New genes

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Postby sfs » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:34 am

marcsurtees wrote:Indeed the fact that the chimp genome is larger than ours by about 7 to 8% means the difference is greater than 4.4%.

Where did you get that number from? Wherever you did, it's wrong.
sfs
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:45 am
Location: Cambridge, MA

Postby marcsurtees » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:28 am

sfs wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:Indeed the fact that the chimp genome is larger than ours by about 7 to 8% means the difference is greater than 4.4%.

Where did you get that number from? Wherever you did, it's wrong.


The genome length is reported in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/ under the statistics for each species:
3.35Gb for chimp (build 2.1) and 3.10Gb for human (build 37.1)
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:18 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
As for the article posted by Roger; it is a little hard to respond to that considering that no refs .....



Why sould I need to provide any references. My posting is a series of questions, not a series of claims.

Er, where would I get these "references" from? The Bible? Creationist peer reviewed papers (there aren't any)?
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby sfs » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:49 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
sfs wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:Indeed the fact that the chimp genome is larger than ours by about 7 to 8% means the difference is greater than 4.4%.

Where did you get that number from? Wherever you did, it's wrong.


The genome length is reported in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/ under the statistics for each species:
3.35Gb for chimp (build 2.1) and 3.10Gb for human (build 37.1)

Interesting. I don't know what happened, but somebody (and not you) blundered somewhere. The length for human build 37.1 is correct, but the length for chimp build 2.1 is wrong. You can see this if you look up the length of each chromosome on the UCSC genome browser (*), in the appropriate builds (a somewhat tedious task, suitable for doing during a slow conference session, which I was just in). Here are the individual lengths:
chromosome chimp (2.1) human (37.1)
1 229,974,691 249,250,621
2 248,603,653 243,199,373
3 203,962,478 198,022,430
4 194,897,272 191,154,276
5 183,994,906 180,915,260
6 173,908,612 171,115,067
7 160,261,443 159,138,663
8 145,085,868 146,364,022
9 138,509,991 141,213,431
10 135,001,995 135,534,747
11 134,204,764 135,006,516
12 135,371,336 133,851,895
13 115,868,456 115,169,878
14 107,349,158 107,349,540
15 100,063,422 102,531,392
16 90,682,376 90,354,753
17 83,384,210 81,195,210
18 77,261,746 78,077,248
19 64,473,437 59,128,983
20 62,293,572 63,025,520
21 46,489,110 48,129,895
22 50,165,558 51,304,566
X 155,361,357 155,270,560
Y 23,952,694 59,373,566
total 3,061,122,105 3,095,677,412

As you can see, the human build is actually 1.1% longer than the chimp build. That number probably doesn't mean much, since the chimp build is based (for its large structure) on the human build, and gap sizes in the chimp build could easily be wrong.

(*) Looking up the chimp chromosomes is slightly tricky, since there is no chimp chromosome 2, in the current conventional numbering. Instead, they have 2a and 2b (two chromosomes, actually, that correspond to human chromosome 2). The numbering on chromosome 2b picks up from the end of chrom 2a, so you only want to include 2b. (It's kind of a dumb system, but it makes comparison between human and chimp more convenient. There's not much doubt about which species came up with this scheme.)
sfs
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:45 am
Location: Cambridge, MA

Postby marcsurtees » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:33 am

sfs wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:
sfs wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:Indeed the fact that the chimp genome is larger than ours by about 7 to 8% means the difference is greater than 4.4%.

Where did you get that number from? Wherever you did, it's wrong.


Interesting. I don't know what happened, but somebody (and not you) blundered somewhere. The length for human build 37.1 is correct, but the length for chimp build 2.1 is wrong.


To err is human! But someone with clout needs to get this fixed (after all how are we creationists supposed to get anything done if you guys feed us wrong data!). This error is repeated on other sites (eg http://www.ensembl.org/Pan_troglodytes/Info/Index) but then I suppose they all get their information from the same source.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Postby sfs » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:19 pm

I've written to NCBI to ask if they know what the numbers are supposed to mean and where they come from.
sfs
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:45 am
Location: Cambridge, MA

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:36 am

marcsurtees wrote:...but then I suppose they all get their information from the same source.
Nothing new there, then, Marc!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Previous

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron