Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ICC 2013: Geneticist Jeff Tomkins vs. Evolutionary Biologist who got laughed off stage

Categories
Genetics
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At the International Conference on Creationism 2013 (ICC 2013), professional geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins (along with Jerry Bergman) delivered a devastating critique of the claim that humans are 98% genetically similar to chimps. What he demonstrated was the fact that Darwinists are essentially saying “what is similar is 98% similar”, which is cherry picking. Tomkins acknowledges we are closer to chimps than daffodils, but humans are still substantially different from chimps.

I posted a less technical complaint here: With no dictionary tricks, humans only 70% similar to chimps.

Recall the “dictionary trick” whereby Tom Wolfe’s famous novel The Right Stuff can be shown to be almost 100% identical to a dictionary merely by aligning the words in Wolfe’s novel against identical words in the dictionary. The illusion of similarity is brought about by a total disregard for sentence structure and context of the words within sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. When those considerations are taken into account, it becomes preposterous to assert The Right Stuff is almost 100% identical to a dictionary. But such illegitimate lines of comparison are the staple of evolutionism.

Tomkins described the origin of the fallacious comparison as a myth that got started in reassociation kinetic methods of comparison in the mid-1970’s prior to the advent of modern sequencing techniques (like Illumina and Solexa). Reassociation kinetics was a technique where fragments of chimp and human DNA were mixed in the same chemical soup, and the DNAs that were reasonably similar would pair up, hence we got a biased sampling!

If we take genes that are found in both humans and chimps and disregard the indels, we get the 98% figure. When indels are considered, the similarity drops to 80-85%!

chimp human indel

When including other sequences, the similarity drops even further, down to 70%. But that 70% figure itself, imho, is too generous. I don’t think Tomkins used ORFans or pseudo genes or many other intergenic sequences, and he explicitly avoided the complication of Synteny. The links below go into detail. One might argue, the indels don’t have function. We don’t know that as a general rule, and even if they didn’t it still is a problem for evolution to account for how the indels got fixed into a population.

Tomkins pointed also to reports where lab workers may have contaminated the sequencing labs for Chimps with their own human DNA and thus biasing the figures! Hence re-sequencing has been done, and there is more sequencing pending to clean up these errors. He joked about the coughing and sneezing that may have gone on to cause contamination.

Further he pointed out that it seemed politically incorrect to dispute the 98% figure promoted by the reassociation kinetics work because it accorded with the false evolutionary narrative. He said, the industry is finally having to “fess up”, that some of their conclusions are “bogus”.

Tomkins has been reviewer on peer reviewed papers on genetics, he ran a genome lab at Clemson, and said if he had been the reviewer of some of the evolutionary papers he would have rejected them for publication because of the lack of clarity in their methodology, particularly in the material and methods sections of the paper.

During the answer and question session, a ranting raving evolutionary biologists gets up and whines and says something to the effect, “you’re using such inflammatory language … ‘sneeze and cough and ‘fess up’ and bogus'”. The evolutionary biologist then said, “as I said, what I have problems with is inflammatory your language, I don’t want to get into the technical details.” When he said that, he got laughed off stage. It was obvious Tomkins made an unassailable case and the evolutionary biologist didn’t want to be engage Tomkins technical assertions. Instead the evolutionary biologist grasped at irrelevant straws like Tomkins use of the words “sneeze” and “cough”. Pathetic!

Along those lines, I’ll give a sample of inflammatory language:

In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics

Jerry Coyne

Oh wait, that’s an evolutionist making inflammatory remarks about his own discipline, not a creationist.

I told Jeff, “I accepted the 98% figure for years, I thought it was true, creationists since Linnaeus have said we’re more similar to apes than to trees.” Jeff replied something to the effect, “that’s a good point, I accepted the 98% figure too, and I was prepared to accept it if that’s what my research indicated.” Tomkins spent 3 months reviewing the NCBI sequences himself, and Bergman devoted time to assist going through the literature. This was no small project. Tomkins lists recent peer-reviewed literature that supports his points.

Chimp/human similarity wasn’t directly a question of creation and evolution, it is a basic empirical question of the similarity in evidence today. If evolutionary biologists can’t be forthright and accurate about even basic empirical questions of data in the present day, why should they be trusted with speculations about the deep past?

NOTES:

Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. (Genetics)

Jeffrey Tomkins has a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University, a M.S. in Plant Science from the University of Idaho, Moscow and a B.S. in Agriculture from Washington State University. He was on the Faculty in the Dept of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, for a decade where he worked as a research technician in a plant breeding/genetics program, focusing on quantitative and physiological genetics in soybean. He is now a Staff Scientist at ICR. He has 56 publications in peer reviewed scientific journals and seven book chapters in scientific books. He is the primary author of The Design and Complexity of the Cell.

http://creation.com/dr-jeffrey-tomkins

Articles
The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
The junk DNA myth takes a well-deserved hit
Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human–chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data

Is the human genome nearly identical to chimpanzee?—a reassessment of the literature

PS

Jerry Bergman had been an atheist while a professor before he got expelled. Thankfully he got rehired at a medical college where he has been teaching for the last 27 years.

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology

Biography

Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold OH for over 25 years. He has 9 degrees, including 7 graduate (= ‘post-graduate’ in some non-US systems) degrees. Dr Bergman is a graduate of Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, The University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 800 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs. He has also taught at the Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in the department of experimental pathology, and he also taught 6 years at the University of Toledo, and 7 years at Bowing Green State University.

Among his books is a monograph on peer evaluation published by the College Student Journal Press, a Fastback on the creation-evolution controversy published by Phi Delta Kappa, a book on vestigial organs with Dr George Howe (‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional), a book on psychology and religious cults, a book on religious discrimination published by Onesimus Press, and a book on mental health published by Claudius Verlag in München. He has also published a college textbook on evaluation (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.), and has contributed to dozens of other textbooks. He was also a consultant for over 20 science text books, mostly biology and biochemistry.

Dr Bergman has presented over one hundred scientific papers at professional and community meetings in the United States, Canada, and Europe. To discuss his research, he has been a featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs. His research has made the front page in newspapers throughout the country, has been featured by the Paul Harvey Show several times, and has been discussed by David Brinkley, Chuck Colson, and other nationally known commentators on national television.

His other work experience includes over ten years experience at various Mental Health/Psychology clinics as a licensed professional clinical counselor and three years full time corrections research for a large county circuit court in Michigan and inside the walls of Jackson Prison (SPSM), the largest walled prison in the world. He has also served as a consultant for CBS News, ABC News, Reader’s Digest, Amnesty International, several government agencies and for two Nobel Prize winners, including the inventor of the transistor. In the past decade he has consulted or has testified as an expert witness or consultant in almost one-hundred court cases. A Fellow of the American Scientific Association, member of The National Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other professional associations, he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the Midwest and in Who’s Who in Science and Religion.

Education
M.P.H., Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001.
M.S. in biomedical science, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999.
Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.
M.A. in social psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1986.
Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1976.
M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.
B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology.
A.A. in Biology and Behavioral Science, Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1967.
http://creation.com/dr-jerry-bergman

Comments
I obviously mean no sacred. As in it's just a number. What do you think an exon is? And why do you think exons introns and pseudogenes don't have orthologues?wd400
August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Lol. It’s not neutral theory or selection. It’s both. Some indels are probably selectively neutral (most of our DNA is junk, after all) but some will be deleterious and a few might be beneficial (that’s the transposon-mediated differences in gene expression and the like).
Lol at yourself. Are you suddenly suggesting most fixed indels are the result of positive selection? Or maybe 10% or 5% or 1%. If you say 80%, then what is the evidence of that given that only about 1000 traits can be fixed via selection according to Haldane's dilemma. If you don't accept Haldane's dilemma feel free to provide for the reader the number of SNPs, indels, or whatever can be fixed via selection in 6 million years. Don't have a figure? Then you have no basis to Lol except at yourself since you'll confidently assert it's no problem for evolution yet you won't provide figures for indel fixation rates due to selection. Also, just because an indel's absence might be severely deleterious does not imply positive selection was the reason they got incorporated into the population.
. DNA is an essence, the 98% figure is sacred among evolutionary biologists, it’s just what you count the number of single-nucleotide difference between the genomes.
98% figure sacred? Sounds religious. The number SNPs is not the only gauge of difference since phenotypic effects appear influenced by indels, or do you disagree with the above linked paper that attributes phenotypic differences to other factors than protein substitutions? Further 98% is only comparison of orthologous genes, not even the indels, introns, exons, pseudo genes, orphans, etc. The 98% figure is misleading. I still hear bio students saying we're 98% similar to other apes....scordova
August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
If that is the indel mutation rate, we could test that couldn’t we and also make prediciton about the structure of the human genome. This may lead to problems. Predict away.. but what are the problems? Nevertheless, if you invoke indels as neutral, and indels are found to serve function, then we have a case where a function evolved free of selection, hance at least Dawkins is wrong if indels have some significance. Lol. It's not neutral theory or selection. It's both. Some indels are probably selectively neutral (most of our DNA is junk, after alll) but some will be deleterious and a few might be beneficial (that's the transposon-mediated differences in gene expression and the like). I'm still not actually sure what the point of any of this is. DNA is an essence, the 98% figure is sacred among evolutionary biologists, it's just what you count the number of single-nucleotide difference between the genomes.wd400
August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
For example, the true extent of the differences between humans and chimps (or any other supposed closely relate species) is incompatible with their story. Do you want to spell out how this is the case? The indel differences between humans and chimps require far fewer mutational events to explain the the ~2% differences arising by substitution. It seems quite compatable with a 6Ma divergence time for humans and chimps.wd400
August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
scordova:
If evolutionary biologists can’t be forthright and accurate about even basic empirical questions of data in the present day, why should they be trusted with speculations about the deep past?
Ironically, it may be comparatively easier for them to be forthright about the deep past, since they only offer speculations that can be retracted and/or revised whenever needed. It is in the present day that the accessible hard empirical facts most devastatingly impinge upon the grand story they want to tell. For example, the true extent of the differences between humans and chimps (or any other supposed closely relate species) is incompatible with their story. What choice do they have, if they are unwilling to let go of their story and face these unwelcome facts?ericB
August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
semi related: This is the sequence of the RNA transcript encoding NADH dehydrogenase 7 in Trypanosoma brucei. What's fascinating about this sequence is that only the nucleotides colored black in the graphic below are actually encoded in the mitochondrial DNA. The uridine nucleotides colored red have been inserted post-transcription by RNA editing. The blue asterisks (*) indicate locations where uridines have been deleted. As you can see, almost the whole gene has been re-written post-transcription by RNA editing (without the editing, the gene is nonfunctional). Now, how would a non-intelligent process like neo-Darwinism account for this kind of phenomenon...? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=404583012984035&set=a.404583006317369.1073741825.182588468516825&type=1&theaterbornagain77
August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
wd400:
I thought you knew neutral variants fixed at the mutation rate?.
On paper, perhaps. But no one has ever shown that to be so.
I wouldn’t get too excited about ORFans either…
Of course YOU wouldn't. Your position magically accomodates just about anything. Just wait until some developmental biologist demonstrates (on paper) that saltation is not only possible but the only explanation for macroevolution?Joe
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Here is a peer-reviewed paper supporting Tomkins and the functional significance of indels. It suggests indels have function, and this has impact the evolvability of humans from apes. http://www.mobilednajournal.com/content/2/1/13
Background Although humans and chimpanzees have accumulated significant differences in a number of phenotypic traits since diverging from a common ancestor about six million years ago, their genomes are more than 98.5% identical at protein-coding loci. This modest degree of nucleotide divergence is not sufficient to explain the extensive phenotypic differences between the two species. It has been hypothesized that the genetic basis of the phenotypic differences lies at the level of gene regulation and is associated with the extensive insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation between the two species. To test the hypothesis that large INDELs (80 to 12,000 bp) may have contributed significantly to differences in gene regulation between the two species, we categorized human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in or around genes and determined whether this variation is significantly correlated with previously determined differences in gene expression. Results Extensive, large INDEL variation exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. This variation is primarily attributable to retrotransposon insertions within the human lineage. There is a significant correlation between differences in gene expression and large human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in genes or in proximity to them. Conclusions The results presented herein are consistent with the hypothesis that large INDELs, particularly those associated with retrotransposons, have played a significant role in human-chimpanzee regulatory evolution.
scordova
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
To my knowledge there are no videos, but supposedly audio is available. The papers are available on DVD. Now, to save you some money, I can tell you the links I provided above will give you most of the data you would be interested in anyway. The graphic of the indels above should give you a picture of the problem. Remove the indels, and everything looks like the evolutionary story, include them and the comparison goes down to 80-85%. Same with the exons and introns and regulatory elements associated with the genes. Include those and the similarity of 98% is obliterated. This has important medical significance. The regulatory regions are important. The 98% myth has de-emphasized the regulatory regions, and thus hindered the advance of medical science since the regulatory regions have influence on hereditary disease. Not good...Darwinism hurts science and medicine. Frankly, I can't see where it has ever helped -- creationist comparative anatomy and common design assumptions would have done far better than common descent assumptions as far as medicine goes, imho.scordova
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
I'm curious, are evolutionists going to respond to this research or just pretend it doesn't exist? When are the formal debates? Can videos of these talks be viewed anywhere? Are they part of the "box sets" on the ICC page?lifepsy
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
I thought you knew neutral variants fixed at the mutation rate?. Of course, since indels change several bases you need many fewer events to explain the number of differences (and many of them are human-specific ERV insertions).
If that is the indel mutation rate, we could test that couldn't we and also make prediciton about the structure of the human genome. This may lead to problems. Nevertheless, if you invoke indels as neutral, and indels are found to serve function, then we have a case where a function evolved free of selection, hance at least Dawkins is wrong if indels have some significance.scordova
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
I wouldn’t get too excited about ORFans either…
Paul Nelson had a talk at ICC 2013 on ORFans. The evolutionary paradigm hates them and thus had a predisposition to use the faulty Chimp/Human comparisons as evidence against human ORFans. Given Tomkins study, Lander's work should be looked with suspicion.scordova
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
wd400, I saw you mention neutral variants, so as to make it seem like you were trying to be rational in all this, but perhaps it would interest you (and others) to know some of the weaknesses inherent in the 'neutral theory' of evolution that Darwinists are very reluctant to openly admit:
Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' being properly used is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
Further quotes on the rather embarrassing situation Darwinists now find themselves in with the 'neutral' theory:
Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing Science - Cornelius Hunter PhD. - April 2012 Excerpt: But how then could evolution proceed if mutations were just neutral? The idea was that neutral mutations would accrue until finally an earthquake, comet, volcano or some such would cause a major environmental shift which suddenly could make use of all those neutral mutations. Suddenly, those old mutations went from goat-to-hero, providing just the designs that were needed to cope with the new environmental challenge. It was another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists call upon. Too good to be true? Not for evolutionists. The neutral theory became quite popular in the literature. The idea that mutations were not brimming with cool innovations but were mostly bad or at best neutral, for some, went from an anathema to orthodoxy. And the idea that those neutral mutations would later magically provide the needed innovations became another evolutionary just-so story, told with conviction as though it was a scientific finding. Another problem with the theory of neutral molecular evolution is that it made even more obvious the awkward question of where these genes came from in the first place. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution - February 2012 Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. - Michael Behe https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/michael-behe-on-the-theory-of-constructive-neutral-evolution/ Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial - David Berlinski - November 2011 Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura's theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. "A critique of neo-Darwinism," the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, "can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science." By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/berlinski_on_darwin_on_trial053171.html Ann Gauger on genetic drift - August 2012 Excerpt: The idea that evolution is driven by drift has led to a way of retrospectively estimating past genetic lineages. Called coalescent theory, it is based on one very simple assumption — that the vast majority of mutations are neutral and have no effect on an organism’s survival. (For a review go here.) According to this theory, actual genetic history is presumed not to matter. Our genomes are full of randomly accumulating neutral changes. When generating a genealogy for those changes, their order of appearance doesn’t matter. Trees can be drawn and mutations assigned to them without regard to an evolutionary sequence of genotypes, since genotypes don’t matter. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/ann-gauger-on-genetic-drift/
At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by Darwinists in spite of the ENCODE findings of Sept. 2012, is traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno's work, in the 1950's, 60's and 70's, in population genetics:
What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583
A bit more detail on the history of the junk DNA argument, and how it was born out of evolutionary thought, is here:
Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm
bornagain77
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species - Branko Kozuli? PhD. Biochemistry Excerpt: Horizontal gene transfer is common in prokaryotes but rare in eukaryotes [89-94], so HGT cannot account for (ORFan) singletons in eukaryotic genomes, including the human genome and the genomes of other mammals.,,, The trend towards higher numbers of (ORFan) singletons per genome seems to coincide with a higher proportion of the eukaryotic genomes sequenced. In other words, eukaryotes generally contain a larger number of singletons than eubacteria and archaea.,,, That hypothesis - that evolution strives to preserve a protein domain once it stumbles upon it contradicts the power law distribution of domains. The distribution graphs clearly show that unique domains are the most abundant of all domain groups [21, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79, 82, 86, 94, 95], contrary to their expected rarity.,,, Evolutionary biologists of earlier generations have not anticipated [164, 165] the challenge that (ORFan) singletons pose to contemporary biologists. By discovering millions of unique genes biologists have run into brick walls similar to those hit by physicists with the discovery of quantum phenomena. The predominant viewpoint in biology has become untenable: we are witnessing a scientific revolution of unprecedented proportions. http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf Of Note: Branko Kozulic is on the editorial team of BioComplexity http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeamBio/23 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 Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008 Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered. http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf At the 12:40 minute mark of the following 'The Dictionary of Life' video, Dr. Nelson describes the breaking point for Darwinian scenarios from the genetic evidence: The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zJaetK9gvCo#t=760s The essential genome of a bacterium - 2011 Figure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202797/pdf/msb201158.pdfbornagain77
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
it still is a problem for evolution to account for how the indels got fixed into a population. I thought you knew neutral variants fixed at the mutation rate?. Of course, since indels change several bases you need many fewer events to explain the number of differences (and many of them are human-specific ERV insertions). I wouldn't get too excited about ORFans either...wd400
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Sal, of all the talks that you had listed of the conference this one, along with Dr. John Sanford's, was one of the two I was most interested in watching. Will you do a synapses of the Sanford talk as well? and Do you know if a video will be made available?,,, Oh never mind, you listed the link already,, http://creationicc.org/proceedings.phpbornagain77
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Sal, I help moderate r/creation on reddit if anyone would like to participate there.JoeCoder
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
The review by Dr. Jay Wile is filled with medical errors. Wile admits his lack on study of NDE's and it shows. As a physician who has studied NDE for 20 years and had these episodes described to me, Dr. Alexander had an NDE which was not an hallucination. Dr. Wile did not want to accept the thelogy presented by Alexander, who went into the episode with no religious belief. Dr. Wile commented from a Christian perspective. God is God to all religions, and theologies differ.turell
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
We really need a forum.
Would you like to help me build a forum, invited participants mostly... Salscordova
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Off topic, but creationist Dr. Jay Wile just posted a somewhat negative review of Eban Alexander's book, Proof of Heaven. We really need a forum.JoeCoder
August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply