Bryan College prof defends 98% chimp-human DNA identity

Breivik claims he is a Christian, therefore he is a Christian. Todd C. Wood says describing him as an "evolutionary biologist" is a pretty lousy descriptor of him, therefore Todd Wood is not an evolutionary biologist. I get it. Mung

The only person being illogical is you, Mung.

ok, I get it. You all are not being logical, therefore you cannot be illogical. I, who am being logical, must be the illogical one. I see now how it works. Mung

http://biologos.org/blog/a-tale-of-three-creationists-part-1 Mung

Todd C. Wood: Evolutionary Biologist?

As a faculty member at an evangelical Christian university, I have the privilege of interacting with colleagues from all over North America. Shortly after becoming acquainted with one colleague, I realized that we have a lot in common. For starters, we’re both believers, and we both teach at Christian institutions. We also have very similar research backgrounds in biology: genetics, cell biology, genomics, that sort of thing, although my colleague has done more work directly relevant to evolutionary biology. We have both written articles on human/chimpanzee comparative genomics intended to inform believers of the challenge this new field of study presents for traditional interpretations of Genesis, and both of us have been criticized by other believers for doing so. Both of us feel that evolution is a robust scientific theory with a huge body of supporting evidence. Both of us have written critiques of folks in the Intelligent Design movement, as well as organizations like Reasons to Believe. In fact, I can think of only one major difference between us: my colleague is a Young Earth Creationist, whereas I am an Evolutionary Creationist. His name is Todd Wood, and he is a faculty member at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee.

Mung

You could actually admit that Todd Wood not only acknowledges the fact, but embraces the term and notes it isn’t an insult.

Calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That’s what you’re arguing?

I didn't say that, Dr. Wood didn't say that, and Lizzie didn't say that. In fact, no one on this thread has implied anything of the sort, so I don't know where your question even comes from. Perhaps it's an evasion tactic? The funny thing is, even if you thought that was Lizzie's intent originally, her explanation coupled with Dr. Wood's agreement makes that notion erroneous in the context of Lizzie's use above. So why persist with it after the fact? Just post that you misunderstood and move on. What's the big deal?

Todd Wood admits he’s a YEC and doesn’t think being called YEC is an insult, therefore calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That’s what you’re arguing?

See above, Mung. The context in this thread concerning the use of the term "YEC" is only Lizzie's use of the term referencing Dr. Wood. Most of us can understand your affront to the use of the term before the context was explained (and embraced by the target of the term no less) and thus could be misunderstood. Holding on to that affront at this point is just inane since all parties within the context of its use have agreed it's fine.

So if you pile the illogical claims high enough they start to make sense?

The only person being illogical is you, Mung. Doveton

The problem is with you WilliamRoache. It's entirely with you. You asked for a worked example of the EF applied to biology. I pointed your to Signature in the Cell. You responded that the website didn't give a worked example of the EF applied to biology. Which is true, since it's a website for the book rather than the book itself. But a 5 year old should have been able to figure out what I meant. So yeah, problem, you. And then you complain that the book doesn't give a worked example for the eye, which wasn't what you originally asked for. So yes, the problem is you. I give you what you ask for and then you can't be bothered to see if it really gives what you asked for. Your problem, and I'm not going to make it mine. Mung

Doveton:

You could actually admit that Todd Wood not only acknowledges the fact, but embraces the term and notes it isn’t an insult.

Calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That's what you're arguing? Todd Wood admits he's a YEC and doesn't think being called YEC is an insult, therefore calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That's what you're arguing? So if you pile the illogical claims high enough they start to make sense? Mung

Mung,

I can’t make you read Signature in the Cell

Who said I had not read it? And if reading it allowed you to generate examples of the EF against, say, eyes then I'd have done so myself. But you can't just say it can't be used like that can you? The problem must be with me, that I've not read the book. Or with the examples I'm asking you to use. Anything but the EF itself. So are you telling me that anybody who reads that book can use the EF to show how, say, the eye was designed? You've read it, right? So go ahead, be my guest. Demonstrate the EF against the eye. Any eye, any eye at all. There are lots of types to choose from.

By which I mean, of course, that it is far younger than 6,000 years.

There are several here would would agree with you. So, Mung, how old do you think the earth is? WilliamRoache

WilliamRoache:

If I did not want to admit what I really thought, I’d say something funny too to try and deflect peoples attention.

I can't make you read Signature in the Cell and I can't make you read my posts, but here it is again, for your benefit: I think they [Young Earth Creationists] are wrong about the age of the earth. By which I mean, of course, that it is far younger than 6,000 years. Mung

Mung,

It will be one day old next Wednesday.

If I did not want to admit what I really thought, I'd say something funny too to try and deflect peoples attention.

“The Designer” is the ground of existence for all that exists. I don’t really consider that intervening.

No pretense the "designer" is anything but God then. At least you are honest about that. However it does mean that "everything is designed" so I don't really see what you can add to the conversation about "detecting design".

Even evolutionists don’t believe evolution created all life.

Really? Last time I checked nobody thought it was designed. So perhaps you can give me an example of something alive that did not evolve.

Or you create your own journals

Are you familiar with the half dozen or so ID journals that already exist? How many papers do you expect are published every year?

So you think Elizabeth was trying to smear Todd Wood by calling him a YEC bariminologist?

Nice try.

You sure don’t seem to think it’s a term of respect.

Usually it is not due to the fact that there are so many dishonest YECs out there who repeat claims that have been disproved over and over. And I think that it's an absurd position to hold, contradicted by all available evidence. Don't you think YEC is absurd Mung? Or do you think there is something in it after all? How old is the earth Mung? WilliamRoache

Mung,

The absurd logic that someone may make a factual statement, and because that statement is factual it is not an insult, well… What can I say?

You could actually admit that Todd Wood not only acknowledges the fact, but embraces the term and notes it isn't an insult. You could also admit that Dr. Wood doesn't describe himself as an evolutionary biologist. What is there to even argue at this point, Mung? Dr. Wood has fully supported what Lizzie noted, so there was actually never any issue to begin with. Why are you trying to make one up? Doveton

Elizabeth, you lay out this great, wonderful case why Todd has a vested interest in proving his position to be correct, and then say he has no vested interest in being right or wrong. He's just after the truth, and that you're just like that. Seriously? Mung

He is doing this because he has faith – faith that the bible is inerrant, and says the earth is young. If the earth is young, evolutionary theory cannot be true. And if the bible is true, common descent cannot be true.

And yet we're suppose to believe your statement that he has no vested interest. Mung

Todd is a YEC. That’s not an insult, it’s a fact. He is also a baraminologist. That’s not an insult either, it’s a fact.

The absurd logic that someone may make a factual statement, and because that statement is factual it is not an insult, well... What can I say? Mung

Todd gives his answer :) Elizabeth Liddle

Mung, why don't you write to Wood and ask him if he would describe himself as an "evolutionary biologist"? It was certainly a misleading description in the context of the OP, as Todd does not believe that Chimps are related to humans by common descent. He would put them in separate baramins. Elizabeth Liddle

I'm not a YEC, but I don't see a huge issue with diversity since the flood. For one thing, we've seen enormous diversity in individual species from breeding alone. And we can't ignore that the function of most DNA is unknown. From an ID perspective it seems likely that it's there for something. Who knows, maybe there's the DNA in one animal for multiple species just like in one kind of cell there's DNA for the whole organism. ScottAndrews

WR:

How old is the Earth Mung?

It will be one day old next Wednesday.

When did the designer intervene Mung?

"The Designer" is the ground of existence for all that exists. I don't really consider that intervening.

Do you think that the baraminologists have it right?

About what? I think they are wrong about the age of the earth. And they would have to propose a very high rate of evolution to explain diversity since the flood, yet Haldane's Dilemma seems to pose a problem for that scenario.

If you don’t believe that evolution created all life then you *can* be an evolutionary biologist.

Even evolutionists don't believe evolution created all life.

You’ll just be a very bad one who never gets published.

Or you create your own journals.

Unless of course you don’t mention your actual irrational beliefs and do some real science. Then you can believe whatever you like and nobody will care, if the work is sound and supported empirically.

So you think Elizabeth was trying to smear Todd Wood by calling him a YEC bariminologist? You sure don't seem to think it's a term of respect. Mung

Mung,

YEC evolutionary biologists disagree. They think evolution occurs rapidly and does not require long long ages.

What do you think Mung? How old is the Earth Mung? When did the designer intervene Mung? Once to create Adam and Eve or many times to create each "bodyplan" as it's required? Do you think that the baraminologists have it right? If not, why are you so willing to defend their "not even wrong" tripe?

So you make up your own definition of evolutionary biologist that excludes Wood and then use that to post a “correction.”

If you don't believe that evolution created all life then you *can* be an evolutionary biologist. You'll just be a very bad one who never gets published. Unless of course you don't mention your actual irrational beliefs and do some real science. Then you can believe whatever you like and nobody will care, if the work is sound and supported empirically. WilliamRoache

Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology which studies the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist.

We are trained in evolutionary theory and utilize standard concepts and methods in systematics, such as cladistics, multivariate statistics, the taxonomic hierarchy, founder effect, etc. where such concepts are appropriate. However, we find overwhelming evidence for phylogenetic discontinuity among major groups and, thus, discard the prevailing assumption that all living things are related in a great "Tree of Life". As a result of this departure from conventional science, we have developed additional concepts and methods to meet our needs in studying discontinuity and describing the history of created kinds. About the CBS

Concepts So you make up your own definition of evolutionary biologist that excludes Wood and then use that to post a "correction." Mung

Elizabeth, what would prevent a young earth creationist from being an evolutionary biologist? Even YEC's and "baraminologists" accept evolution within "kinds." So one could study evolution within kinds and be an evolutionary biologist. The two are not mutually exclusive. So in one sense Todd Wood is an evolutionary biologist. But I didn't care to argue the point. You're implying that he denies evolution, which he does not. You're arguing that one cannot be an evolutionary biologist unless one accepts that the earth is very old and that evolution takes long long periods of time. YEC evolutionary biologists disagree. They think evolution occurs rapidly and does not require long long ages. There was no need to "correct" News. Mung

Thank you, Mung. However, just to nail this one thoroughly to the perch, recall (or check) that the post in question was post 2 in the thread, and it was a response to this, in the OP:

Here, at Bryan College of all places, evolutionary biologist Todd C. Wood argues....

My post was a correction. Both "YEC" and "baraminologist" were important parts of that correction because together they describe the paradigm within which Todd works, which is not the old-earth evolutionary paradigm of evolutionary biologists. And whether "YEC" conveys disdain here or not (we hardly have any, actually) is irrelevant - it's what Todd's position is, just as mine is evolutionist and atheist. If people use the descriptions pejoratively, that's their problem IMO, not mine. Or Todd's. But that's just for the record. I appreciate your retraction. Cheers Lizzie Elizabeth Liddle

All the science he learned during his BS in biology and his PhD in biochemistry, Mung.

Precisely. So if he writes an article, the reason his article should be taken seriously is because of his scientific credentials, not because he is a YEC baraminologist. If you did want to impugn his credebility, get people thinking he's a quack, calling him a YEC bariminologist would be a good way to go about it, don't you think? It literally screams, "not to be taken seriously!" Perhaps "creationist" doesn't have the same connotation over there on your side of the pond and perhaps YEC doesn't convey the same disdain it does over here, but I would think after the Cudworth thread you'd have some clue, lol. But now that you've explained nothing derogatory was to be implied and that you meant it to convey that he should be taken seriously (though as I say in a rather odd way from my perspective) I therefore retract my insinuation that you intentionally chose to not state relevant facts in order to effect a slur. Mung

Oh wait, that's hilarious! I get it! Mung, you thought that when I said that Todd was a YEC baraminologist I was being insulting, didn't you! After all, how could I, an Old Earth evolutionist mean anything other than an insult by calling someone a YEC baraminologist?!!! And so you thought the reason I was being "selective with the truth" was that I was hiding the fact that he was actually a good qualified scientist, right? heh. It all makes sense. In a weird way. OK, let me explain. Todd is a YEC. That's not an insult, it's a fact. He is also a baraminologist. That's not an insult either, it's a fact. So to call him an "evolutionary biologist" would not only be quite wrong, it would be rather demeaning. Todd is doing something rather remarkable - he is taking the scientific evidence for evolution, and for which he agrees evolution is a powerful explanation, and attempting to devise an alternative hypothesis that will account as well, if not better, for the data. He is doing this because he has faith - faith that the bible is inerrant, and says the earth is young. If the earth is young, evolutionary theory cannot be true. And if the bible is true, common descent cannot be true. And so, because he trusts God, he trusts that there must be an alternate explanation that has as much explanatory power as evolutionary theory, but which is consistent with what he believes to be the truth, which is that the bible is literally true, and that the first living things were "created kinds" not a simple cell. And he is determined to find that explanation. He is one of the most honest scientists I have ever come across. So if Todd says he's found 99% similarity between chimps and humans, take him seriously. He has no evolutionary axe to grind. He just wants to know what the facts are. Now he might have got it wrong - I wouldn't know, I'm not a geneticist. But I suggest that people take his work seriously, even if you are not a YEC and think that common descent is well-supported. Because if anyone is going to find evidence of design in genetics, it's going to be Todd. IMO. Elizabeth Liddle

All the science he learned during his BS in biology and his PhD in biochemistry, Mung. He's a good scientist. I'm still waiting for your retraction. Elizabeth Liddle

Now, does anyone want to critique Todd’s methodology?

He's just a YEC bariminologist. What can he possibly know about science? Mung

junkdnaforlife:

For those that think Mung’s claims against Liz are baseless, and for those others who think Liz is a psuedo-liar, I refer you to to this thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com.....omplexity/ Follow the conversation from post 1-9, and act as juror, and judge for yourselves. Is this an act of unwarranted Liz trolling? Or does Mung have basis to infer that Liz may be less-than-honest?

My response here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/last-eukaryotic-common-ancestor-facilitates-multi-cell-complexity/#comment-393188 Now, does anyone want to critique Todd's methodology? Elizabeth Liddle

There is something sort of comical, however, about me, an atheist evolutionist, defending a YEC baraminologist for some excellent science he did that somehow defies the expectations of both his fellow creationists and a bunch of non-creationist IDists. I think, Mung, you got confused where the vested interests lay. Not surprising in the circs! But open your eyes to the possibility that some of us - including many here - have absolutely no vested in proving our positions right or wrong, but simply in finding out the truth. Todd is one of those people. So am I. So if our posts puzzle you, either by omissions or commissions, it may be that, far from being selective or manipulative with the truth, it is that we have nothing to hide. Elizabeth Liddle

Mung,

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that retraction. It could happen, but right now it’s not looking very likely.

Indeed. As we can watch before us you twist "facts" to suit yourself and as such there is never any need to retract what has now become true. It's obvious to all that your interactions are not intended to expand anybody's understanding but rather to score points in some pointless game you are playing. A game that will sooner rather then later end up with just one player. I expect you are used to solo activities however. WilliamRoache

OK, so for some reason you think I should have mentioned that Todd had a BS in biology and a PhD in biochemistry, but dishonestly withheld the information. Why? You thought, did you, that somehow it would damage some point I was making if I let it be known that Todd was a trained scientist? And that I withheld that pertinent information to serve some nefarious and dishonest end? Oh boy. So, Mung, can you tell me what point you thought I was making that would have been ill-served by the information that Todd is an highly trained biological scientist? Because he is, and I'm delighted that you have provided that information for the benefit of those who did not already know it.

So far, what reasons have I been given to think that what I said is false?

You have given no reason whatever for implying that I had dishonest motives in not providing what is readily available information.

You found it offensive because it impugned your integrity?

Yes, Mung, I found it offensive because it impugned my integrity. hth. Elizabeth Liddle

Well Elizabeth, it's pretty obvious that you're familiar enough with Todd Wood and his educational background and scientific qualifications to tell us that he's not an evolutionary biologist and that he's a "YEC baraminologist," and that he's "outstandingly honest," so it is not unreasonable for us to expect that you also know that he has a BS in biology and a PhD in Biochemistry? See my post @6. Are you claiming you were ignorant of those facts? Or were you aware of those facts yet chose not to state either one or both of them in your comments about Todd Wood in your @2? Do you think the "outstandingly honest" Todd Wood would do to you what you did to him? See my example at 14/15. There's no reason to think that you know every single fact about Todd Wood, so there goes that little red herring. Why must you resort to such red herrings? Don't they divert attention from what's relevant? Why yes, they do. That's the point of a red herring! So it is in fact a reasonable inference that you had in your possession other knowledge about Todd Wood which you chose not to mention, but could have. Don't hold your breath waiting for that retraction. It could happen, but right now it's not looking very likely. So far, what reasons have I been given to think that what I said is false? You found it offensive because it impugned your integrity? Mung

Lizzie, why bother? Please move ahead with the blog you've said you're setting up so those among the banned and the moderated can join the discussion. URL please? Pedant

junkdnaforlife:

Attention, ladies and gentleman of the Jury: For those that think Mung’s claims against Liz are baseless, and for those others who think Liz is a psuedo-liar, I refer you to to this thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com.....omplexity/ Follow the conversation from post 1-9, and act as juror, and judge for yourselves. Is this an act of unwarranted Liz trolling? Or does Mung have basis to infer that Liz may be less-than-honest?

Whether Mung infers from the conversation you cite, or from any others here, that I am "less-than-host" is a different issue (though important to me). What Mung said here was that I was being "selective with the truth" by not giving some information that he apparently thought I should have given, in order to be fully truthful, about Todd Wood. He will not tell me what that information is, and he will not confirm that his point was merely that there are more than two facts in the world about Todd Wood and that I did not give them all (naturally). Indeed, as you yourself imply, his remark on this thread impugns my integrity (you, like I, infer that he is adding this example to his roll of lack-of-honesty indictments). I have asked him support or retract his accusation, or, failing either of those, to make it clear that the words "selective with the truth" were not meant pejoratively. He has not done so. The only trolling I can see is of me by Mung. Elizabeth Liddle

Alternatively, confirmation that it was a totally pointless remark, not intended to cast any aspersions on my personal integrity, and that you meant merely to make the observation that I had not, as is perfectly reasonable, given Todd's entire life history. Either will do, Mung. But select one. Elizabeth Liddle

OK, Mung, I take it you are not going to support your accusation that I was "selective with the truth". In that case I look forward to your retraction. Elizabeth Liddle

Harfen:

Todd Wood is obviously not an “evolutionary biologist” as he does not accept that paradigm and has chosen to work outside of it.

ok. so what? I never said he was one or disputed the claim that he was not one.

All of his work attempts to explain biology within a YEC framework, and he publishes his work in YEC journals. This is apparent to anyone who reads his work or his blog. If anybody is a “YEC baraminologist” then clearly he is.

Not did I say he wasn't a YEC, nor did I say he did not publish on the topic of baraminology.

Mung, I fail to see your point. You responded to Elizabeth Liddle’s statement that “Todd Wood is not an “evolutionary biologist”. He’s a YEC baraminologist.” This statement is perfectly accurate and there is nothing at all selective about it.

Did Todd Wood get his degree in baraminology? As a scientist, what is his educational background? Perfectly accurate would imply that they left nothing out of relevance about Todd Wood, including his educational background and degrees. None of which is in baraminology, afiak. And of course there was something selective about both statements. They were, for example, selected from numerous other statements about Todd Wood. Statements that could have been made but were not. The claim that there is nothing selective about them is absurd on it's face. Mung

Mung owes Lizzie an apology. Here’s what Todd Wood said on his blog on August 27, 2010:

From the link that Elizabeth provides, I see these references for papers published by Todd Wood:

And here's what I wrote:

If someone were to say that Todd Wood is a YEC baraminologist I would not disagree with that person nor call them a liar.

So you both have quite missed the point. Good job. Elizabeth Liddle:

Oh, and Mung, I’m still waiting….

That makes two of us. You're half way there. Why stop? Here, let me remind you where you left off: So the person who said you were not an evolutionary psychologist would be telling the truth. What about Person B's statement that you are an atheist blogger, children's book author, and musician? Mung

Attention, ladies and gentleman of the Jury: For those that think Mung's claims against Liz are baseless, and for those others who think Liz is a psuedo-liar, I refer you to to this thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/last-eukaryotic-common-ancestor-facilitates-multi-cell-complexity/ Follow the conversation from post 1-9, and act as juror, and judge for yourselves. Is this an act of unwarranted Liz trolling? Or does Mung have basis to infer that Liz may be less-than-honest? junkdnaforlife

So, can anyone tell me what Todd Wood did wrong, when he arrived at that 99% figure? Oh, and Mung, I'm still waiting.... Elizabeth Liddle

Born: "Correct me if I’m wrong, but are not even the ‘coding’ regions of DNA now found to be far different than the 99% similar myth that Darwinists originally led people to believe?" I believe so. Contemporary work seems to have taken a bite out of that number as well. junkdnaforlife

As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome: Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." http://www.mendeley.com/research/estimating-the-prevalence-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-folds/ bornagain77

junkdnaforlife, Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not even the 'coding' regions of DNA now found to be far different than the 99% similar myth that Darwinists originally led people to believe??? notes: Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html 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 The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html#more further notes: This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 'ORFan' genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science that has such dramatic implications for man! Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true. If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because they were not found in other supposedly related species, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins: A survey of orphan enzyme activities Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona Excerpt of Proposal: Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358868 Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced: Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 bornagain77

Mung, you accused me of being "selective about the truth"

You just have to admire how selective about the truth Lizzie can be when she wants to be.

Please tell me what you think I should have said about Todd Wood, or retract your accusation that I was being "selective about the truth". Elizabeth Liddle

FWIW I’m not an evolutionary psychologist. Any more than Todd Wood is an evolutionary biologist.

So the person who said you were not an evolutionary psychologist would be telling the truth. Congratulations, you're half way through the example. Mung

Frost: First of all the “98%” only applies to the coded regions of DNA not the uncoded DNA obviously. Har-1 gene. (Human accelerated regions) A chimp and a chicken, separated by 300 million years of evolution differ by 2 base pair substitutions. However, a chimp and a human, separated by 6 million years, differ by 18 base pair substitutions. The HAR regions were also once thought to be junk dna. It is in much of these no-coding regions that humans and chimps differ profoundly. Research finds 'unique human DNA'

The analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were just two differences between the versions found in chickens and chimps. However, there were 18 differences between the chimp version and the one found in humans - which scientists say is an incredible amount of change to take place in a few million years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4797257.stm junkdnaforlife

Frost122585:

This is the same old garbage they have always been pushing to confuse the sheep.

Except that in this case "they" is a Young Earth Creationist who is not an evolutionist.

First of all the “98%” only applies to the coded regions of DNA not the uncoded DNA obviously.

No, this is not obvious.

Secondly, the body plans for creatures does not exist in the DNA itself.

Well, yes, it does. That's why, if you mess with the DNA you get a messed up body plan. Although you can also get a messed up body plan by interfering with the cell signalling that accesses the DNA database.

This means we have vast differences beyond what dNA can explain.

Well, not really. DNA is a database that is accessed by the cells, but protocols by which it is accessed are themselves coded, at least partially, in DNA. But you are right, IMO to be skeptical of DNA as the source of everything that makes organisms what they are. I do recommend watching this: http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/

They can talk about hox genes all they want, and yet no matter how to mutate them you do not get new functional body plans.

But you do get new dysfunctional body plans which does rather strongly suggest that DNA codes for body plans! And indeed, we share a great deal of body-plan similarity with chimps.

Elizabeth Liddle

Mung? Support or retract, please. Elizabeth Liddle

FWIW I'm not an evolutionary psychologist. Any more than Todd Wood is an evolutionary biologist. Elizabeth Liddle

From the link that Elizabeth provides, I see these references for papers published by Todd Wood: Wood, T.C. 2002a. A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae). TJ 16(1):15–25. Wood, T.C. 2002b. The AGEing process: rapid post-Flood, intrabaraminic diversi?cation caused by Altruistic Genetic Elements (AGEs). Origins 54:5–34. Wood, T.C. 2005a. A creationist review of the history, geology, climate, and biology of the Galápagos Islands. CORE Issues in Creation 1:1–241. Wood, T.C. 2005b. Visualizing baraminic distances using classical multidimensional scaling. Origins 57:9–29. Wood, T.C., and D.P. Cavanaugh. 2001. A baraminological analysis of subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae) and the origin of biological complexity. Origins 52:7–27. Wood, T.C., and D.P. Cavanaugh. 2003. An evaluation of lineages and trajectories as baraminological membership criteria. Occasional Papers of the BSG 2:1–6. Wood, T.C., and M.J. Murray. 2003. Understanding the Pattern of Life. Broadman & Holman, Nashville, TN. Wood, T.C., P.J. Williams, K.P. Wise, and D.A. Robinson. 1999. Summaries on camel baraminology. In Robinson, D.A. and P.J. Williams (editors), Baraminology ‘99: Creation Biology for the 21st Century, pp. 9–18. Baraminology Study Group. Wood, T.C., K.P. Wise, R. Sanders, and N. Doran. 2003. A re?ned baramin concept. Occasional Papers of the BSG 3:1–14. But perhaps he's not a "True Baraminologist"(tm)! ;) NormO

Mung:

Perhaps an example. Person A posts that Elizabeth Liddle is an evolutionary psychologist and posts a link to a paper on a prototype of a biofeedback system designed to treat dyslexia by improving heart-rate variability. Person B posts that Elizabeth Liddle is not an evolutionary psychologist. Elizabeth Liddle is an atheist blogger who plays music.

Mung, you accused me of being selective with the truth. I asked you a straight question: what did I not say that you think I should have said? Elizabeth Liddle

THANK YOU for referring to Mr Wood as an 'evolutionary biologist'. As someone who used to read his blog almost daily, I found it very difficult to believe he was what he claimed to be. Blue_Savannah

Or perhaps, an atheist blogger who writes children's books. Mung

Perhaps an example. Person A posts that Elizabeth Liddle is an evolutionary psychologist and posts a link to a paper on a prototype of a biofeedback system designed to treat dyslexia by improving heart-rate variability. Person B posts that Elizabeth Liddle is not an evolutionary psychologist. Elizabeth Liddle is an atheist blogger who plays music. Mung

This is the same old garbage they have always been pushing to confuse the sheep. First of all the "98%" only applies to the coded regions of DNA not the uncoded DNA obviously. Secondly, the body plans for creatures does not exist in the DNA itself. This means we have vast differences beyond what dNA can explain. They can talk about hox genes all they want, and yet no matter how to mutate them you do not get new functional body plans. So the idea that 98% of coded region DNA proves common ancestry and rules and common design, is just a bunch of hog wash. Frost122585

So, Mung, what is it that you think I should have said that I did not say? You seem to agree with what I said. So what else should I have said? Elizabeth Liddle

Mung, I fail to see your point. You responded to Elizabeth Liddle's statement that "Todd Wood is not an “evolutionary biologist”. He’s a YEC baraminologist." This statement is perfectly accurate and there is nothing at all selective about it. Todd Wood is obviously not an "evolutionary biologist" as he does not accept that paradigm and has chosen to work outside of it. All of his work attempts to explain biology within a YEC framework, and he publishes his work in YEC journals. This is apparent to anyone who reads his work or his blog. If anybody is a "YEC baraminologist" then clearly he is. Harfen

If someone were to say that Todd Wood is not an evolutionary biologist I would not disagree with that person nor call them a liar. If someone were to say that Todd Wood is a YEC baraminologist I would not disagree with that person nor call them a liar. I did not say Elizabeth was lying, only that she was being selective with the truth. It's what she didn't say but could have, or should have. It's called integrity. Mung

Joseph: Read it again, and look for his comments on alignment - i.e. the lining up homologous sections "side by side". Elizabeth Liddle

Cut the snark Mung, please. If you disagree with something I have said, or want to make a correction, do so. But please stop this drip drip drip of suggestions that I am a liar. I think that Todd would self-identify a baraminologist rather than as a evolutionary biologist. Baraminology is the framework within which he works, not evolution. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm If you want to check, feel free to ask him. He's very diligent about responding to questions. Elizabeth Liddle

Mung owes Lizzie an apology. Here's what Todd Wood said on his blog on August 27, 2010:

Over the past decade, I've published literally dozens of baraminology studies, more than I can even keep track of anymore. Until this year, I had been formally criticized for only a single study: the horse study from 2003. Apparently, no one gave a hoot about putting all the grasses in a baramin or all the seals in a baramin. But expand the human baramin beyond what "mainstream" creationists (which of course are no more qualified to comment on paleoanthropology than I) accept, and suddenly there are four responses describing my work as "reckless" or condemning baraminology altogether. If anyone's overreacting, it ain't me.

Pedant

You just have to admire how selective about the truth Lizzie can be when she wants to be. Todd Wood is no more a barminologist than he is an evolutionary biologist.

Todd Charles Wood graduated from Liberty University with a B.S. in biology in 1994, and received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia in 1999. He joined the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in 2000. Dr. Wood's research interests include comparative genomics, biosystematics, the history of comparative anatomy, and the early history of young-age creationist biology.

Todd's Blog: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/ Mung

Nothing about a complete side by side comparison. Joseph

Oh, and Joseph: Todd addresses your point here: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-4.html Not only is he an extremely honest, and extremely bright young man, he's also an extremely good and clear writer. Elizabeth Liddle

Todd's comments on his findings here: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-5.html Elizabeth Liddle

Um, Todd Wood is not an "evolutionary biologist". He's a YEC baraminologist. And an outstandingly honest one. Elizabeth Liddle

The only way to check is do a complete side-by-side comparison. Joseph