At Texas & M last week: Theistic evolutionist Joshua Swamidass vs. ID proponent Michael Behe

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 23, 2020

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s vid from the Ratio Christi Facebook page of Joshua Swamidass vs. Michael Behe. at the LIVE Veritas Forum 2020: God and/or Evolution.

It’s raw footage so you must scroll in a bit to get to the start. They seem to be getting themselves organized at maybe 17 min in.

Note: Forget the raw vid. Here’s the cleaned-up version (February 28, 2020):

Comments

Of related interest:
Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - February 25, 2020 Excerpt: "There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion." - Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University, “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,, A Big Bang at Man’s Origin? To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that 1. “differences exist on an unusual scale” 2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented” 3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” 4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.” 5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive” 6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.” 7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” 8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.” 9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,, “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,, Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts.... 98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity? Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million). https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/ The Evolution of Man: What do We Really Know? Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - 21 August 2019 http://www.weloennig.de/HumanEvolution.pdf
bornagain77_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

hnorman42 @19 i agree, the audio is terrible, i hope they will re-post the video soon ...martin_r_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

As to the disingenuous nature in which Darwinists, for decades, falsely inflated the supposed genetic similarity between chimps and humans to 98.5%, the following article is insightful. According to a Darwinist, who studied the methodology of how one of the original 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons were derived, stated that the comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,
The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization – Jonathan Marks - 2011 Excerpt: the technique of DNA hybridization had devolved into being doubly “tricky” – but more significantly, the outstanding charge of data falsification was there in black-and-white in the leading science journal in America. It seemed as though nothing more needed to be said for the “wheels of justice” to begin turning. Yet they didn’t. In 1993, I was asked by The Journal of Human Evolution to review Jared Diamond’s book, The Third Chimpanzee. Noting that the book’s “hook” was based on the Sibley-Ahlquist work, which Diamond was still touting uncritically, I said: Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I'm the Princess of Wales. This work needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years.31 31Marks, J. (1993) Review of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Journal of Human Evolution, 24:69-73. http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmarks/dnahyb/Sibley%20revisited.pdf
Humorously, even the guy behind the very questionable and misleading 98.5% figure, i.e. (Ahlquist), honestly admits that the "techniques used by phylogeneticists to make their ‘trees’ are laden with evolutionary assumptions. They simply assume that evolution is a fact and then stuff their data into their algorithms, which therefore will always produce an evolutionary result."
Margaret Wieland interviews bird expert and former renowned evolutionist Dr Jon Ahlquist - 2018 Excerpt: Drs Ahlquist and Sibley may well be best known to non-specialists for applying their DNA-DNA hybridization techniques to man,6 coming up with the well-known alleged ‘98% chimp-human similarity’. ,,, Dr Ahlquist says,,, "Molecular evidence of any sort proves nothing about evolution, in fact. All we are doing is measuring ‘God’s numbers’—or as Charles [Sibley, his long-term collaborator] used to call them, ‘nature’s numbers’ of genetic similarity or difference. The techniques used by phylogeneticists to make their ‘trees’ are laden with evolutionary assumptions. They simply assume that evolution is a fact and then stuff their data into their algorithms, which therefore will always produce an evolutionary result. Regardless, we all have the same data, the difference is how we interpret it." https://creation.com/jon-ahlquis
In the following article a Darwinist honestly admitted that the 1% genetic similarity myth was basically a useful lie that "served us, (i.e. Darwinists), well"
The Chimp-Human 1% Difference: A Useful Lie - 06/29/2007 Excerpt: “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”,,, This is a very disturbing article. We have basically caught the Darwinists in a bald lie that has hoodwinked the world for over 30 years. Gagneux says, “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well” – stop right there! Who is “us”? Was it the millions of school children and laymen who were lied to? Was it the majority of people who believe God created mankind, suffering under an onslaught of lies told in the name of science? No! “Us” refers to the members of the Darwin Party,,, https://crev.info/2007/06/the_chimphuman_1_difference_a_useful_lie/
And as mentioned previously, the actual genetic similarity between chimps and humans is far lower than 98.5% and in turning out to 'probably' be around 80% to 85%
Geneticist: On (Supposed 99%) Human-Chimp Genome Similarity, There Are “Predictions” Not “Established Fact” - July 31, 2018 Excerpt: To come up with the most accurate current assessment that I could of the similarity of the human and chimpanzee genome, I downloaded from the UCSC genomics website the latest alignments (made using the LASTZ software) between the human and chimpanzee genome assemblies, hg38 and pantro6.,,, The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38% In order to assess how improvements in genome assemblies can change these figures, I did the same analyses on the alignment of the older PanTro4 assembly against Hg38 (see discussion post #40).,,, The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 82.34%. - Richard Buggs https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/geneticist-on-human-chimp-genome-similarity-there-are-predictions-not-established-fact/ New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1 First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1 Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold. They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome: The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3 This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years. Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings. Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”?4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible. http://www.icr.org/article/new-chimp-genome-confirms-creationist-research
And as also mentioned previously in post 12, even that 80% to 85% number is still not enough of a genetic difference to explain how the "physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, To drive this point home, dolphins, kangaroos, and even frogs, although being very different morphologically from humans, are found to have very similar DNA sequences.
Dolphin DNA very close to human, – 2010 Excerpt: They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the water.,,, “The extent of the genetic similarity came as a real surprise to us,” ,,, “Dolphins are marine mammals that swim in the ocean and it was astonishing to learn that we had more in common with the dolphin than with land mammals,” says geneticist Horst Hameister.,,, “We started looking at these and it became very obvious to us that every human chromosome had a corollary chromosome in the dolphin,” Busbee said. “We’ve found that the dolphin genome and the human genome basically are the same. It’s just that there’s a few chromosomal rearrangements that have changed the way the genetic material is put together.” http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/science/2010/10/21/articlesafari-dolphin-dna-very-close-to-human/ Kangaroo genes close to humans – 2008 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 First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007 Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,, The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html Frogs and humans are kissing cousins – 2010 Excerpt: What’s the difference between a frog, a chicken, a mouse and a human? Not as much as you’d think, according to an analysis of the first sequenced amphibian genome. The genome of the western clawed frog, Xenopus tropicalis, has now been analysed by an international consortium of scientists from 24 institutions, and joins a list of sequenced model organisms including the mouse, zebrafish, nematode and fruit fly. What’s most surprising, researchers say, is how closely the amphibian’s genome resembles that of the mouse and the human, with large swathes of frog DNA on several chromosomes having genes arranged in the same order as in these mammals. The results of the analysis are published in Science this week1. “There are megabases of sequence where gene order has changed very little,,,” http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100429/full/news.2010.211.html
And as was also mentioned previously in post 12, where differences are greatest between chimps and humans, (and between all other animals) are in alternative splicing patterns. In fact, due to alternative slicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,” Thus, a very different picture emerges when we strip away the false Darwinian myth that humans are 98.5% similar to chimps and when we look at genetic data honestly. A very different picture in which species are radically demarcated from each other via vastly different alternative splicing patterns in which "Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” To say that these findings are unexpected under the reductive materialistic presumptions of Darwinists is a understatement. In fact, these findings provide yet another falsification of Darwinian presuppositions.bornagain77_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

I'm disappointed that the video of Behe and Swamidass is inaudible. I was looking forward to hearing it.hnorman42_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

"you just blasted him away" Oh, he'll recover. Nothing that a band-aid won't fix: :)
As Berlinski puts it: “…applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It’s just not going to work.” https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2016/01/david-berlinski-michael-denton-pt-2-darwinian-stalemate/ Tsar (Nuclear) Bomb Detonation - "it contained the equivalent of all the explosives used in WWII, multiplied by 10" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBNhYOmEgy0
bornagain77_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, (since, surprisingly, pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are), actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans.
ManBearPig.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

No. I was just getting started with Bob. I was going to take it one step at a time to see how much back-peddling and juggling we would be subject to. And you just blasted him away. :cool:ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

ET at 14:
Death by a thousand cuts can be more entertaining than a shotgun blast.
Hate to be too picky with metaphors, but with the finding of "perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification" that, via alternative splicing, separate us from chimps, should not your metaphor be "death by a million cuts"?bornagain77_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Death by a thousand cuts can be more entertaining than a shotgun blast.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

In fact, besides Gene Regulatory Network not being “essentially deterministic”, as was presupposed in Darwinian thought, we now also have, due to advances in quantum biology, very good evidence for a causal Agent, acting outside of space-time itself, to be directly influencing embryological development:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
In short, we now also have, due to advances in quantum biology, very good evidence for God forming each of us in our mother’s womb:
Psalm 139:13-14 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
Supplemental note as to the misleading fossil record that Darwinists put forth:
The Missing Link is still missing – October 2019 https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/but-if-homo-erectus-was-just-an-ordinary-dude/#comment-686077
Besides Human evolution, the other place that atheists try to attack the notion that we were created by God is with the Copernican principle. Yet, the Copernican principle has now also been overturned,
November 2019 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855
Verse:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Moreover, in the “Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes” paper. which I listed previously, the authors honestly admitted that “For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species.”
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack – Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide – 2005 Excerpt: we have many characteristics that are uniquely human. Table 1 lists some of the definite and possible phenotypic traits that appear to differentiate us from chimpanzees and other “great apes”2. For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species. The chimpanzee has also long been seen as a model for human diseases because of its close evolutionary relationship. This is indeed the case for a few disorders. Nevertheless, it is a striking paradox that chimpanzees are in fact not good models for many major human diseases/conditions (see Table 2) (Varki 2000; Olson and Varki 2003). http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full.pdf+html
And indeed phenotype is simply irreducible to genotype. More specifically, the biological form that any organism may take simply is not reducible to mutations in DNA as was presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.
Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
In fact, although Darwinists have a long history of falsely inflating the supposed genetic similarity between humans and chimps to be closer than what it actually is,
New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1 First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1 Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold. They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome: The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3 This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years. Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings. Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”?4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible. http://www.icr.org/article/new-chimp-genome-confirms-creationist-research
In fact, although Darwinists have a long history of falsely inflating the supposed genetic similarity between humans and chimps to be closer than what it actually is, the fact of the matter is that the genetic similarity between chimps and humans, as well as the genetic similarity between all the other animals and humans, presents an insurmountable problem for Darwinists. As James Le Fanu noted, “Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.”
Between Sapientia and Scientia — Michael Aeschliman’s Profound Interpretation -James Le Fanu - September 9, 2019 Excerpt: The ability to spell out the full sequence of genes should reveal, it was reasonable to assume, the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of the millions of species, so readily distinguishable one from the other. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover precisely the reverse to be the case. Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe. So we have moved in the very recent past from supposing we might know the principles of genetic inheritance to recognizing we have no realistic conception of what they might be. As Phillip Gell, professor of genetics at the University of Birmingham, observed, “This gap in our knowledge is not merely unbridged, but in principle unbridgeable and our ignorance will remain ineluctable.”8 https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/between-sapientia-and-scientia-michael-aeschlimans-profound-interpretation/
And as Ruth Williams noted, “A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
As should be needless to say, “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?” is not a minor question for evolutionary biologists to be asking themselves. As Ruth Williams also touched upon in her preceding article, “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” And indeed we find that, “Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes, collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms”
Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing - 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf
And as the following article noted, "The humans included in the next cluster (p = 1.91 x 10^-30) are remarkably similar in expressed proteins among themselves and strikingly different from all other animals."
THE UNIQUENESS OF HUMANS IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE GENE-CONTENT,, METHOD - 2019 Excerpt page 137: The humans included in the next cluster (p = 1.91 x 10^-30) are remarkably similar in expressed proteins among themselves and strikingly different from all other animals. This supports the humanity of Neanderthals and Denisovans, as much as it contradicts evolutionary narratives about common descent between humans and apes. In conjunction with other lines of evidence of human morphological, cognitive, and genetic (including non protein coding regions) distinctiveness, it clearly demonstrates that the evolutionary ideas on the origin of man have no plausible scientific foundation (Tomkins, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018). https://creationresearch.org/crsq-2018-fall-oard-2/
It is also interesting to note that Alternative splicing patterns are part of the Gene Regulatory Network, and also that the Gene Regulatory Network is not “essentially deterministic” as was presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian thought,
Rethinking gene regulatory networks in light of alternative splicing, intrinsically disordered protein domains, and post-translational modifications - 2016 Abstract Models for genetic regulation and cell fate specification characteristically assume that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are essentially deterministic and exhibit multiple stable states specifying alternative, but pre-figured cell fates. Mounting evidence shows, however, that most eukaryotic precursor RNAs undergo alternative splicing (AS) and that the majority of transcription factors contain intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) domains whose functionalities are context dependent as well as subject to post-translational modification (PTM). Consequently, many transcription factors do not have fixed cis-acting regulatory targets, and developmental determination by GRNs alone is untenable. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4341551/
bornagain77_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

@7 Bob O'Hara claims that
those aren’t even differences to the body plan (of chimps and humans). It’s relatively minor modifications to it. Still the same muscles, the same bones, just a different size and shape. And even the sizes and shapes are similar, as compared to (say) mice.
ET disagreed with Bob so at post 9 Bob O’Hara asks ET
What are the new muscles and bones?
To which ET responded
Starting at the top- Chimps have 28 bones for the skull. Humans have 22.
And indeed we find that Chimps have 28 bones for the skull. Humans have 22.
the number of bones located in the skull. In Chimpanzees and other primates, there are 28 bones located in the skull, while humans only have 22. Chimpanzee skulls, despite having more bones, have a much smaller skull volume, about 1/3rd as large when compared to humans. https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/number-bones-chimpanzee-skull-528970 The human skull is generally considered to consist of twenty-two bones—eight cranial bones and fourteen facial skeleton bones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull#Bones_of_human_skull
And in terms of facial muscles we find that Humans have fifty facial muscles,, and Chimps only have twenty-three facial muscles
DEBUNKING HUMAN EVOLUTION TAUGHT IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS Excerpt: Humans have fifty facial muscles and the unique ability to make over ten thousand different facial expressions.34 Chimps only have twenty-three facial muscles—only one-half that of humans!35 (page 38),,, https://genesisapologetics.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/592/2016/07/DEBUNKING-HUMAN-EVOLUTION-3-16-2016-for-web.pdf
Here are some more major anatomical differences between human and chimpanzees,
ANATOMY Sagittal Crest of Skull Brow Ridge Protuberantia Menti (Chin) Length of Sphenoid Sinus Choroid Plexus Biondi Bodies Inner Ear Canal Orientation Apical Phalangeal Tufts Age of Pelvic Bone Fusion Bone Cortex Thickness Laryngeal Position Pharyngeal Air Sacs Ear Lobes Sexual Body Size Dimorphism Lacrimal Gland Structure Visible Whites of the Eyes Small/Large Intestine Length Ratio Meningeal Artery Source
A more complete list of the differences can be found here:
A major limitation in translating genomic comparative information into an understanding of “humanness” is that we know relatively little about the basic phenotypic features of the great apes, relative to humans. This table lists topic areas in which there are real or claimed “differences” between humans and the great apes (as a group). A given “difference” listed here could be a suggested gain or loss in humans, with respect to the great apes. This is a partial listing of topics that will appear later at a Web-based “Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny” http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746/T1.expansion.html http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full.pdf+html
In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, (since, surprisingly, pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are), actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
Humorously, since the preceding article so badly upset the Darwinian narrative, many Darwinists reacted very strongly against Eugene McCarthy’s findings. Yet, Physorg published a subsequent article, (since the preceding article so badly upset many Darwinists), showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than many Darwinists had supposed it would be since “he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits.”
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html Gene McCarthy claims that the evidence points to humans as actually hybrids of chimps and pigs. Here is a partial list of differences that he provides: https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/at-last-a-proposed-answer-re-98-human-chimpanzee-similarity-claim/#comment-510021
I wonder if Bob O’Hara, (since it directly contradicts the Darwinian narrative he wants to believe in), will ever honestly admit that pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are. My bet is that Bob will just ignore this piece of evidence as he does with every other piece of evidence that falsifies his Darwinian worldview.bornagain77_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Starting at the top- Chimps have 28 bones for the skull. Humans have 22.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Still the same muscles, the same bones, just a different size and shape.
Actually, no.
What are the new muscles and bones?Bob O'H_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
those aren’t even differences to the body plan.
Of course they are.
It’s relatively minor modifications to it.
That is your unsupportable opinion
Still the same muscles, the same bones, just a different size and shape.
Actually, no. Perhaps you should take a course on chimp and human anatomy.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

ET - those aren't even differences to the body plan. It's relatively minor modifications to it. Still the same muscles, the same bones, just a different size and shape. And even the sizes and shapes are similar, as compared to (say) mice.Bob O'H_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

ET @5 as to major differences, lets talk numbers: here is a nice sum up of human/chimp genetic 'similarity' this is a mainstream science video (2,000,000 views) (go to 1:42) https://youtu.be/IbY122CSC5w?t=106martin_r_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
What major differences do you mean?
All of them. Chimps are knuckle-walkers. Humans are upright bipeds. That alone is enough but there is more. Just to be an upright biped the spine inserts into the head at a different location. The musculature to allow for that has to change. The jaws are different- again, it's the musculature. The feet are different. The eyes are different. And on and on...ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Of course this ignores the basic fact that the body plans of rats and mice are very similar, whereas the body plans of chimps and humans have major differences.
What major differences do you mean?Bob O'H_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

They get started at about an hour into this video.anthropic_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Can someone please explain Joshua's "argument" that because mice and rats share a common ancestor then humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The reason provided is that chimps and humans are allegedly more genetically similar than rats are to mice. Of course this ignores the basic fact that the body plans of rats and mice are very similar, whereas the body plans of chimps and humans have major differences. Rats and mice sharing a common ancestor is a great example microevolution and the limits phenotypic plasticity. How does that translate to from mice and rats to chimps and humans?ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Yup, and the evo regulars over on Peaceful Science are all lying about and choking on, bacterial flagella. They actually think that Nick Matzke solved it- he didn't come close. Then Art Hunt jumps in with a HUGE strawman and acts as if he did something. Evos are such a pathetic lot when confronted with the science and evidenceET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply