Making fun of paleontology

[erik simpson]

I offer this masterpiece:

https://news.google.com/search?q=paleontology&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

[panther2020]

On 1/2/24 12:15, erik simpson wrote:
> I offer this masterpiece:
>
> https://news.google.com/search?q=paleontology&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

What's not to make fun of when you see people like Svante Paabo claiming
that common genes imply cross-species interbreeding.

IOW, we share about half our genes with the banana. That is not from
humans doing sex with bananas.....

[jillery]

Don't tell Ray Comfort. He makes videos using bananas as sex objects:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A>

[erik simpson]

Ugh to last example. But in fact, we do have a common ancestor with
bananas. It's just that our common ancestor with Neanderthals was much
more recent, and mating with them more rewarding than similar efforts
with bananas.

[panther2020]

Actually, there might be one or two kinds of sex things somebody could
do with a banana if they were enough of a perv for it, but nobody ever
got pregnant from anything like that nor could that leave markers in
human dna.....

[John Harshman]

On 1/2/24 2:49 PM, panther2020 wrote:
> On 1/2/24 12:15, erik simpson wrote:
>> I offer this masterpiece:
>>
>> https://news.google.com/search?q=paleontology&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
>
> What's not to make fun of when you see people like Svante Paabo claiming
> that common genes imply cross-species interbreeding.

In the first case, that isn't paleontology. In the second case, why do
you reject that evidence? Or perhaps you don't understand it? (Hint: it
isn't about "common genes".)

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:51:57 -0600, panther2020

All true but harder to satirize...

[Popping Mad]

On 1/2/24 17:49, panther2020 wrote:
>
> IOW, we share about half our genes with the banana.

I'd like to see that statistic

[Popping Mad]

On 1/2/24 20:30, erik simpson wrote:
> mating with them more rewarding than similar efforts with bananas.

you are leaving yourself wide open...


OK

So

How do you know that?

[erik simpson]

Actually it's even worse than that. Most of our genome we (and every
other living thing) we share with bacteria.

[erik simpson]

Well, I don't know, but I been told, Eskimo...
And the same goes for bananas.

[Popping Mad]

On 1/4/24 19:04, erik simpson wrote:
> Actually it's even worse than that. Most of our genome we (and every
> other living thing) we share with bacteria.

no - I've done a lot of work with the human genome project and you are
wrong that we share half our DNA with plants or bacteria. We have a lot
more DNA than bacteria, and the animal plant split is when?


So I want to see your evidence.

[erik simpson]

You are right. I believe it would be correct to say that we (all life)
share the "house keeping" genes with bacteria. I don't know how to
calculate the fraction, so please enlighten me if you do. The
animal/plant split would be close to the LUCA of all life >4 Gya.

[John Harshman]

At least one of you is confusing the genome with the genes. The claim is
that you share half your genes with a banana, not half your genome. I
don't know if that's true, but it isn't out of the question.

[erik simpson]

I confess to confusion, but I meant 50% of genes. That number came from
the infamous panther (peace be unto him), so there's room for doubt.

[John Harshman]

There are several discussions on the web. This, for example:

https://lab.dessimoz.org/blog/2020/12/08/human-banana-orthologs

According to that, about a third of human protein-coding genes have a
known homolog in bananas, and for those homologs the average *amino
acid* sequence similarity is around 40%. That makes a lot more sense.

[erik simpson]

Another big mistake of mine: LUCA is way before LUBA (Last Universal
Banana Ancestor). In any event, good find!

[Popping Mad]

On 1/5/24 19:06, erik simpson wrote:
>>
>> At least one of you is confusing the genome with the genes. The claim
>> is that you share half your genes with a banana, not half your genome.
>> I don't know if that's true, but it isn't out of the question.
> I confess to confusion, but I meant 50% of genes. That number came from
> the infamous panther (peace be unto him), so there's room for doubt.

It is out of the question. The genome is the entire genetic material by
an organism split usually among several strands of DNA.

A gene is a small sequence of DNA that encodes something, or at least it
could. There are often variations within genes. Non eof this has any
baring on what is being discussed. We do not share 50% of our genes or
base pair sequences with Bananas or bacteria. It is not even close.

[John Harshman]

What percentage of our genes do you think we share with bananas? What is
your evidence for that percentage?

[Popping Mad]

On 1/5/24 17:41, erik simpson wrote:
>> So I want to see your evidence.
> You are right. I believe it would be correct to say that we (all life)
> share the "house keeping" genes with bacteria. I don't know how to
> calculate the fraction, so please enlighten me if you do.  The
> animal/plant split would be close to the LUCA of all life >4 Gya.

that would pretty much kill the idea that we share 50% of our DNA with
plants or bacteria.

It is an interesting thought and conversation. I asked the AI how much
DNA I share is a sisters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

On average, siblings share about 50% of their DNA with each other 12.
This is because they inherit half of their DNA from each parent, but the
exact 50% they inherit from each parent is random 3.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. 😊

==> How is that possible if I share 92% of my DNA with a Chimp?
Searching for: how much dna do siblings share

Generating answers for you…

It is true that humans share about 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees 1.
However, the amount of DNA shared between siblings is different from the
amount of DNA shared between humans and chimpanzees. On average,
siblings share about 50% of their DNA with each other 12. This is
because they inherit half of their DNA from each parent, but the exact
50% they inherit from each parent is random 3.

I hope this clears up any confusion! Let me know if you have any other
questions. 😊

==> I share more DNA with a Chimp than my sister?

Copy
Searching for: how much dna do siblings share

Generating answers for you…

It is true that humans share about 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees 1.
However, the amount of DNA shared between siblings is different from the
amount of DNA shared between humans and chimpanzees. On average,
siblings share about 50% of their DNA with each other 12. This is
because they inherit half of their DNA from each parent, but the exact
50% they inherit from each parent is random 3.

I hope this clears up any confusion! Let me know if you have any other
questions. 😊

==> How is the DNA shared with my sister different than the DNA I share
with a Chimp? THat makes no sense.

Copy
Searching for: how is dna shared with siblings different from chimps

Generating answers for you…

I understand your confusion. The amount of DNA shared between siblings
is different from the amount of DNA shared between humans and
chimpanzees. On average, siblings share about 50% of their DNA with each
other 12. This is because they inherit half of their DNA from each
parent, but the exact 50% they inherit from each parent is random 12 .

On the other hand, humans share about 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees
13. However, the DNA sequences that differ between humans and
chimpanzees are responsible for the differences in physical and
behavioral traits between the two species 3.

I hope this clears up any confusion! Let me know if you have any other
questions. 😊

Searching for: why do humans share more dna with chimps than siblings

Generating answers for you…

Humans share 99%+ of their DNA with chimpanzees 1. This is because
humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived about 6-7
million years ago 2. On the other hand, siblings share only 50% of their
DNA with each other 3. This is because each parent passes on only half
of their DNA to their offspring 3. Therefore, it is possible that you
share more DNA with a chimpanzee than with your sister due to the fact
that you share a lot of DNA with chimpanzees and only half of your DNA
with your sister 312.

==> that is wrong
Searching for: why is it wrong that humans share more dna with chimps
than siblings

Generating answers for you…

I apologize for the confusion. Can you please let me know what is
incorrect so that I can provide you with the correct information? If you
have any other questions, feel free to ask. 😊


==> That is wrong. I can not share more DNA with a Chimp than I do with
my sister
Searching for: why is it wrong that humans share more dna with chimps
than siblings

Generating answers for you…

I apologize for the confusion. Thank you for bringing this to my
attention. You are correct that humans share more DNA with their
siblings than with chimpanzees. Humans share approximately 50% of their
DNA with their siblings, while they share 99%+ of their DNA with
chimpanzees 123. I hope this clears up any confusion. If you have any
other questions, feel free to ask. 😊
==> So how is it possible that I share more DNA with a Chimp than my
sister. My sister and I share an ancestor only one generation ago and
chimps and Humans share an ancestory 6 million years ago.

Copy
Searching for: how is it possible that I share more DNA with a Chimp
than my sister

Generating answers for you…

The reason you share more DNA with a chimp than your sister is because
you and the chimp share a common ancestor more recently than you and
your sister do 1. While it is true that humans and chimpanzees share a
common ancestor from about 6 million years ago, the genetic similarity
between the two species is still quite high, with about 98.5% sequence
identity 1.

As for your sister, while it is true that you share an ancestor with her
only one generation ago, it is important to note that you and your
sister do not inherit the exact same DNA from your parents 2. The DNA
that you inherit from your parents is a random mix of their DNA, and the
same is true for your sister. Therefore, it is possible that you and
your sister share less DNA than you do with a more distant relative,
such as a cousin 23.

I hope this helps clarify your question!

==> SO I share more DNA with a Chimp than my sister?
Generating answers for you…

Yes, that’s correct! As I mentioned earlier, the reason you share more
DNA with a chimp than your sister is because you and the chimp share a
common ancestor more recently than you and your sister do . While it is
true that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor from about 6
million years ago, the genetic similarity between the two species is
still quite high, with about 98.5% sequence identity .

As for your sister, while it is true that you share an ancestor with her
only one generation ago, it is important to note that you and your
sister do not inherit the exact same DNA from your parents . The DNA
that you inherit from your parents is a random mix of their DNA, and the
same is true for your sister. Therefore, it is possible that you and
your sister share less DNA than you do with a more distant relative,
such as a cousin .

I hope this helps clarify your question!

==> No that is not right. I share more DNA with a sister than a Chimp.

Copy
Searching for: why do I share more DNA with my sister than a chimp

Generating answers for you…

I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct
that you share more DNA with your sister than with a chimpanzee. Humans
and chimpanzees share about 98.5% sequence identity 1, while siblings
share approximately 50% of their physical DNA 2.

The reason for this discrepancy is that the percentage of genetic
similarity between two individuals depends on how much of the DNA is
being compared and how specific the comparison is 23. While humans and
chimpanzees share a common ancestor from about 6 million years ago, you
and your sister share a common ancestor from only one generation ago 1.
Therefore, it is expected that you share more DNA with your sister than
with a chimpanzee.

I hope this clears up any confusion. Please let me know if you have any
further questions!

==> what is the difference between physical DNA and sequence identity?

Copy
Searching for: difference between physical DNA and sequence identity

Generating answers for you…

Physical DNA refers to the actual physical structure of the DNA
molecule, which is made up of a double helix of nucleotides 1. Sequence
identity, on the other hand, refers to the degree of similarity between
two DNA sequences, which is usually expressed as a percentage of the
number of nucleotides that are identical between the two sequences 2.

For example, if two DNA sequences are compared and 90% of the
nucleotides are found to be identical, then the sequence identity
between the two sequences is 90%. Sequence identity is an important
measure of the evolutionary relationship between two organisms, as it
can provide insight into how closely related they are 2.

I hope this helps clarify the difference between physical DNA and
sequence identity. Let me know if you have any further questions!

==> How much sequence identity do I share with a sister?

Copy
Searching for: sequence identity with sister

Generating answers for you…

The degree of sequence identity between two individuals depends on the
specific DNA sequences being compared. However, siblings share
approximately 50% of their DNA sequence identity 12. This is because
each sibling inherits half of their DNA from their mother and half from
their father. While the specific DNA sequences inherited by each sibling
can vary, they will share approximately half of their DNA with each other.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

[John Harshman]

Poor thing. You confused it. The problem lies in the ambiguity of "share
DNA". When talking about you vs. the chimp, it refers to the degree of
similarity of aligned sequences. When talking about you vs. your sister,
it refers to the percentage of sequences inherited from your parents,
but the sequence similarity of the 50% you don't share is still more
than 99.9%. Apples and oranges. There's a similar confusion between the
sequence similarity (in this case of proteins, not DNA) of genes you
share with bananas and the percentage of your genes homologous with some
banana gene. There is, in other words, immense confusion among different
measures of similarity.

[Popping Mad]

> Banana Ancestor). In any event, good find!

I'll tell you. These writer make the simple complex and confuse everyone.

You can line up strands of DNA and they either MATCH or they don't.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/banana-human-genetics/

FWIW

As Mark Peplow of the Royal Science Media Centre wrote in a comment to
New Scientist back in 2003, genetic similarity depends on how it is
defined. A broad definition (genes that perform the same function) and a
narrow definition (identical DNA sequences) make for wildly different
comparisons:

Apparently "modern inhabitants of Paris… share an average of 50 per
cent of their genes with people from Baghdad." Compare this with the
frequently cited statistic: "Humans share 50 per cent of their genes
with a banana." Does this mean that the residents of Baghdad are bananas?

This is a common source of confusion, and no wonder. There are many
different ways of comparing genetic similarity. The often quoted fact
that people are genetically nearly identical to chimps, for example,
comes from the analysis of amino acids coded for by just a couple of
genes that we share with chimps. 98 per cent of those amino acids are
the same.

The 50 percent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half
of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have
some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't
necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences.

Fifty percent, even by that broader definition, is a potentially suspect
figure, and it does not appear to come from any published research. In
December 2020, computational biologist Natasha Glover wrote a blog post
detailing her efforts to track down the source of the rumor and evaluate
its scientific validity. Her methods were designed to get the highest
possible similarity, but the highest result she achieved was only 25%:

To understand how much of the genome is conserved between banana and
human, I will look at proteins because it's the feature most likely to
be conserved [i.e. unchanged by evolution] between human and banana.
This is to be as permissive as possible in attempts to give the benefit
of the doubt to the 50% meme.

Now the question is, how do we compare all the proteins in one
species to all the proteins in another species and see which ones
"match", i.e. descended from a common ancestral gene? This is a
fundamental problem important for studying evolution. Orthologs are the
term we use for genes in different species that started diverging due to
a speciation event, i.e. "corresponding" genes between species.

This is where our lab's [The Dessimoz Lab at the University of
Lausanne in Switzerland] expertise comes in: we maintain Orthologous
Matrix, which is a method and database for finding orthologs between
many species. [...] All the orthology-inference methods tested show a
maximum of 25% of human genes to be orthologous to banana.

More to the point of the claim, however, is what percent of DNA is
"identical" in both human and banana. Based on comparisons of whole
genome pairs between humans and zebrafish (which are much more closely
related to humans than bananas), Glover argued, the shared DNA figure
would be well below 1%.

Because no definition of genetic similarity provides results close to
50%, and because the claim refers to DNA sequence similarity and not
more broad definitions of genetic similarity, the claim is False.

[John Harshman]

On 1/9/24 10:31 AM, Popping Mad wrote:
>> Banana Ancestor). In any event, good find!
>
> I'll tell you. These writer make the simple complex and confuse everyone.
>
> You can line up strands of DNA and they either MATCH or they don't.
>
>
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/banana-human-genetics/
>
> FWIW
>
> As Mark Peplow of the Royal Science Media Centre wrote in a comment to
> New Scientist back in 2003, genetic similarity depends on how it is
> defined. A broad definition (genes that perform the same function) and a
> narrow definition (identical DNA sequences) make for wildly different
> comparisons:

So much wrong here.

> Apparently "modern inhabitants of Paris… share an average of 50 per
> cent of their genes with people from Baghdad." Compare this with the
> frequently cited statistic: "Humans share 50 per cent of their genes
> with a banana." Does this mean that the residents of Baghdad are bananas?
>
> This is a common source of confusion, and no wonder. There are many
> different ways of comparing genetic similarity. The often quoted fact
> that people are genetically nearly identical to chimps, for example,
> comes from the analysis of amino acids coded for by just a couple of
> genes that we share with chimps. 98 per cent of those amino acids are
> the same.

No, that just isn't true. The 98% figure (really 98.7%) comes from whole
genome comparisons. It's the average site identity for all alignable
sites. Considerably more than 98% of amino acids are the same in the
average protein; in fact, 30% of proteins have identical sequences, and
most of the rest differ by only a single amino acid.

> The 50 percent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half
> of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have
> some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't
> necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences.

This too is wrong. It's not just "counterparts"; it's homologs. Many
kinds of genes in both species "code for cell growth", whatever that
means, but not all are homologs.

> Fifty percent, even by that broader definition, is a potentially suspect
> figure, and it does not appear to come from any published research. In
> December 2020, computational biologist Natasha Glover wrote a blog post
> detailing her efforts to track down the source of the rumor and evaluate
> its scientific validity. Her methods were designed to get the highest
> possible similarity, but the highest result she achieved was only 25%:

Possible. But I think she was counting only orthologs, so if a human
gene family has expanded to 10 genes and the same family in bananas has
expanded to 5, independently, that counts as one gene. So the figure may
in fact rise higher than 25% if paralogs are also counted.

> To understand how much of the genome is conserved between banana and
> human, I will look at proteins because it's the feature most likely to
> be conserved [i.e. unchanged by evolution] between human and banana.
> This is to be as permissive as possible in attempts to give the benefit
> of the doubt to the 50% meme.
>
> Now the question is, how do we compare all the proteins in one
> species to all the proteins in another species and see which ones
> "match", i.e. descended from a common ancestral gene? This is a
> fundamental problem important for studying evolution. Orthologs are the
> term we use for genes in different species that started diverging due to
> a speciation event, i.e. "corresponding" genes between species.
>
> This is where our lab's [The Dessimoz Lab at the University of
> Lausanne in Switzerland] expertise comes in: we maintain Orthologous
> Matrix, which is a method and database for finding orthologs between
> many species. [...] All the orthology-inference methods tested show a
> maximum of 25% of human genes to be orthologous to banana.

> More to the point of the claim, however, is what percent of DNA is
> "identical" in both human and banana. Based on comparisons of whole
> genome pairs between humans and zebrafish (which are much more closely
> related to humans than bananas), Glover argued, the shared DNA figure
> would be well below 1%.

Not sure what measure of similarity is being used here. But 1% of the
genome identical by descent between humans and zebrafish isn't an
unreasonable hypothesis, if we assume that junk DNA has been randomized,
that much of the functional fraction is of more recent origin than our
separation from actinopterygians, and that within protein-coding
sequences third positions are randomized.

> Because no definition of genetic similarity provides results close to
> 50%, and because the claim refers to DNA sequence similarity and not
> more broad definitions of genetic similarity, the claim is False.

Depends on what the actual claim is. This thread started with a claim
about genes, not genomes, while your post started with a claim about
"shared DNA", which could mean almost anything.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> In the first case, that isn't paleontology. In the second case, why do
> you reject that evidence? Or perhaps you don't understand it?

"Evidence" isn't French for "Proof." Everyone rejects evidence all the
time. The real question is why you find some evidence compelling
while dismissing other evidence.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739102134427140096

[John Harshman]

On 1/11/24 11:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> In the first case, that isn't paleontology. In the second case, why do
>> you reject that evidence? Or perhaps you don't understand it?
>
> "Evidence" isn't French for "Proof." Everyone rejects evidence all the
> time. The real question is why you find some evidence compelling
> while dismissing other evidence.

Well, you managed to preserve a complete sentence to reply to, so
congratulations on that. If I can make any sense out of your response,
it's that you have some contrary evidence you think is better. What is
it, and what do you think happened instead of interbreeding?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> If I can make any sense

You can't. You're a dumb twat. That's why you cower behind sock
puppets.

In the mean time: Google "Common Descent."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739593269669920768/imagine-my-surprise-when-i-saw-everything-they

[John Harshman]

On 1/16/24 3:44 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> If I can make any sense
>
> You can't. You're a dumb twat. That's why you cower behind sock
> puppets.
>
> In the mean time: Google "Common Descent."

Back to snipping out everything? Sorry, simple common descent doesn't
explain the distribution of sequences, some of which have diverged much
more recently than others. In the main, neandertal DNA diverged around
700,000 years ago from H. sapiens DNA. But there are bits in some humans
(in Eurasia) that diverged much more recently. How do you account for that?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Back to snipping

You never had anything for me to snip, stubby.

> out everything? Sorry, simple common descent doesn't
> explain the distribution of sequences, some of which have diverged much
> more recently than others.

There's no molecular clock.

> In the main, neandertal DNA diverged around
> 700,000 years ago from H. sapiens DNA.

There's no molecular clock.

There's this thing called "Evolution" or even "Selective pressure."
So when this "Selective pressure" is strong you can expect
rapid changes. When it's not you really can't expect more than
a snail's pace. But if you then compare two populations -- one
under a lot of "Selective pressure," the other not -- and assume
that they both evolved at the same imaginary clock like pace,
it's going to look like they diverged *Way* earlier than they did.

You can pretend that it averages out, and being a raging jackass
you probably will, but there is literally no real world models to
go by. We haven't observed & tested even a hundred thousand
years worth of evolution in a species. You just imagine that we
"Know" this shit.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739392150398287872

[John Harshman]

On 1/16/24 11:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Back to snipping
>
> You never had anything for me to snip, stubby.
>
>> out everything? Sorry, simple common descent doesn't
>> explain the distribution of sequences, some of which have diverged much
>> more recently than others.
>
> There's no molecular clock.
>
>> In the main, neandertal DNA diverged around
>> 700,000 years ago from H. sapiens DNA.
>
> There's no molecular clock.

Not relevant. This is a comparison between homologous sequences in
different individuals in the same population vs. neandertal sequences.
Selection does not explain that, and you can't just wave your hands
vaguely in its direction.

And in fact there is a molecular clock for neutrally evolving sequences,
but that doesn't matter now. And you resort here to the common
creationist poser, "Were you there?".

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Selection does not explain that

Well. I guess you could argue aliens. Or God. Other than that, there
is only selection.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739767165105897472

[John Harshman]

On 1/19/24 9:26 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Selection does not explain that
>
> Well. I guess you could argue aliens. Or God. Other than that, there
> is only selection.

You persist in snipping out the content and responding with non sequitur
one-liners. Does this give you some kind of personal gratification?
Perhaps it's easier than trying to understand my point.

Anyway, what explains the observations isn't selection, it isn't aliens.
It's introgression. Just like Paabo says.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> You persist in snipping

Don't blame me for your castration issues.

You're a raging idiot arguing intelligent design -- so stupid
you don't even know it.

You lost any expectation of respect in this thread when you
doubled down on you moronic views.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741355563147984896

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You persist in snipping
>
> Don't blame me for your castration issues.
>
> You're a raging idiot arguing intelligent design -- so stupid
> you don't even know it.
>
> You lost any expectation of respect in this thread when you
> doubled down on you moronic views.
>

Feb 22nd!

[erik simpson]

Death of Lawrence Ferlinghetti?

[*Hemidactylus*]

And end of something but not that.

[JTEM]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Feb 22nd!

That's Google, honey drops, not usenet.

I've been on usenet since... I dunno. 1993? But I've only
been going by my initials (J.T.E.M.) since 1994. I think.

I don't remember.

When did Google absorb Deja News?



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741355563147984896