein goes about its tasks).

Cumulatively, there is no doubt that there must be some significant duplications, variations, and functional changes scattered throughout the orang and homo genomes, or they wouldn’t be orangs and we wouldn’t be saps. But rattling off a statistic like 83% greatly exaggerates the likelihood of any particular potentially-sequence altering change included within that percentage resulting in a dramatic functional change. Indeed! Were it otherwise, Schwartz’s argument for a closer orang-homo relationship falls apart ab initio.

And we are still clueless–based at least on the information offered up in support of Schwartz’s hypothesis to this point–whether the orang-homo 83% differences on just this one chromosome set (however meaningful they do or don’t turn out to be for functionality) compare with a parallel chimp-homo comparison. I would expect/predict that we will see some comparisons where orangs differ less than chimps from homo, and vice versa, but that “overall,” chimps will still differ less from humans–in ways that are significant to the uniqueness of the three species, and to their cladistic relationships–than orangs and humans.

Undoubtedly, and maybe this is a “weak” interpretation of Schwartz’s claims with which I might agree, there is a vast amount of complex knowledge about the precise comparative proteonomic and regulatory differences buried “under” the “overall” 1.5 to 3% genome-sequence differences that remains to be elucidated.

So far, however, and however equally endearing, precious, and deserving of respect-protection-admiration orangs may be, my overview is that chimps, bonobos, and gorillas are somewhat more closely related to “us” than are orangs.

That of course, says nothing about the health of evolution or the strength of the human-great ape connection as a whole. Nor does it says nothing about the relative “value” of orangs. Indeed, it may yet turn out that it would be more of a compliment–if such a value judgment makes any sense–to be orang-related, rather than homo-chimp-gorilla related.

may 24, 2004 Nature:

The researchers report in Nature that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded.

So when you claim that Shwartz states: “Oh, 83 % of the letters in each word are different” — that’s an error in logical type. Schwartz is just repeating the results of the study: ORDER of letters (not the letters themselves).

That’s a higher level of logical type — not only is it still correct but it’s an important insight into the information.

Schwartz is emphasizing the relation between an “amino-acid sequence level” and “coding sequences.”

Schwartz translated the “coding sequences” into the next order of logical type as “amino-acid sequences.”

Schwartz says:
these hominoids differ by 83 percent in their amino-acid sequences

Notice the difference??? If someone says: “I have a list of words in American English and British English and 83% of the words show differences in spelling*”. Do you and Schwartz say “Oh, 83 % of the letters in each word are different! Wow!”

(*Actually, pronunciation might be a better metaphor, although it’s a bit misleading too. But it would be fun if Schwartz wrote “Many words which are spelled the same, are pronounced very differently by different people, showing that writing is not the ‘blueprint’ it’s touted as being…”)

ENN FULL STORY
Haze Distresses Orangutans in Indonesian Reserve

October 16, 2006

Human, chimp DNA changes mapped – Science – MSNBC.com
Fujiyama

Ah, you’re right, my bad. I got confused by your preposterous claim that Vieira’s article would in any way, shape or form “confirm” Schwartz’s nonsense.

Please provide the name of any protein that differs in humans and chimps by 83% or more of its amino acid sequence, if you would like to defend Schwartz’s claim that this is the average divergence in one hominoid chromosome. In that case it should be easy to find such a protein in GenBank and provide the link.

Now — PZ Meyers even censors his open threads! That dude must be really scared of the truth. Nanobiomotors is not evolution! haha Dawkins is a Freemasonic promoter of Platonic Buckyfullerenes for “synthetic ecology.”

Dawkins should go work for Cargill, shilling the replacement of Earth’s Brain with silica-Soy DNA biochips.

Science-Cult Sheep.

Too bad that Schwartz was talking about Chromosome 22.

Let’s believe Schwartz and say that Chromosome 22 shows 83% amino acid sequence divergence – however, according to the article it’s just a typical, boring chromosome – and remember that the article above says that the hypervariable chromosome 21 is 1.2-1.4 times more divergent. According to this, human and chimp proteins coded by Chr21 would have a sequence divergence of 99.6-116.2 %. Hallelujah! I am convinced!

Preview, Stevie, preview…

Fujiyama

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=83+percent+in+their+amino-acid+sequences+and+chromosome+22

Title: Atypical mutational properties of human chromosome 21 suggested by comparative genome-scale analyses
Author(s): Vieira A
Source: CYTOGENETIC AND GENOME RESEARCH 115 (1): 30-34 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 22 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: Mutation of genetic material is a necessary component of evolutionary change. There is evidence for both intragenome and intergenome heterogeneity in terms of mutation frequencies. Reported comparisons of DNA sequence differences between human and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) suggest that human chromosome 21 may exhibit mutational hypervariability relative to the other autosomes. In the present study, further evidence is provided for such hypervariability based on large-scale analyses of amino acid composition of (translated) human genes and pseudogenes. A comparison of the variation in the above cases (i.e., DNA sequence differences and amino acid composition differences) yields similar ratios (1.2-1.4) for chromosome 21 relative to the other autosomes, e.g., human chromosome 22 – an autosome that is more typical in this respect and is of similar size to 21. Human chromosome 21 is also presented in this study as being atypical in terms of reported associations between mutation rates and GC content or CpG dinucleotides. In terms of GC distribution patterns, a comparison of NT_011512 and NT_011520 contigs revealed a lower heterogeneity for human chromosome 21 relative to 22. Possible hypermutability of chromosome 21 is further discussed in the context of GC patterns, reported long interspersed nuclear element content (LINE1s), and the implications of these parameters for chromatin structure.
KeyWords Plus: DNA-SEQUENCE; EUKARYOTIC GENOMES; GENES; ISOCHORES; STABILITY; RATES; BIAS
Addresses: Vieira A (reprint author), Simon Fraser Univ, Endocrine & Metabol Res Lab, Fac Sci Appl, K9625,8888 Univ Dr, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada
Simon Fraser Univ, Endocrine & Metabol Res Lab, Fac Sci Appl, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada
E-mail Addresses: avvieira@sfu.ca
Publisher: KARGER, ALLSCHWILERSTRASSE 10, CH-4009 BASEL, SWITZERLAND
Subject Category: CELL BIOLOGY; GENETICS & HEREDITY
IDS Number: 086MY

ISSN: 1424-8581

The guy just frustrates me–and this has been one of his easier to follow (less incoherent and irrelevant) exchanges.

What windy said!

I have, and the parts where he tries to discredit genetic comparisons showing humans to be closest to chimps are very childish and stupid and rely on antiquated data.

Schwarz asks “..is the difference between 1.1% [human-African apes] and 2.4% [human-orangutan] statistically significant, especially considering that a DNA molecule may consist of 10 to 100 million nucleotides?”

Why would comparing a lot of nucleotides make a small difference *less* significant? And what is this “DNA molecule”?

“We should learn from the unexpected results that The International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium achieved upon comparing human chromosome 21 with its apparent counterpart in the chimpanzee, chromosome 22: not only do these hominoids differ by 83 percent in their amino-acid sequences (this difference itself being unexpected, given previous claims of similarity), but this significant difference is generated from very similar DNA sequences (again pointing out that DNA is not the “blueprint” it’s touted as being).”

So, gross errors (83 % difference in protein sequences??) and misleading claims. DNA is not the blueprint? What?? Where does he think the protein products come from?

The whole section on DNA is crap like this. It’s a waste of time to analyse it any further.