Richard Dawkins : Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes - Nebraska Vignettes #3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2014
- Richard Dawkins shows just how similar the Human and Chimpanzee genomes really are, with the help of a great visual from the University of Nebraska Museum.
Get the RDF TV podcast through iTunes!
itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZ...
If you enjoy the video, and would like to help us make more videos like this, please consider donating $1 (or any other amount you'd like) to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:
richarddawkinsfoundation.org/f...
During Richard Dawkins' 2009 American tour, we visited Judy Diamond's "Explore Evolution" exhibit at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. This exhibit has now been replicated in six museums around the country. While visiting we filmed a collection of short unrehearsed and unscripted videos-just inspired by the "Explore Evolution" exhibit.
See the "Explore Evolution" web page here:
explore-evolution.unl.edu/
Special Thanks to:
Dr. Judy Diamond
The University of Nebraska State Museum
www.friendsofthemuseum.org/
See more at:
RichardDawkins.net - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
It is quite interesting just how phenomenally different a small number of differences can make.
Yes, but not surprising. A single bit error in a critical postition can make your computer crash or hang, while other bit errors are not even noticed - just as with single dna bases.
Yeah it makes me think of programming and coding: a single misplaced coma can fuck up an entire program
Plus, lets not forget the fact that much simpler organisms like viruses can have so many pages of these sequances. Whos to say this particular page wasnt cherrypicked to say - look you almost cant see Waldo!
@@jonnav3107 "Whos to say this particular page wasnt cherrypicked" Uhh, literally anyone with half a brain cell. Humans and chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA. So any page will look like this.
@@ahall9839 Go and check out a lecture by Denis Noble - dawkin's understanding is just wishfull thinking, and the same goes for the rest of darwinists and neo-darwinists. 99% is far beyond exaggeration.
"Half a braincell" - this statment is getting old. You need to wake up from your hindu hallucinations, real scientists like Denis Noble have already refutet these claims of "metamorphosis" the fact that you feel "intelectualy satisfied" from Dawkin's poetry doesnt mean jackshit to the rest if us!
I'm a 17 year old from Canada and am doing Biology in summer school. Right now, we're in the genetics unit. I promise that I'll do my best Richard!
genetics can be a real pain! Hope you do good in it!
BuIIetBiII Now I'm a 20 year old majoring in psychology lol
Christian Vallejo what happened, why psychology
Christian Vallejo
That's hilarious. :)
Good luck with the psych major. (I got one a few decades ago)
Still in Psych ?
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." *Voltaire*
Religon began when first man came on earth Adam and Eve
This needed to be a lot longer.
I'm pretty sure Atheists are trolling other Atheists in the comment section with statements like...
"if people evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" [sic].
Yeah, probably. Typically all of the first comments are from subscribers. And I doubt a theist would subscribe to this channel just to post things like this.
It is a pity that of the millions of comments every day on the internet, the few outlandish ones are the ones that get the most attention. Grow up, people!
Connected2U2 If so, good.... gonna be said anyway, so might as well have the answers waiting there for the people who would actually ask such things out of ignorance. That way they can do something about their ignorance without the embarrassment of having to show it to the world first. :)
Donald Kronos That's right. It's good practice even if they are trolling.
But that is how stupid real creationists sound. There is no way to tell a troll from a real life fundamentalist!
They are being sarcastic and it doesn't translate well into text. It's not trolling.
I love all the people leaving comments who actually think they know more about science than the world of science 😊
Oh yeah because only scientist can talk about science. The new clergy class. What are you afraid of🤔
I love how many people think they are upgraded chimps.
When you abandon ancient beliefs and adopt science as your way of thinking, clips like these are fascinating and give you so much perspective as to who you are and where you come from. I believed for a long time that humans were magically made from dirt/clay. Evolution not only makes more sense but it’s a much more complex and interesting explanation of our origins.
@dosdude um no....YOU NEED MENTAL HELP.
@@ammarlakis This video is injurious to believers in universal common ancestry
dosdude Utter, utter nonsense! Religions require faith with no proof or evidence, science can only advance with both of those things and it never assumes it’s correct, unlike the absurd certainty with which religions assert things!
@@dougm659 Why are you even comparing science with religion.Science is the study of natural world through which we discover the laws of nature and tries to explain the natural phenomena by experimenting While God is beyond time and space according to theists and we cant observe god under a microscope.
ABRAR MANZOOR “God is beyond time and Space”....which is a convenient escape clause making it unnecessary for theists to have to prove anything! They make extraordinary claims but avoid having to provide extraordinary evidence to support them.....Bullshit is what it is!
There couldn't be a better teacher than RD.
Yeah, and when he speaks you can feel that he is passionate
@@gordonramsay3034 I agree he must be good because he's blinded millions of people from learning the truth . God created the universe and everything in and on it . Evolution is false
@@michaelmarshall9132 lol nice joke but you have no evidence for that. The same God asking you to kill homosexuals and nonbelievers?
@@michaelmarshall9132 how can you blind people from what you’re supposing is the truth? The truth is just the truth, god should have no problem showing himself to us then as proof and torturing Dawkins for “blinding us” after all he hasn’t had a problem appearing to people or torturing others according to the old and New Testament, shouldn’t be a problem now would take him seconds especially with the cameras we have now!
@@gordonramsay3034 I think you're getting me mixed up with a muslim
This is amazing. It really puts things into perspective.
3 billion base pairs
4 choices per base pair
On the low end, 96% of those base pairs are in an identical sequence.
Purely by chance and having no relation through common descent, the odds of that happening are 1-in-4^(3 * 10^9)
In base-10, that'd be a 1 followed by about 1.8 billion 0s.
Or for probability, that'd be 0.00000000...(about 1.8 billion more of these)...0001
You have a better chance at winning the Powerball 213,000,000 times.
But if we're related through common descent, then the probability of this happening is 1.
There isn't even a contest here.
Why do chimps have 24 chromosome pairs and humans only have 23?
Our late mum was a churchgoer, but she liked Richard Dawkins and always enjoyed listening to him
Exquisitely and beautifully explained 🙂
In addition to the few differences in the genetic makeup, are there also differences due to some genes being 'inactive' or 'not activated' in humans that are 'active' or 'expressed' in chimps?
Thank you.
Absolutely fascinating.
It'll be more interesting to see the actual method of extracting these genomes and how the alphabets get mapped.
th-cam.com/video/rA8MUR4pqNE/w-d-xo.html
I love him!! I'm a Richad Dawkins groupie!!
So am I.
And I'm a happily married old man.
Richad Dawkins cultist*
@Winston Grettum What is the truth then?
Pty Angel lol
The differences are probably even smaller than what we see here, since one Codon might still encode the same Aminco acid, even if one base pair is different.
It's sad that no matter how compelling the evidences are, as a result of hardwork and efforts of all our scientists, there are more people who would simply dismissed and ignore these evidences in a whim, just because their iron-aged book says otherwise.
Agreed.
Maybe we dismiss these fables because they aren't true? th-cam.com/video/Rav8sfuJFYc/w-d-xo.html I see you're into Scientism and its Scientists. Btw; that book was extant long before the iron age.
@@CharlesFockaert Funny how that video doesn't allow comments or even likes/dislikes.
The video itself still says that a large portion is similar. Not only that, but the video then just goes on to say "unproven" things about specifically the Christian god. A Hindu could make the EXACT SAME video and just plug in his own gods instead and the video would be no different.
But thank you, this does clear up a misconception.
@@CharlesFockaert Fables, eh? Well, when science was at its relative infancy, huge portions of human experience would indeed be filled with fables. "It must be the gods" or "it must be the spirits" or whatever other stuff the local shaman came up with. Then, it changed to "it must be God". But by then, a lot of the missing pieces have been put together already. As ages went by, religion conceded more and more until it's been virtually backed into a corner by scientific evidence, but still theists today have a couple of "missing pieces" up their sleeve: such as what happened before the Big bang, or the yet-undiscovered evolutionary links, or the incomplete comparison between human and chimp genomes as we see here. It seems like a neverending struggle. And while the genome will certainly be completely decoded at some point, theists will most likely always have their beginning and end of the Universe from which to go "la-la-la" and "na-na-na".
@@BuzzKirill3D m.th-cam.com/video/u97oKRm8Gok/w-d-xo.html
you really should dig deeper.
btw why are you hiding behind a fake name? is it because youre a shill?
Can anyone specifically explain the significance od any one difference in the genomes of human and chimp. E.g, loss or gain of function due to a mutation that lead to a specific trait in human which is not present in chimps.
To my understanding, it is not as simple as that. The genes are often interconnected and you might need a specific combination of amino acid base changes to acquire a single change in phenotype. It is also true that a certain phenotype might be linked to other, seemingly unrelated phenotypes.
To give you an example, prof Dawkins in his book The Greatest Show on Earth talks about an experiment performed in the first half of the 20. century in Siberia, where scientists were catching wild foxes and selectively breeding them for tameness. After a few generations they were left with a group of extremely tame foxes which, to their surprise, also exhibited physical changes like curly tails, floppy ears and mottled fur (much like we see in dogs).
I am no geneticist, granted, but to me this experiment alone suggests that genetics are not as simple as "one gene = one change in phenotype".
Each gene encodes for a protein.
Different sequences produces a differently shaped protein.
The shape of a protein dictates how it interacts with it's environment.
The difficult part comes from determining how the protein will interact with all the other proteins and stuff in it's environment and how that effects the development of the organism.
May I ask, since every individual always have mutations.. how does one find the base model?
there isn't one lol
As much as it's horrible to even think about it... i find experimenting on human DNA quite fascinating... too bad we cant just simulate a model and see what happens if you change this bit or that bit, it blows my mind how little differences our dna has compared to chimpanzee yet we are so different, just imagine what another tiny change can make. I can only hope that in the near future we will have powerfull enough quantum computers which will be able to model anything we want so we dont need to do experiments on animals anymore.
this is a really useful visualization
How can you explain something so complex in 1.38 ?
Is it possible to get the clip without music?
For an art project where I need the clip without music
I bet the timing of gene activation, as well as the interplay of multiple slightly different proteins, amplifies the differences.
what does that even mean XD
@@johnsaunders5690 A lot of little changes add up to large changes.
Dawkins rules!
Richard Dawkins goes deep in genomes
I wonder how many of those differences are in parts of the genome that we know don't code for a protein. That might make the percentage match go even higher.
Most dna is actually "non coding" (for amino acids or proteins). But some of it have been shown to have regulatory effects. It may have other functions as well, that we don't yet know about.
Fascinating.
is there a museum in England, similar to one here? showing all the genomes and humanoid common ancestors.
The Natural History Museum in London probably does
I wonder what Prof Dawkins opinion on an existing strain of Gigantopithecus is now we have it's DNA, I haven't seen him speak about it and I'd be fascinated to hear his thoughts on the subject.
Fascinating
It doesn't really matter what the similarities are, the differences are monumental and can/will never be bridged.
thats what evolution is about
there is one thing very interesting that there is no difference between chimps and Dawkins in the area of faith in God. Perhaps A- G combination is missing in Dawkins genom? Could that be the reason?
Humans and chimpanzees were separately created with very similar genomes. Got it.
I am wondering whether only genes are the deciding factor or any other factors involved.
So explain me guys. What exactly are those differences that Richard is pointing, and could those differences mean we didn’t evolve?
Hi, no what these differences are are single base changes. So they result in proteins (DNA->RNA->Protein->Trait) which may be quite different in structure and function. We evolved by this very mechanism. Changes in genes being filtered by the environment. Natural selection.
Watch "Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory" on TH-cam
th-cam.com/video/WdqYPjA9VxA/w-d-xo.html
1974jrod Clickbait bullshit! The theory of evolution has been around for over 150 years and, in the face of aggressive abuse and argument, has merely become more and more certain as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Richard,
Why does human embryo have gills?
And babies born able to swim?
Where and when did mammals go from the sea to land?
John, Hawaii.
I learnt differently, that the differences between humans and chimpanzees are not the subtle differences in their genetic make up, but simply the DNA and histone modifications that regulate expression like methylation or phosphorylation.
next ,fruit fly and chimp comparation,please
Understanding the only thing that really matters.
It is Science!!
My interest is physics and astronomy. If we went to another planet and found an ecosystem of Von Neumann machines, would we a) think they were living and b) would we think they were created by a super intelligence or just naturally occurring? Theorising about origins (of anything) is always a tricky subject. There are scientific alternatives to the current reigning paradigm of mutation / natural selection / inheritance as the mechanism for evolution. It is that mechanism of evolution that causes so much strife. Why? Because the entrenched positions on all sides are philosophical / religious positions. Why are academic disputes so vitriolic? Because the stakes are so low!
"There are scientific alternatives to the current reigning paradigm of mutation / natural selection / inheritance as the mechanism for evolution."
Such as...?
"It is that mechanism of evolution that causes so much strife. Why? Because the entrenched positions on all sides are philosophical / religious positions."
No, they're not. Just on one side.
"Why are academic disputes so vitriolic? Because the stakes are so low!"
Again, no.
On one side: medicine/general science denial;
on the other side: your "eternal soul".....
Where’s Svante.
Hi guys, I am just interested. You know when people say 'If evolution is true and monkey evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys alive today. What do you say? whats the answer to that?
You can also think like this: if all species came from the previous one (humans from monkeys), there would be only one species on earth. As we can see, there are many species. Therefore the process was not linear, but branched, like a tree.
There is a video on the channel I think that talks about it. It's basically that there was an animal, in the case of the monkey and the human, a mammal, that lived a long time ago. Two groups of these animals became seperated and the ones that survived were the ones that had the best adaptations to the situation. Over thousands of years, these two groups became so different that they became different animals altogether. Repeat the process over and over and over and that is how evolution works. Now, fast forward to today, and that evolution made it so that humans and monkeys are genetically related.
Basicly as lohphat said, it's the same logic as "If my cousin and I came from the same great-great grandparents, then why are there still cousins?". What was explained was high school level biology.
I usually state something along the lines of they had no real need to evolve any further at the time while we did. A lot of these changes have to do with the environment they were put in and how certain things were handled in adapting. What primate that eventually became us became more adapt at using tools and ended up standing upright pretty much full time in order to appear more threatening among other things while the other primates found different ways of handling things, such as remaining higher up in trees to avoid predators and so on. That's a fairly simple way I like to explain it without getting into the nitty gritty and rather complex sections of it. It's kinda like how there are different types of fish or porpoises. They went to different regions over time while some remained. Those that remained didn't change too much because they were already well suited for their environment with their current conditions and adaptions while those that left changed more drastically to better survive. It's really cool honestly.
The answer is: if Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there Europeans still around? Hope you can apply this to your problem :)
+Mohsen al-hakim Maybe I can help. Humans did not evolve from apes. We evolved from an ancestor we SHARE with apes. Almost every denier of evolution gets this part confused. Creationists often say, "show me a transitional species", but every species is technically transitional because of the law of natural selection. Hindsight is 20/20, meaning we don't notice changes while they are happening, only after. Look at human evolution over the past 500 years:
1. We are lactose tolerant. "Back in the day" humans ability to digest lactose went away as they stopped drinking their mothers breast milk. But when we began domesticating cows and goats, we realized the nutritional advantages of drinking milk. People with the genetic mutation that allowed them to digest lactose were able to pass down their genes. Now, 95% of humans are lactose tolerant.
2. We're losing our wisdom teeth. Our ancestors had much bigger jaws in order to help them eat a tough diet of nuts, leafs, and roots. Today, we use utensils to eat, and our meals are much softer and easier to chew. As a result, are jaws are smaller, leaving no room for wisdom teeth in most people. Like the appendix, the wisdom teeth have become a vestigial structure, and don't appear in 35% of people today.
3. We're resisting diseases. We have uncovered 1,800 human genes only prevalent in the last 40,000 years. Many of these genes are solely devoted to fighting diseases that once plagued us.
4. We are getting taller. Over the last 100 years, the average human height has increased by 10cm!
These are just a few evolutionary changes we have experienced over the last 500 years. Now, imagine the changes that can happen over a span of 6 million years (the genetic split from our common ancestor happened 6 million years ago). The problem is, we can't grasp how long a million years is. When we think of Ancient Egypt, we feel like we are talking about something that happened forever ago. But really it is only about 5000 years in the past. Historians argue that human recordings go back 10,000 years. Wow, that seems like a really long time. However, let's put it into perspective. If the genetic split happened 6 million years ago, then our recorded history of 10,000 years only makes up 0.16% of that time, not even a half percent. If earth really began 4.6 billion years ago, then our recorded human history of 10,000 years only makes up 0.00021% of that time. This means that since the formation of the earth, 99.999% of time has not been recorded by humans. Once we can grasp this, evolution is undeniable.
Cheers, mate.
Chimps and humans have 99% similar DNA if we ignore 25% of human genome and 18% of chimp genome.Please correct me if i am wrong
Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
Anyway, no matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate.
Richard the chimpanzees' DNA differs from our DNA in such a small matter. Now I want to know how the DNA differs from human to human. These differences have to be much smaller than differences with chimps even though the differences already are that small in chimpansees. In what way does human DNA differs from other human beings?
If noahs ark, samson's magical hair, jonah and the whale are all fairy tales, why do we still have Christians?
Thought ‘ Wolkoulang ‘ was the cousin of Orang-outang 🤣 😂 🤣❕
I can think of a few people where there is no difference. Many of them work in Washington D.C. , where chimps would serve us better.
Obviously the common ancestor of humans and apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes like apes and there was a chromosome fusion and it gave birth to an offspring with 23 pairs that branched off into humans. But there is a problem with this scenario. First of all that chromosome fused offspring couldn't reproduce unless there was another offspring with same chromosome fusion and opposite sex in that particular GENERATION, which is highly unlikely for that to happen. Secondly why did that fusion happened only once and never has happened again despite thousands of years of apes reproductions?
14 people are creationists
I want to thank all the sad children in the comments, so desperately trying to hang on to their favorite special people fairy tale by trying to undermine an established fact of nature, for demonstrating how much their personally preferred imaginary friend only lives on their deluded heads.
Yes but how do I go to the toilet if I have to wake up a million years?
thats not how evolution works.
digestive tract you are thinking of had millions of years to evolve.
look at most primitive , non specialized excretory systems, like in nematodes, where it is simply a tubular gut lined by an epithelial membrane.
or sponges.
In unicellular organisms, since they do not have any specialized organs for the removal of waste materials, their wastes are removed directly through the cell membrane by the process of diffusion.
so nobody waited to expel waste, that ability was always there to some degree.
so the first mutation, would have been a human baby, from chimp-like parents - wonder how that panned out? Or did MANY mutations happen, or did the first 'human' go on to father, or mother more genetic mutants (humans)? Having such a distinct difference, genetically, means that the first human would have been at the very least - odd, to its parents. The genes do draw a line, and the two species parted ways - we can be sure of that, but I feel for the very first humans, as they must have had chimps as parents, or the elusive common ancestor. Were the first humans very much more similar, and so less outcast, than its parents - the common ancestor. Its so bloody interesting!
That's not really how it works. Imagine that in one generation of chimps have slight mutations that aren't really noticeable. After one generation (so these chimps kids), the chimps will be slightly different. Then they have more mutations. After many many generations these slight changes result in a completely different species (humans) being made. This is just the surface level of the theory of evolution though.
@@MaddenedInvader Yep, with you on all of that - but the difference between 48 pairs of chromosomes, and 46 pairs is not, and cant be gradual. We know that a pair of our chromosomes from the common ancestor 'fused' together, which caused the change from 48, to 46 pairs. It is precisely that moment in time, the birth of a 'new' species, when 48, became 46, that two chimp like parents would have been amazed, at their new offspring...Of course I know that, for instance, the eyes of a prey animal moved to the side of their head over eons, for extra vision, which led to new species, but changing 48, to 46 chromosomes is not a gradual process is it. I am not a faither, I accept evolution as the best explanation, it has been proved over and over, I just want this little niggle cleared up! Can I speak to the manager please?
@@mistag3860 I agree with you on that, it's just that in the first comment I might have misinterpreted you as believing that all evolution was instant (as in going from an ape to another species in 1 generation), and so wanted to clear things up.
@@MaddenedInvader Cleared up?? not much! We have established that I dont believe a magic wand in the hands of a magic being wafted it all into place, together with red herrings like evolution and fossils to test our faith. But what about the question? If a few birds fly, during a storm, to a new island, it is some generations before they develop a longer bill, to get the nectar from the new/different fauna, and for some time, they can still mate with the birds from their former island...in time, after the new longer bill has evolved, any birds that manage the same trip from the old island would NOT be able to mate. That is when a new species is declared. When they can no longer reproduce. When our ancestors two chromosomes fused, it was a mutation, not an adaptation to new surroundings. It took ONE gestation period, and the parents MUST have looked down on our ''Eve'' with a bit of a shock! here's their new offspring, and its a different species instantly. Someone help me, I dont feel as though I am wrong, or being a dick...I dont believe that someone, or something reached into the womb, and fused the chromosomes to create us. It was a mutation that was obviously favourable to survival, so did it happen to one happy couple, or many? And how did the new mutated offspring then go on to reproduce, Eve needs an adam.....and we cannot mate with chimps,although I think maybe some folk have probably tried, and all we got was Aids, but thats a whole 'nother story. is the Boss around? hey RD help!!!!
Not really too many differences, fur, bone structure, learning structure, finding food is close, maintaining a home is probably the biggest difference, though the females structured the same way in the xx formations, maintaining equilibrium.
If plants evolved from rocks, why are mithondria the powerhouse of the cell?
Plants did not evolve from rocks.
Not according to the athists scintentists
The only science that works is atheistic because the supernatural does not exist. Deal with it.
I repeat: plants did not evolve from rocks. You are scientifically illiterate. Go to church or whatever it is you do. Go give some money to a Jimmy Swaggart crook type and shut up about science you don't understand.
In science opinions don't matter. Facts do. The facts are clear. Evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter what you or anybody believes or want to believe. Humans evolved from primates.
There is no such thing such as small changes. DNA is so complex of one letter is out then the out come will be completely different
Gawd dunnit!
I knew this was true when I first saw George W. Bush.
I'll rise to your level: you misspelt Obama
@@secondrule -He "misspelt" Donald Skunk
@TheRealMc101 That's an insult to chimps
Walk along, walk along - What about the chimps Richard. What are they supposed to do? You need some species sensitivity training!
If we have a very small difference of DNA with chimps can scientist convert them to humans? By Gene editing?as now we have crisper technology
It will take probably take decades to do that, due to multiple reasons. The first problem is that each cell in the human body contains DNA, so we would somehow need to change all of them at the same time. The second problem, is that if we did manage to change a cell from a chimp cell to a human cell, the chimp's immune system would kill it. The third problem would be preserving the life of the chimp throughout the process. This also means somehow preserving the chimp's consciousness as the chimp brain is turned into a human brain. If we did manage to get around these challenges, then it might be possible.
98%
Creationists remain unconvinced. GOD DID IT!!!!
Atheists: prebiotic soup did it
Till Abiogenesis is not proved these things makes no sense because at the end of the day what is this it is homology i.e similarties are due to common descent but to prove this one needs to prove an universal common ancestor and that too coming from natural processes otherwise creationists will use the argument that similarties are not necessarily due to common descent.
How did it get here, evolution did it
Didn't he need to specify the percentage of identical genes? The human and chimpanzee genomes are nearly 99% identical (more precisely, 98.8%).
It is important to note that, as Prof. Dawkins rightly emphasized, this quite small genetic variation results in quite large differences (in appearance, behavior and especially, abilities).
I don't understand this comparison. You can not say one part is human and other is chimp. DNA has already have two side. I am just asking.
That’s chromosomes you’re talking about. Human DNA on the molecular level is nearly 100% identical with the tiniest of differences. Humans and chimps however, share about 98.8% identical DNA. This fact helps give validity to the idea that we came from a common ancestor that lived only about 6 million years ago (not very long in the spectrum of earth’s history).
1% is all the different you need to disprove evolution. Considering-all the information within dna 1% is completely different. It’s the difference like apples and oranges
Why do people want to shove their beliefs ( or non-beliefs)down everybody's throats , if you believe in god that's great , if you don't believe in god that's great. ...i mean not much to argue about , and who really cares what you believe or don't believe ?
Too bad he didn’t tell the class in order to line all those up in near perfect alignment, they had to delete a shit ton of information, rearrange everything and pick and chose where to line up the chimp human dna so it could better reflect their hypotheses 😮
If we said human and chimp created spreate what’s off proof they have to they both crated by supper natural god
A human and a 🍌 are also 60% identical. 😄
watching in 2019 - why do they say 96% when its 98% then ?
The exact amount is debated, but we know currently that it’s between 98.5% and 99.5%.
Shame about the irritating, unnecessary music that distracts from the brilliantly delivered, important lecture.
I have never attended a lecture on any subject, except music, where the lecturer played music to distract from what was being taught.
By the way, I am a musician, so I can hardly be accused of hating music. I love good music (which this is not) - but music has its place, even good music.
Yes, the genome difference is slight but let's just highlight those important differences that exist between bubbles and Adam. Around 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. Also, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or unknown function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.
Wether you adhere to the theory of evolution or to the existence of intelligent design..the fact that biological life on this planet HAS to be similar to survive here seems apparent. Particularly the species which survive by breathing air, drinking water, assimilation of similar food. Also similarities between species that are shared, such as legs, bones, flesh, muscles, eyes, skin, hair, teeth..are patterns which differ only mostly in appearance - shape and functionality..biologically we are very similar. Humans share similar DNA to fruit flies and cats.
An intelligent designer would have used similar blueprints conducive for the success of life on this planet. And if you believe all life here on earth came from single celled bacteria then everything has a common ancestor. Even bananas.
An intelligent designer would have designed things a lot differently than they appear today. And an intelligent designer wouldn't have created an planet that can destroy so much of the life with volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc, as well as so susceptible to being wiped out by a random asteroid.
The intelligent designer argument simply doesn't hold up when you look at what an intelligent designer would actually do.
This guy is such a quack.
We should put up a picture of a Dodge and a Chevy and make comparisons...
What does this prove and how are the conclusions scientific?
The theist would put up the same chart and praise God for his design! Arguments from Homology or comparative anatomy prove nothing in the context of Origins and anyone who understands the philosophy of Science knows this to be elementary!
Meaningless - as is the number one hears sometimes - what is it...98%?
How much does a human match other primates? A dog? Cat? Etc.
I don't know how similar we are to dogs and cats, but it would probably surprise you. We're 50% the same as bananas. So, another animal, specifically another mammal, would be a lot closer. I would guess at least 80% the same. Maybe more.
Dude.. dogs and cats are NOT primates
Chimpanzees find 98% similarity meaningless, humans find it fascinating
@RichardDawkins I wonder if anyone could set up a challenge online, where anybody could get a random sampling of DNA from a human being, to compare with two other samplings of the same size, from the same part of the corresponding chromosome in each of two other sequenced individuals, and submit their best guess at which of those two is another human, and which is a chimpanzee.
Better yet, load a page with a list of such random samples, and let the person guess at ten or so of them before submitting their guesses and getting the results. I wonder how many times they could try that and still think that humans and chimpanzees are not related. LOL!
The most amazing difference is probably the fusing of the chromosomes. I can't imagine that having an insignificant effect.
there is a genus of horse that has fused chromosomes.
and its not significantly different from other horses
i guess it depends.
There's also the doubling of chromosomes. 99%+ of calico cats are females because only females have two X chromosomes.
But then there's a very rare probability to get male calico cats thanks to a mutation that gives them an XXY chromosome instead of just an XY.
But yeah that causes sterility.
@@spatrk6634 From what I gather, you’re saying that horses will one day turn into human-like creatures but horse-like instead of ape-like, right?
@@KXSocialChannel no.
i just responded to your comment where you think that most significant effect was fusion of chromosomes.
i responded with example where fusion of chromosomes occured, and nothing remarkable happened
@@spatrk6634 So, you’re saying that humans are unremarkable then?
Evolution is proven. It is a scientific fact. Those who get stuck in the ''theory'' part should google the difference between a scientific theory and a normal theory. Get it right.
(A) I am aware that change over time has been proven. (B) I am aware that change within organisms has been proven. But my understanding is that universal common descent has NOT been proven but is merely an extrapolation from (A) and (B). What is the proof to which you refer, HGD. I certainly want to accept and embrace it if it really has been proven and is not just assumed.
The proof of universal descent lies in the DNA. There are evolutionary conserved DNA sequences in every organism. Our similarity in DNA sequence with microscopic organisms serves as a proof of universal descent. Even though we know the procedure and proof of evolution, it is really hard to demonstrate the image of the first universal descent. The reason is, there are insufficient fossil and DNA evidence when it comes to organisms that are several billions of years old. It is known as the first universal ancestors. After a billion years of formation, earth became habitable for very basic organisms. The first life on earth was probably a chemosynthetic organism. Basicly, that ancestor evolved and adapted to divide into brances, as the brances increased, the specificity of the organism type also increased. ( like animal and plant cells). It is known that microscopic organisms can survive in extreme conditions, the first life probably arrived on earth from external sources such as meteors. I recommend google-ing the family tree chart of early prokaryotic microorganisms' journey to become multicellular. Prof. Dawkins have a book called ''The ancestors tale''. It explains evolution by starting from human to universal ancestors. It simply takes you on a reverse journey to find human's most recent common ancestor and then it continues explaining from complex to simple life until the very origins of all living cells. I strongly recommend it.
*"The proof of universal descent lies in the DNA. There are evolutionary conserved DNA sequences in every organism."* I can tell that you put time and effort into you answer, HDG, and I appreciate it. But your answer does not appear to represent the kind of proof that your earlier post alleged to exist. This answer is just circular reasoning. _Evolution happened because there are conserved DNA sequences. There are conserved DNA sequences because evolution happened.”_ See the problem? I mean no disrespect, really I don’t, but I can’t just accept universal common descent on faith alone.
Evolution *did not* happen because of conserved DNA sequences. Evolution happens by mutations and environmental factors. Organisms need evolution to fit in the environment, unlike adaptation, evolution is relatively long. It is possible to say that as organisms adapt, they have a long term change in their DNA which is one of the many causes of evolution. The *proof* for evolution lies inside the conserved DNA sequences which humans and microorganisms share. Since we are related in DNA level, all the roads lead to the proof of universal descent. That is what i meant. You should consider the magnitude of 4.6 billion years and relate it to the evolution of organisms unicellular to multicellular. It is proven that plants, animals and microorganisms are distant cousins on DNA level. It is a complicated process but once you relate evolution to DNA evidence, it really makes sence. Simple to complicated. I strongly recommend *The Ancestors Tale* by Richard Dawkins. The reason of my strong recommendation is: It really explains how a microorganism evolved to more complex life. Also he uses scientific articles to prove his points, he is not biased when it comes to evolution, thats why i enjoy his books so much.
I apologize for limiting the evidence with only mentioning conserved sequences. Conserved DNA sequences show a similarity but there are more variety of evidences for the existance of universal descent. Well all share the 4 letter DNA with microbes. Considering the age of earth, us coming from a universal microbe is the explanation. The first organism on earth was a unicellular microbes. We can say it is a very primitive for of a cyanobacteria. It evolved and became variety of other bacteria such as photosynthetic bacteria, achae and what we call multicellular organisms.. Photosynthetic evolution outdates the first plant cell and all those early microorganisms. Once the distinction of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell were obvious, animal cells arose from eukaryotic cells. My point is, lets take the bacteria as an evidence and compare the DNA sequence to a close relative and a human. By comparing human genome to bacteria genome, we can observe how similar the genetic make up of those two distantly related life forms. Simply, the 4 billion years of evolution is certainly a long time, compare it to a thousand years or a million years. Evolution can not be observed in real time but can be observed by DNA evidence and fossils, which leads to a universal ancestor and that ancestor was a form of a chemosynthetic cyanobacteria. Another proof of universal ancestory is the comparison between the entire proteomes of cyanobacteria and modern animal cell DNA. The similarity between them is a proof enough to explain it.
This documentary is very well made, it is about abiogenesis, please watch it through the end.
th-cam.com/video/xyhZcEY5PCQ/w-d-xo.html
www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms
One other thing i wish to add is, as an ex-muslim biology student, i really wish if i could answer everything with a god, but all the gods so far are created by the natural curiosity of humans. Evil or good, the god comes with a creation. There is enough proof that creation is not true, one of the many evidences for that is evolution which is at the degree of scientific theory, something that is supported by massive amount of evidence. Science even continues to unlock the secrets of the universe by introducing big bang and multiple universe theory. One thing i have learned is, it is okay to say ''i dont know'' in science. but the right thing to say after that would be ''someone will know thanks to science''. I wish to live long enough to see science explain every single thing about what exists in the universe, but that is impossible for me. Maybe the future generations will know, maybe we will all go extinct by then. But one thing is certain, if science covered this far in couple of thousand years, i cant help but imagine and wonder what discoveries await the human being.
this makes jesus very very very angry!
I honestly like to think it makes God and Jesus pretty happy. I like to believe they're watching us from heaven kinda like "Yes! They figured out another piece of the puzzle!"
That's just me though:)
jesus is a scumbag
Lol!
give jesus a break guys, I think the kid's fine. his Dad on the other hand...
If you look closely at Dawkins you can really see the resemblance.
I don’t no wtf you talking about
Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived between 6 and 12 million years ago (we know this from molecular dating of Chromosome 2). The video shows that the speciation hypothesis of humans and chimps fits with the fact that we share about 99% of each other’s DNA. Obviously, we aren’t the same species, but we do share many similarities.
Where is the common ancestor the only thing that seems to be common is these half ass presentations if your going to prove your point do it with flare this I'm sure is why you can't convince some it's just not complete if your going to go to the trouble complete it
Your inability to spell and use punctuation suggests you didn’t waste too much time in school so why not use TH-cam to watch cat videos instead of science presentations?
@@dougm659 so that I can learn to spell and punctuate, like you big boy.
Yeah well what about trisome mutation and robinson trans. This is the nail in the coffin for evolution . human chromosome 2 is numerically impossible .
what?
i always hear comments that contain "this is the nail in the coffin for evolution"
when in reality entire comment shows that person doesnt have any idea what he is talking about...
just like your incoherent comment you just made
So say a universal object or something that should not be consumed & no longer was consumed do to natural correction in reason may cause a small change.
This would mean three forms of intelligent correction would occur. Evolution may be the same on every planet with life.
Correction in those that consumed, saw, & what offspring where prevented in knowing.
A 3 point intelligent change along with a consumptive error. Possible maybe.
This would still mean creation designed a way & or provided the way either way $0 T0 $@Y
You just wrote a bunch of unintelligible nonsense and then followed it by "This would still mean creation designed a way & or provided the way either way"
Classic.
So, Chimps and humans Genome is almost identical? What do they mean? couldn't they separate between humans and animals(chimps)? Even i separate them? The question is if humans and chimps Gemstone is almost identical then it remained always almost identical. Right? So, where is the evolution?
+Asrat Mengesha Small differences in the genome can create differences that appear huge to us in a species. The cool part about the genome is that we are able to track evolution by lining up the DNA side by side and noticing the small changes through each species. If a single animal's genome didn't line up correctly in the evolutionary process, the theory of evolution would have to be thrown out the window. There isn't, however, through lots of studying, which is why most scientists agree that evolution can now be considered fact.
This video is very misleading.
+Dan Cameron No, it isn't. He illustrates the point well. The thing is that creationsts impose a deliberate blindness on themselves and misinterpret what is said. Here it is in capital letters.... WE HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH CHIMPANZEES, FROM WHICH BOTH CHIMPS AND US EVOLVED. This process is well documented in all species, even the dinosaurs show evolution into more intelligent, more dextrous sub-species over time. If you care to educate yourself a bit, it is not a difficult thing to understand. Your simplistic, almost child-like, reasoning is common among creationists; I find it a little bit sad that the brilliant human intellect can be willfully dumbed down by religion in this way, even to the point of denying proven facts.
+Kathryn Truscott so what's the common ancestor? what animal?
there's no evidence for that animal is there?
+Tommy G. The evidence is in our genome.... there are many species of which we have found no physical trace..... If you want a real bit of evidence that is present in ALL vertebrates for evolution versus 'intelligent design', I suggest you do a bit of research on the vagus nerve. It is inherited from our piscean (fish) ancestors, and its path in vertebrates makes no logical sense if one were to design the large land based vertebrates. In fact, that nerve is so illogically routed as to be a danger (or at least an unnecessary vulnerability) in most creatures except fish, which is where it originated; we just inherited the silly thing from them.
There is a vast mass of incontrovertible evidence for evolution that only the willfully blind (or worse, willfully stupid) refuse to acknowledge, and if you are one of them then nothing anyone says will convince you. That's fine with me, but don't presume to challenge those that have evidence with an idea that has no evidence for it at all. I could write a book that says that the Earth was created by little green frogs on mars, but 2000 years of elapsed time would not make it true......
You're on a loser here chum...
I prefer millions of times when Dawkins teachs and shows what he knows than when he debates with other people, he seems to stress himself too much with ignorance...
No way bro. Jesus bro..... jesus
Da fuq bro?
Can Richard Dawkins remake this video, as this is starting to come out as incorrect. Yes large LARGE chunks are 99% the same, but there is around 25% that isn't the same, because it was reversed or doubled, and doesn't exist in one or the other. the true figure is around 70% is the same. not 99%
Didn't the 70% figure came from a comparison algorithm that showed that human DNA is only 89% similar to itself?
Unless you can give some info on that figure I call BULLSHIT.
I made the change, One thing he did not mention was why chimps and other animals have thumbs. The reason is That who ever designed us new eventually we would have cellphones and needed the thumb to use the keyboard because the hand was holding the phone and our other hand was occupied driving the car.
what
Is this evolution or the Human Body conditions itself to the environment after prolonged adaptations to its surrounding ?
1*So if you were a Islander your whole body system is naturally condition to survive in such an environment
*If you lived in Ice Cold Country your body adapts to extreme cold for survival
3*The Human body is all of 96 natural elements and its all energy with little mass
"Atomic body ":
4*These atoms must be activated, electrons hitting neutrons and protons to create the energy the body needs for SURVIVAL
5*HUMANS are created smart Bio robots not at all evolved from Animals
The animals do not have the varied cells, neurons, and DNA including the bone structure of the Spine and Brain matter 3lbs
6*All Animals are still the same as billions of years ago but have lost their physical conditions due to pollution and environment changes
7*Archeiologist have dug up skulls and mummyfied bodies buried millions of years ago and they look no different to present day humans
8*We have to be happy we were created differently and not evolved from single cells or animals.
9* Today Scientist proudly boast of Artificial Intelligence created by them, almost identical to a human
10*If this is accepted and possible Aliens, Gods or the Creater could have created Humans as Bio Robots for their own needs or benefits
11*Maybe to develop the Universe ,maybe just populate and make the vast emptiness be more liveable.
13*We have to seriously rephrase -" Humans evolved"- to "Humans were created" with basic intelligence and body structure but over centuries they conditioned their body brain and mind to adapt for SURVIVAL
Alot of the science we know is more theory than fact.A common patern in dna proves a common creator.Give the bible an oportunity read it and study it.You may adquire knowledge but you need wisdom too.You choose to believe what you want.Its your free will.But please respect those who choose to believe in God.People that insults other its because they lack argument in what they say.
@Gaytony Talk facts.Not what you want to say it's rigth.
@Gaytony I think you do not have a clue either.Take what ever you think to a court.You need solid evidence.Not what you just simply think is correct.Talk facts ,not posible explanation.
Yes, when you don't count the 18% chimp genome that is not present in humans and 25% of human genome that is not present in chimps then yes, the rest of it is pretty much identical...
It's actually more like a one or two percent difference.
Carter Wood the one or two percent refers to point mutations. It omits other large-scale mutations like duplications, deletions, insertions and reversals of larger sections (which make up the 18-25% of genomes respectively).
i guess you know better than dawkins
Evolution is not science?
Evolution is a fact, like gravity. Science explains that fact. Evolution theory is the study of evolution while the theory of universal gravitation is the study of gravity.
Hell no it isn't fool its 2018 and people are still believing that shit. Just like people believing a virgin have birth.
Your understanding of evolution is not science based.
@@amihartz lol evolution is nothing compared to gravity. Get smarter.
I Believe In Both Creation And Evolution.
I Follow The Evidence Where It Leads And I Already Accepted Evolution As A Fact.
Let me see if I get you Mr Dumkins if I find similarities between Golf 6 and golf 7 and just a small improvement on golf 7, I can then conclude that these two cars are cousins, they evolved from the same junk yard. Would I be wrong to conclude that these cars were made by the same engineers i.e Volkswagen?
No because you were already made aware that cars are designed by humans and cannot come about via natural processes. The similarity between humans and chimps isn’t used as evidence of a common ancestor, but is rather just used to support the idea. The main points used are Chromosome 2 and 2a/2b, the foramen magnum of several hominin fossils, and molecular dating of several common ancestry markers in the human and chimp genomes.
The following is scientific question on evolution theory that needs immediate and unbiased answer, from the evolutionists. Right?
If we conclude that chimpanzees and humans are cousins of each other, based on identical identity ( which is 99% the same) in small world, what science or method force us not to see chimpanzees 99 percent identical to us, in big?
If this question not answered all the evidences are not valid. Right? thanks.
Small alterations in the genotype (the genes) can cause large scale changes to the phenotype (the physical attributes of the organism). For example take Sickle-cell disease. It's caused by a single swapping of a nucleotide in the gene that codes for the Beta subunit of hemoglobin. 1 difference in a genome 3 billion base pairs long resulted in malformed blood cells. That's only from a 0.00000003% difference.
SBroproductions
If life is a matter of evolution then why is impossible for hybrid animals to reproduce?
Evolution does not exist man.
Asrat Mengesha Well first off, some hybrid animals ARE able to reproduce. Secondly, the mere fact that they can "sort of" breed shows that the two breeding individuals are closely related genetically (otherwise you'd get no offspring), meaning the two probably came from two distinct populations that diversified out from an original population. Anyway why do Hybrid animals matter? It just shows that the breeding animals are close to the dividing specie line.
SBroproductions
Hybrid animals matter because animals are created in unique id so that in case they create hybrid shall not reproduce.
All humans are one kind so they can reproduce regardless color or what they look like. However, if any human meets a lion and the lion gives birth to two male and female babies then those babies do not reproduce because they violate the laws of God multiply in kind.God law does not allow marriage with no same kind.
Asrat Mengesha You can't give birth to children with a lion. A lion only has 38 Chromosomes for Gods sake. No way you're going to properly join up like that. What about Bacteria? They're promiscuous as shit and will happily share genetic information with OTHER species, who are definitely not the same "kind" as it. Anyway, Evolution focuses on the change of heritable characteristics through generations, guided by Natural Selection. DNA changes, this is fact, Natural selection (as in the preference for 1 trait above another in nature) occurs, this is fact. What's the issue?
So when they looked at these human and chimp genomes we know that they only looked at a small portion of each genome so the difference between humans and chimps isn’t 2% like it was once taught, it’s actually around 20%. But let’s say it was only 2%. The human genome has around 3billion (3,000,000,000) letters. If we were only 2% different from chimpanzees that would be 60million (60,000,000) differences in the genome letters. Dawkins doesn’t tell u that though does he. But now we know we are about 20% different from chimps so that’s 600 million (60,000,000) differences. If ur gonna get all scientific at least be honest and share all the info. Don’t just tell people we are 2% different from chimps so it must mean common ancestor because that’s just lies. The clouds in the sky are 100% water and snow cones are 98% water so they must be related right? It’s just ridiculous!
Snow cones is just water in a different physical state and so are clouds.
Madvic water melons are 97% water. Jelly fish are 98% water. I guess that are just water in a different state too.
Yep, correct.
Madvic that’s great but they aren’t related to each other or evolved from one another.And like I said with 60 million genome differences it’s pretty ridiculous to say that we are even similar to chimpanzees.
You got anything to actually disprove evolution or is it just a "oh i just think its not possible"
Wow!!! Amazing what a smart Creator can do with.... "a tiny number" !!! Respect for Him!!!
Oh you mean Loki. I too think he is very smart.
😂😂😂, Dumbass!!!
Well, that was brief. I think Dawkins would fail in a debate on human evolution which went into any reasonable detail. We know the current human mutation rate, we know that chimps are about 85% similar to humans (not 99% folks), evolutionists say that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 3-6 million years ago. Crunching the numbers, human evolution is simply impossible.
Mate, you’ve made 3 errors here,
1. The common ancestor lived about 6 - 12 million years ago, with the current estimate to be about 7 million.
2. Mutation rates change over time from mutations themselves as mutations are what change genetic traits, and there are going to be genes that affect said mutation rates, making them mutable.
3. The similarity in genome between humans and chimps is between 98.8% and 99% while the similarity between chimps and gorillas is about 97%, making us the closest relative to the chimpanzees, even closer than gorillas. I’ve never heard a primatologist whose even remotely studied chimpanzees and their biology say that the difference is 85%, please feel free to share what uneducated ignorant told you this.