Chinese Researchers Demolish Evolutionary Pseudo-Science

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 4, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In recent decades the genomes of several species have been mapped out and evolutionists are using these genome data to refine their theory. They are also making some high claims. The genome data sets, say evolutionists, are adding striking new confirmations for their theory. One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from a chimp-human common ancestor. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains: Read more

Comments

I think there is a difference between a new protein and one that is just a small variation of a previous protein. A new protein requires the design of new DNA sequences whereas a modified protein is just a change in an existing sequence.
But then, if current theories regarding the origins of orphan genes from transcription of mutated non-coding regions are correct, there is no such thing as a 'new protein'. RoyRoy_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

CuriousCat @ 5: (First, welcome to UD. Fairly new here myself.)
I find the following statement interesting. [referencing inactive egg yolk gene in placental mammals.]
Sure this is interesting and could be evidence for evolutionary theory. But it does not preclude design - since the placental mammal doesn't need to produce egg yolk, this gene was deactivated. The bigger question from Dr Hunter @ OP is how can evolutionary theory explain the 60 new protein-coding genes found in humans.Piltdown2_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

I think there is a difference between a new protein and one that is just a small variation of a previous protein. A new protein requires the design of new DNA sequences whereas a modified protein is just a change in an existing sequence.Mapou_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

What have you got to say about that, Roy? ‘Gee up, Trigger! Let’s vamoose’, is not an appropriate response. Your feet need to be held to the fire, since your post was so embarrassingly discredited.
What planet are you on?Roy_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Though Darwinists love to claim this as a ‘new’ protein. The simple fact is that is the same exact enzyme/protein, esterase, with only a minor variation on its previous enzymatic activity:
If you want to claim that it is not a new protein, you would do better to avoid quotes that refer to it as 'newly evolved'. If you want to claim that it's the same exact enzyme you'd do better to avoid citing a paper that goes into detail about how the original and new enzymes differ. And if you want to claim that the variation in activity is minor, you would do better to avoid citing a paper that states that hydrolytic activity is "significantly enhanced". But I suppose this is the price you pay for trying to use sources that you haven't bothered to read. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, your second extract, which describes the new enzyme in terms of amino-acid substitutions, contradicts your first extract which characterises it as a frame-shift mutation. Or maybe they're discussing two different enzymes? Perhaps you should do your homework a little better. In any case, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on my point unless you can also show that the new proteins Dr Hunter is referring to differ more from their predecessors than the nylonase enzymes differ from theirs. I very much doubt you can do that. RoyRoy_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

What have you got to say about that, Roy? 'Gee up, Trigger! Let's vamoose', is not an appropriate response. Your feet need to be held to the fire, since your post was so embarrassingly discredited.Axel_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

One of my favorite bits of number juggling goes something like-- Clouds are 98% water. Jellyfish are 98% water. So are jellyfish the same as clouds? It's what's in the 2% that matters. It's what makes them different.mahuna_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

First post here, so hello world! :) I find the following statement interesting, from a science philosophical point of view: "..why humans (and other placental mammals) have a defective gene for making egg yolk in the exact spot in our genomes where chickens have the functional version of this gene.." I guess the question here boils down to something like the following. Is a theory which explains(*) the above observation but cannot be rejected by observations deemed scientific? BTW, I do not suggest that neo-Darwinism can explain all observations, or it has no falsifiability (so I do not take sides); but I believe this is a nice demonstration of one of the key points on which Darwinism-ID debate is based. (*) The word "explain" here needs further elaboration I guess. I think it may be approximately formulated as the following: Neo-Darwinian process produces a certain set of outcomes (defective gene in ALL mammals in the EXACT spot, though functional in only a subset of mammals) at a higher probability than a random process (hence, it simply says "expect the unexpected"). That's why, I think, such an observation seems "supportive" for Darwinism. It is true that it does not predict the frequency of these certain events (therefore not a highly testable theory), nevertheless it (implicitly) suggests that the probability of the occurrence of these events is higher than what we would expect if there were no such underlying mechanism.CuriousCat_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Nylon Eating Bacteria: NOT NEW INFORMATION - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkNmfA09cGgbornagain77_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Roy you state that: "Since the new protein nylonase evolved in less than 60 years, you are out by 8 orders of magnitude." Actually you better do your homework a little better: Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design - William Dembski Excerpt: "the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions." https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/ Though Darwinists love to claim this as a 'new' protein. The simple fact is that is the same exact enzyme/protein, esterase, with only a minor variation on its previous enzymatic activity: “Mutational analysis of 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase: Relationship between nylon oligomer hydrolytic and esterolytic activities” Excerpt: “Based upon the following findings, we propose that the nylon oligomer hydrolase has newly evolved through amino acid substitutions in the catalytic cleft of a pre-existing esterase with the b-lactamase-fold”. Taku Ohkia, Yoshiaki Wakitania, Masahiro Takeoa, Kengo Yasuhiraa, Naoki Shibatab, Yoshiki Higuchib, Seiji Negoroa FEBS Letters 580 (2006) 5054–5058 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-the-demarcation-problem/comment-page-12/#comment-362219bornagain77_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter, although the 99% genetically similar figure is still bandied about on the internet, even the 95% figure you quote is far too generous. Supposed genetic similarity between chimps and humans has probably been the most manipulated and abused piece of evidence that Darwinists put forth (which is really saying something considering their abuse of all the other evidence). ,,, First let's focus on what Darwinian processes can actually explain in terms of genetic differences:
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 More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/
Now to actual genetic differences. Dr. Sternberg highlights the potential for abuse here:
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – 2009 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
In late 2011 Jeffrey P. Tomkins, using an extremely conservative approach, (and not nearly as much bias as Darwinists have) reached the figure of 87% similarity:
Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89% – Jeffrey P. Tomkins – December 28, 2011 Excerpt: A common claim that is propagated through obfuscated research publications and popular evolutionary science authors is that the DNA of chimpanzees or chimps (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) is about 98–99% similar. A major problem with nearly all past human-chimp comparative DNA studies is that data often goes through several levels of pre-screening, filtering and selection before being aligned, summarized, and discussed. Non-alignable regions are typically omitted and gaps in alignments are often discarded or obfuscated. In an upcoming paper, Tomkins and Bergman (2012) discuss most of the key human-chimp DNA similarity research papers on a case-by-case basis and show that the inclusion of discarded data (when provided) actually suggests a DNA similarity for humans and chimps not greater than 80–87% and quite possibly even less. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/blastin
Then earlier this year, 2013, with better resolution of data, and still using an extremely conservative approach (I don't even think he included ORFan genes in his comparison), Tomkins reached the figure of 70% genetic similarity between chimps and humans:
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
And though you quote the 60 ORFan gene paper DR. Hunter, the actual number of ORFan genes in humans is far higher than that figure: 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, and that very well may directly code for proteins, 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!
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.,,, 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
Jerry Coyne, the grand inquisitor of Darwinism himself, states that 6% of genes are ORFans:
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. - per ENV
Helen Pilcher, also no friend of ID, states that up to a third of genes in each new genome sequenced are ORFan genes
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story – 16 January 2013 – Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these “orphan genes” are high achievers (are just as essential as ‘old’ genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn’t be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven’t-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, “the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero”.,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf
lifespy, in this following video, conservatively guessed that 20% of genes in humans are probably ORFan:
Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY
Branko Kozuli PhD points out that the problem of ORFan genes is getting worse and worse for evolutionists with every new genome sequenced, with no resolution in sight:
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
So how many ORFan genes are actually in humans, nobody really knows the exact number yet. One thing is certain though, Darwinian presuppositions have been a major hindrance in elucidating the true genetic similarity/dissimilarity between humans and chimps!bornagain77_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

In fact, 6 billion years would not be enough time. The evolution of a single new protein, even by evolutionists’ incredibly optimistic assumptions, is astronomically unlikely, even given the entire age of the universe to work on the problem.
Since the new protein nylonase evolved in less than 60 years, you are out by 8 orders of magnitude. That is impressive, but not a record, since Lee Strobel's claims regarding the known precision of the cosmological constant are out by thirty orders of magnitude. Try harder. RoyRoy_{January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply