Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
graph

A statistical comparison of two human genomes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a previous post I provided a statistical test to compare chimpanzee and human genomes. As you can read there, the post generated a very interesting discussion among the readers, and it seemed to me that the general feeling at the end was that my statistical method for performing genome-wide comparisons might have some merit, after all.

One reader suggested applying an identical test in order to compare two human genomes. That sounded like a very good idea to me, so I downloaded another human genome dataset from NCBI and performed a test.

For the benefit of readers, I’ll briefly recapitulate the simple comparison algorithm used in my previous test. 10,000 different sequences, each composed of 30 consecutive DNA bases (possible values: A, T, G and C) were randomly selected from chromosome N of genome A. A search for a matching pattern was then performed on the corresponding chromosome N of genome B. A pattern match was deemed to occur only when all 30 base pairs coincided perfectly – in other words, the head-to-head comparison between these DNA sub-strings was not relaxed, as occurs in many other tests in evolutionary comparative genomics. The total number of pattern matches found for that particular chromosome was then recorded. All chromosomes were tested in a similar fashion. Readers can view the latest results in the table and chart below, and compare them with the earlier results for the chimpanzee vs. human comparison.

As expected, the number of pattern matches was always significantly greater when comparing two humans than when comparing a chimpanzee with a human. As the chart above clearly shows, the number of matches in human vs. human comparisons was quite stable, ranging from 9507 to 9705 (chromosome Y is the sole exception, with 8989). However, the same did not hold for chimpanzee vs. human comparisons, where the values were much more scattered.

Finally, the average number of pattern matches per chromosome, shown at the bottom of the table, was very different in the two cases: 9616 for human vs. human comparisons, but only 6173 for chimp vs. human comparisons. The average number of patterns without a match for human vs. human comparisons was (10000 – 9616) = 384, or in percentage terms, 384/10000 = 3.84%. The average number of patterns without a match in human vs. chimp comparisons was (10000 – 6173) = 3827, or in percentage terms, 3827/10000 = 38.27%, which is almost ten times greater.

So the bottom-line question is: if, as many evolutionists say, chimpanzee and human genomes are 99% identical, how “identical” are two human genomes?

Comments
Can this method be used to distinguish a human genome from a non-human genome?Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
More links, no primates!Indium
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Indium, I think 'the problem' is that you, and other neo-Darwinists, refuse to concede that you have no foundation in science from which to extrapolate common descent in the first place. So what good does it do to 'entertain' you when you refuse to honestly address your glaring lack of a foundation in science? To put it more simply, purely material processes have never been observed to generate ANY non-trivial complex functional information whatsoever in all the history of observational science. And yet, despite this glaring lack of a foundation in science, neo-Darwinists insist that purely material processes are able to generate greater and greater heights of functional information. This is simply ludicrous to presume this.,, So thus once again Indium, what good for does it do to 'entertain' you about Primate Phylogenetics, or whatever, when you don't even have a foundation in science to begin with so as to make the extrapolation of 'bottom up' generation of functional information from purely material processes? Frankly to 'entertain' someone who refuses to concede that they have no foundation in science is like arguing with someone who believes the Earth is flat.,,, Thus the Casey Luskin audio link is not listed for your benefit, or 'entertainment' , though I wish you would honestly consider it's merits, but is listed priomarily for the benefit of those onlookers who have a open mind to see that neo-Darwinism falls apart upon closer inspection.,,, Moreover, I would rather concentrate on science that argue theology with you, which is what all arguments of neo-Darwinists ultimately boil down to in the end; Religion drives science and it matters. - Cornelius Hunter From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: "Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species," BJHS 2011, argues that Darwin used theology throughout his 1859 masterwork to argue for the truth of his theory of descent with modification by natural causes. Darwin's theology was not merely negative, entertaining the assumptions of his creationist opponents as hypotheses simply to contradict those assumptions with evidence. Rather, Dilley argues, Darwin employed theology in a positive fashion, as support for his own position. "In the Origin," Dilley writes, "Darwin used a specific theological view of God's relationship to natural laws in order to argue for evolution and against special creation." The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html ============ This following video, at the 7:15 minute mark, is very interesting for in it you see 'Darwinian Theology' been played out to its fullest, and most absurd, extent. The Anthropic Principle - Fine Tuning Of The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661/bornagain77
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
It would matter. I like to discuss these things. But I am not able to communicate with *you* when all you do is to post these links. Interacting with a wall of links is not very entertaining. Maybe you can at some point begin to think and speak for yourself!? So, Primate Phylogenetics! What do you think is the problem there?Indium
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
What would it matter for you Indium? For no matter how contradictory the evidence is, you will blindly believe, religiously, that purely material processes are responsible for all life on earth. If I am wrong on this point please correct me and tell me exactly where you believe that Intelligent Design comes into play to explain the unrivaled complex information we find in life that no one has ever witnessed purely material processes generating.bornagain77
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
BA77, maybe you can explain the problem in your own words?Indium
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Of related note: On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin reports on a new study showing a very tangled phylogenetic tree for primates. Listen in as Luskin shows how researchers trying to create a primate phylogenetic tree are finding it isn't as easy as they'd hoped. Primate Phylogenetics Challenge Darwin's Tree of Life http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-05-09T16_32_00-07_00 --------------------- prediction: none of that will matter to neo-Darwinists!bornagain77
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Atom, well said! Sometimes you have to make mistakes to learn something. So, kudos to niwrad for actually messing with the real datasets. I wonder, what is your conclusion to this experiment, niwrad, now that you have proven that the standard 1-2% figure is indeed a good approximation?Indium
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
Another use of niwrad's 30-base comparison could be to sniff out which chromosomes are the best match, if that was unknown or (in the case of kangaroos) the numbers were uneven. First we can see that the chance of matching a given sequence to a particular location in a random chromosome is tiny. It's 1/(4^30), or roughly one chance in a million million million. So if we have a random chromosome that's 100 million bases long, the chance of a match anywhere on that to our test sequence is one in ten billion. Effectively zero. So that makes the test that niwrad is undertaking strong evidence of matching. Looking at the chimpanzee example, we should easily be able to tell, from say a hundred trials, whether or not any two test chromosomes actually correspond. When we are examining non-matching chromosomes, we should get near-zero hits, allowing for "structural" stuff like centromeres.Joffan
May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
OK DrRec, that makes more sense. Since the error didn't appear to be a constant multiple I was confused at how linear scaling could fix it. Running at a few different values, I was getting increasing differences between actual difference and estimated difference (using niwrad's method). When I thought through what niwrad was actually doing (taking binomial trials and looking for a large number of consecutive non-mutations) the constant correction factor of 24 proposed made even less sense. Thanks for explaining the correction factor. In the end, a few mistakes have been made in this little research experiment, by more than just niwrad. Hopefully we can all show some humility and just enjoy the fact that there are other nerds on the internet interested in applying math to biological problems. : ) Normal people don't really care about these things, so it's good to have other Darwinist and ID geeks to hash them out with. We all make math mistakes from time to time, no shame in that. AtomAtom
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
DrREC, excuse me but that's all french to me, so using this method, what is the bottom line for you?? What is the actual percentage difference you are trying to claim? ,,, And a question more to my ballpark, what is your empirical evidence that the changes you require can be accomplished if genetic reductionism were true?? ==============bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
Everybody spot the extra zero? That's a typo, not the math!DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
A note on the dividing by 24 'correction factor.' CharlesJ, the last time this was brought up, introduced the use of the a probability calculator to convert from 30bp metric to real percent mismatch. The calculator approach works really really well-if you take this for example: http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx and plug in, .01 (for 99% similarity), 30 trials, and 1 success, the Cumulative Probability: P(X < 1) will give the 30bp metric for any value. So 99% similar becomes 74%, 98% becomes 54% and so on. Atom's empirical trial is consistant with this result. Taking these values, CharlesJ adopted a conversion-dividing the percent mismatch by 24 to 'fix' the 30bp metric, which I mis-remembered as being a far more accurate a conversion than it is-it is actually only accurate only for a small range of values, as far as I can tell. So bit of a mis-remember there on what actually worked. As the last thread closed, I think even niwrad was in agreement a conversion was necessary. The correct conversion, as Joe Felsenstein has now pointed out, is to take the actual percent match and raise it to the 30th power. The values that result are exactly that given the use of the calculator by CharlesJ's (as they should be!). So for 99% matching, .99^30 gives 0.739. The dirty back-conversion would be 1-.739=.261 .261/24=.0011 difference ~99% identical The accurate conversion is taking the 30th root of the 30bp metric.DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Well DrREC, though I surely don't buy how you have tried to nudge things to reflect your desired percentages in the end results, nor the way you have handled related evidence presented to you, I do have to apologize to you if Atom thinks you may have a valid point as to the methodology.,,, And for that I am sorry.bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
PS the code assumes a version of python < 3.0, with the numpy package installed. This shouldn't be too difficult to code in matlab, if you don't have python installed.Atom
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
All, DrREC is correct that the value you use for number of bases compared will affect the similarity results, not giving true similarity. For example, the following (ugly) python code shows this: #================= from __future__ import division import numpy as np import random m = 30 x = list(np.random.randint(0, 4, 1000)) y = [i if np.random.binomial(1, 0.99) else \ random.sample(set(range(0,4)).symmetric_difference([i]), 1)[0] \ for i in x] samples = 10000 offsets = [np.random.randint(0, len(x)-m) for j in range(0, samples)] print sum([x[i:i+m] == y[i:i+m] for i in offsets]) / samples #================= If you set m = 1, you get roughly the correct 0.99 similarity. (Notice the 0.99 binomial threshold, which should make y a close to 99% identical copy of x). Now let m = 30. The similarity drops to about 70%. My method is slightly different, in that I know exactly where the 30bp section should begin in the second genome, so I don't perform a search to find it. (If the m window is small enough, you may find spurious matches due to random chance.) Anyway, DrREC, how did you derive your correction factor? You're right that the windowed-probabilistic matching does give incorrect similarity results, but I don't see how your correction factor is the fix. Atom Sorry 'niwrad'[::-1], I enjoy your posts. DrREC just has made a valid point.Atom
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Of related interest: Skittle: A 2-Dimensional Genome Visualization Tool - Josiah D Seaman and John C Sanford Excerpt: Background It is increasingly evident that there are multiple and overlapping patterns within the genome, and that these patterns contain different types of information - regarding both genome function and genome history. In order to discover additional genomic patterns which may have biological significance, novel strategies are required. To partially address this need, we introduce a new data visualization tool entitled Skittle. Results This program first creates a 2-dimensional nucleotide display by assigning four colors to the four nucleotides, and then text-wraps to a user adjustable width. This nucleotide display is accompanied by a "repeat map" which comprehensively displays all local repeating units, based upon analysis of all possible local alignments. Skittle includes a smooth-zooming interface which allows the user to analyze genomic patterns at any scale. Skittle is especially useful in identifying and analyzing tandem repeats, including repeats not normally detectable by other methods. However, Skittle is also more generally useful for analysis of any genomic data, allowing users to correlate published annotations and observable visual patterns, and allowing for sequence and construct quality control. Conclusions Preliminary observations using Skittle reveal intriguing genomic patterns not otherwise obvious, including structured variations inside tandem repeats. The striking visual patterns revealed by Skittle appear to be useful for hypothesis development, and have already led the authors to theorize that imperfect tandem repeats could act as information carriers, and may form tertiary structures within the interphase nucleus. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/452 Perhaps if some neo-Darwinists were not so busy trying to cram the 'junky' genome into their preconceived conclusions, they would have thought of such a elegant way to analyze the genome??? Just a thought DrREC!bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
DrREC, please tell me exactly how many unique proteins and/or genes Venter created from scratch when he synthesized (copied) a genome and inserted it into a bacterium??? Jeopardy Theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
DrREC, ,,, What preferred string are you counting from and why???. Are you counting the over 1000 completely unique human genes??? Or is that just so much to be hid under the rug??? My whole point DrREC, is that you cannot just pick and choose which strings are to be included in your count! It is completely biased for neo-Darwinists to be allowed to only keep that which matches their preconceived bias!!! For a man who has such a high opinion of his own intelligence, you sure seem to have a hard time with such a simple point!!! All unbiased counts are significantly lower that your 'preferred' count, but you insist they are not counting correctly but you are. WHY??? Because it does not match your preconceived conclusion is why you insist this is so. Tell you what DrREC, to be fair with your line of reasoning, let us throw out everything that doesn't match from the kangaroo genome and see how close to 99% we can get. Deal?? Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 - DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. http://www.reasons.org/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2 Moreover DrREC, why don't you face the following crushing evidence straight on instead of just ignoring it because it does not fit your neo-Darwinian worldview??? The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/ further note: Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash - Jonathan M - February 2011 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/ Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content," showing "extraordinary divergence" where "wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.",,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html etc.. etc.. So DrREC to make it real clear how pointless your argument is,,, let's rephrase it a bit to reflect where you are actually at as far as a solid foundation in science is concerned,,,, let's make it real simple! :) ,,, we got a string of 1000, only 20 match, ,,, what does that make the price of tea in China???bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Ahh...an rhetorical opportunist! I applaud. Actually I was thinking a bit deeper than what Venter has marvelously accomplished thusfar, but the point is the same. We will not get a symbolicly encoded abstraction of a discrete state instantiated into a material medium (along with the rules for decoding it) until we do it ourselves. Why? Because an act of agency is the mechanism by which such things come about. In the vacuum of demonstrable evidence otherwise, I like my chances.Upright BiPed
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
"And I have a prediction of my own. I predict that man will create artificial life from living precusors before we’ll stumble upon a way where inanimate matter can instantiate an abstraction of a discrete state into an information medium by the use of inert digital symbols – and – create rules by which it can be decoded … but, of course, thats just me." Another ID postdiction! http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-formDrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
" when you make completely unfounded conjectures as to what you want the percentage to be. And then you, having failed to have me fall for your ruse of creative accounting, have the audacity to label me as being unscientific for not accepting your atheistic games???" Ok-lets start simple. 10 differences in a linear string of 1000. If we use a 1 nt metric this is 99% identical. If we use 1000 it will ~zero. A 10 nt metric will give about 90%, if I'm doing the math right. Are we agreed that the size of the search string skews the percent similarity? And BA77-can we dispense with the atheism remarks. I don't know why my attempts to get facts straight with my faith.DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
DrREC, in case you sneeze, God Bless you! Dane Cook - Sneezing Atheist - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtVzj9y-bobornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Doc, I just thought your throwaway line needed a bit more substance. And I have a prediction of my own. I predict that man will create artificial life from living precusors before we'll stumble upon a way where inanimate matter can instantiate an abstraction of a discrete state into an information medium by the use of inert digital symbols - and - create rules by which it can be decoded ... but, of course, thats just me. -cheersUpright BiPed
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
DrREC, what a laugh, you don't even have a foundation in science to begin to make your neo-Darwinian conjectures with, and completely ignore that SCIENTIFIC fact, and then pretend as if you are being reasonable when you make completely unfounded conjectures as to what you want the percentage to be. And then you, having failed to have me fall for your ruse of creative accounting, have the audacity to label me as being unscientific for not accepting your atheistic games???bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
bornagain77 and Upright- Funny responses! Particularly for BA77-when the science becomes frustrating, throw bible quotes at me? Did I say anything about design, junk, or God? Just getting the math straight. Not making analogies about how the information is stored or comes from. And again, if anyone wants to prove me wrong, what are the 30bp metrics for a test set designed with 0.1%, 1%, 2%, and 4% differences? What are the 30bp metrics for humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans? The gorilla is fairly draft-but should suffice for this purpose. My predictions are: 1) You'll derive a easy factor to convert 30bp metric to a real percent difference. 3) 30bp metric differences (despite being amplified) will be phylogenetically consistant.DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
"The whole genome fits comfortably on a DVD ... all encoded in an inert system of symbols whose physical bonds do not determine the sequence in which they exist, nor the method in which they are to be decoded." There Doc, I fixed that for ya! Now if we can just get a DVD to fit inside the nucleus of a cell.Upright BiPed
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
DrREC,,, grits teeth, ignores all evidence of stunning craftsmanship, and with pure atheistic indignation says with scoffing defiant tone,,, TIS JUNK I TELL YA, JUNK, JUNK, JUNK!!! :) Romans 1:20-23 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
"2011 that humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information (that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it), but that is still less than one percent of the information that is stored in all the DNA molecules of a single human being." Hah-more fun with math. You only get there if you multiple the human genome by the 50 trillion cells in the human body. Of course, these are absolutely duplicate copies! So scratch that, and you're down to quite a few less zeros. Human chromosome 1, with all annotations, is about 295 Mb unzipped. You can download it here: ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/H_sapiens/CHR_01/hs_ref_GRCh37.p2_chr1.gbk.gz The whole genome fits comfortably on a DVD.DrREC
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Why DrREC, I am very certain the only one being very creative with there interpretation is YOU!!! No matter what the evidence says you will disregard anything that falsifies neo-Darwinism and exagerate anything that can be twisted to your neo-Darwinian bias. You could care less to establish a rigorous foundation to see what is actually true, for the conclusion is far to important to you to be left to the evidence to decide!!,,, you presuppose the human genome is just a cobbled together piece of junk don't you??? put together by a trial a error process don't you? Whereas I think God originally created the Human genome! Let's look at a few points of trivia, and see whose view more accurately reflects reality?!? Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. The average number of cells in the human body is between 75 and 100 trillion cells. 300 million cells in the human body die and are replaced (most of them) every minute. If all the DNA was removed from a single cell in a person's body and laid end to end, it would be six feet long. If the DNA was removed from all of the cells in a person's body and laid end to end, it would stretch from Earth to the sun and back 450 times, or about 135 billion kilometers. The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick! (Trifonov, 1989) No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). There are about three-billion letters of code on the six feet of DNA curled up in each human cell. The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! If you were to read the code aloud, at a rate of three letters per second for twenty-four hours per day (about one-hundred-million letters a year), it would take you over thirty years to read it. Looking at all the digital and analog memory devices in the world, researchers calculated in 2011 that humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information (that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it), but that is still less than one percent of the information that is stored in all the DNA molecules of a single human being. The capacity of a DNA molecule to store information is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand-millionths of a gram. The information in the DNA of all the different species of organisms which have ever existed on earth (a number estimated to be one billion) could easily fit into a teaspoon with plenty of room left over for every book ever written on the face of the earth. For comparison sake, if mere man were to try to 'quantum teleport' just one human body (change a physical human body into "pure information" and then 'teleport' it to another physical location) it would take at least 10^32 bits just to decode the teleportation event, or a cube of CD-ROM disks 1000 kilometers on 1 side, and would take over one hundred million centuries to transmit all that information for just one human body even with the best optical fibers conceivable! (A fun talk on teleportation - Professor Samuel Braunstein - http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/braunstein.html) "To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!" Michael Denton Psalm 139: 14-15 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body." ============ Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010 Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405a Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm etc..etc.. DrREC, whose presupposition is supported by the evidence and whose is not?bornagain77
May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply