@Michael14866 @Pinejoos @NotEvolution1 Divergence of chromosome #2: (6.58%). https://t.co/uCmtGc3915 The fusion of Chromosome #2 is not supported, because to fix that fusion it would have to have happened in both male and female.
@adajersanroc @WildBulldozer Starting with the lower number, it goes higher from there, but this divergence is enough to refute a common ancestor. "Thus the total divergence was estimated as 6.58%" https://t.co/N07l7QY82Z
@StephenPizzuto @WildBulldozer Starting with the lower number, it goes higher from there, but this divergence is enough to refute a common ancestor. "Thus the total divergence was estimated as 6.58%" https://t.co/N07l7QY82Z
@JefferyParkins2 @GDalander No, despite the claim divergence refutes ancestry with the chimp try this one of 6.58% divergence: https://t.co/uCmtGc3915 6.8% divergence gives 60 million years to a common ancestor. No ancestor back there...
@TrashGT86 @ItsAndyRyan @Justin__Co @StephenCMeyer @DiscoveryCSC That similarity is fictitious and is now between 93.2% and 85%. Peer reviewed 6.8% divergent: https://t.co/uCmtGc3915
@TrashGT86 @ItsAndyRyan @Justin__Co @StephenCMeyer @DiscoveryCSC That singularity is fictitious and is now between 93.2% and 85%. Peer reviewed 6.8% divergent: https://t.co/uCmtGc3915
According to an article in PNAS https://t.co/MLjSevDPC2 According to an article on pubmed, https://t.co/vajBKwyI9W https://t.co/iySm82ZN9y
@learn_evolution u= 1.1x10^-8 (from peer review includes all de novo mutations per generation): https://t.co/9bDDkWY0WS k=6.58% (a conservative estimate not including Orphan genes or a total indel count): https://t.co/uCmtGc3915
@BryanGitschlag @zachbbionerd @Gutsick_Gibbon @DSternCardinale You are wrong about this too! Indels are responsible for the MAJORITY of divergence... "In 5% of the chimpanzee genes... "Taken together, our findings demonstrate that indels comprise the major
@zachbbionerd @BryanGitschlag @Gutsick_Gibbon @DSternCardinale So you reject the suggestion here: "Taken together, our findings demonstrate that indels comprise the majority of the genomic divergence." https://t.co/N07l7QXAdr
@BryanGitschlag @zachbbionerd @Gutsick_Gibbon @DSternCardinale Citation for 5% and even 6.8%: https://t.co/N07l7QXAdr https://t.co/N07l7QXAdr
@Gutsick_Gibbon There is no difference when doing the math as indels change function and are divergence in themselves, just to clear things up. https://t.co/N07l7QXAdr
@briancolfer @YouTube Debated a signature on the Chimp Genome project, at at that time Indels were not included because of the origin controversy, the insertion deletion could not be isolated to the species. https://t.co/uCmtGc2Bbx
@JebbUk @StephenCMeyer 6.58%...https://t.co/uCmtGc3915 🥸
@GrantEHaines @WAtlFish @ICRscience So the total divergence in this paper is 6.58%. Would you accept the higher pedigree over the 5%? https://t.co/uCmtGc3915
@GrantEHaines @WAtlFish @ICRscience Here is a high pedigree analysis in another paper arriving at 5.1%. https://t.co/uCmtGc3915
@Venom_Dinosaur @ICRscience Hard to get a good number because methods and assumptions are different... In general it must be over 8% by morphology alone. 5%: https://t.co/2DHINzmwzl 6.58%: https://t.co/N07l7QY82Z 15.6% : https://t.co/erlvQx3a7A
@LupeColon @CoramDeo777 @reconnxx @DouglasKBlair Huh? So you’re hanging your argument on a difference of 2.5% difference between chimps and humans vs 1.5%? Possibly another 5% in the non coding regions? This is just silly. https://t.co/7cYmZZK26u