Intelligent Design

Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

Spread the love

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.  Read more

26 Replies to “Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Related notes:

    Another area of evidence for common descent that has fallen completely apart is the genetic similarity evidence between chimps and humans.,, First, (as is clearly conveyed by Dr. Hunter in this article), it is found that the genetic similarity one derives is highly subjective to ‘various methodological factors’

    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/2.....think.html

    Even ignoring the (very) subjective bias of ‘various methodological factors’ that Darwinists introduce into these similarity studies, the first inkling, at least for me, that something was terribly amiss with the oft quoted 99% similarity figure was this,,,

    Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows – 2002
    Excerpt: Genetic studies for decades have estimated that humans and chimpanzees possess genomes that are about 98.5 percent similar. In other words, of the three billion base pairs along the DNA helix, nearly 99 of every 100 would be exactly identical.
    However, new work by one of the co-developers of the method used to analyze genetic similarities between species says the figure should be revised downward to 95 percent.
    http://www.caltech.edu/content.....arch-shows

    and then this in 2004,,,

    Chimps are not like humans – May 2004
    Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said.
    http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm

    this caught my eye in 2008,,,

    Chimpanzee?
    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
    http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf

    And then this caught my eye in 2011:

    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/2.....47041.html

    In late 2011 Jeffrey P. Tomkins, using an extremely conservative approach by the way, 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.or.....n1/blastin

    Genomic monkey business – similarity re-evaluated using omitted data – by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman
    Excerpt: A review of the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications.,,,
    Based on the analysis of data provided in various publications, including the often cited 2005 chimpanzee genome report, it is safe to conclude that human–chimp genome similarity is not more than ~87% identical, and possibly not higher than 81%. These revised estimates are based on relevant data omitted from the final similarity estimates typically presented.,,,
    Finally, a very recent large-scale human–chimp genome comparison research report spectacularly confirms the data presented in this report. The human–chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact.
    http://creation.com/human-chim.....-evaluated

    Then earlier this year, 2013, with better resolution of data, and still using an extremely conservative approach, 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.or.....chromosome

    Though outliers, I’ve even found studies for percent similarity figures between chimps and humans as low as 62%,,

    A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps – September 2010
    Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-chimps/

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    and even as low as 49%

    Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
    Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

    Moreover the gene count is ‘unexpectedly’ now known to be broadly similar across species, even at the most ‘primitive’ level:

    More Questions for Evolutionists – August 2010
    Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacteria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....utionists/

    and even the Zebrafish is similar in gene count to humans,,

    Family Ties: Completion of Zebrafish Reference Genome Yields Strong Comparisons With Human Genome – Apr. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Researchers demonstrate today that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....131725.htm

    and even Kangaroos and opossums had a surprise when looking at genetic similarity,,

    First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007
    Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
    The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.....m-dna.html

    Yet what accounts for such drastic differences in the morphology of species if the gene count is basically the same across species? Alternative splicing does. But, much contrary to overall gene count similarity, alternative splicing is found to be ‘species specific’ and very different between even what were thought to be closely related species:

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    The mouse is not enough – February 2011
    Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”
    http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/

    This finding is far more devastating than Darwinists would like to let on.. ,,,The reason why finding very different alternative splicing codes between closely related species is so devastating to (bottom up) neo-Darwinian evolution is partly seen by understanding ‘Shannon Channel Capacity’:

    “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
    Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

    Shannon Information – Channel Capacity – Perry Marshall – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/

    But perhaps the best way to understand why this is so devastating to (bottom up) neo-Darwinian evolution is by taking a look at ‘ontogenetic depth’,,,

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough to the 99% similarity myth, orphan genes are now being found in each new genome that is sequenced:

    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/w.....n_2013.pdf

    Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed ‘non-answer’ from Darwinists) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY

    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-conte.....genome.pdf

    The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....vCo#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/pm.....201158.pdf

    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

    No indeed,,, especially with this present article from Dr. Hunter, I’m not nearly as inclined to accept the genetic similarity evidence for common ancestry as I once was. And considering that the recent ENCODE study in Sept. 2012, which found 80% plus functionality for the genome, is calling for a redefinition of the entire concept of a ‘gene’, I don’t ever see changing my mind in the future towards the fact that the 99% genetic similarity figure, as far as our best science is telling us, is now completely overthrown:

    Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012
    Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....11233.html

    Demise of the Gene – September 19, 2012
    Excerpt: Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the (RNA) transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64371.html

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    To add insult to injury, RNA transcripts appear to be even more uncooperative towards alignment for similarity than Genes have turned out to be:

    Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution – Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. – Elie Dolgin – 27 June 2012
    Excerpt: “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. “…they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist – Kevin Peterson)
    Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says.
    Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong.
    http://www.nature.com/news/phy.....on-1.10885

    footnote, and we haven’t even mapped the entire genome yet, much less decoded it:

    Ten years on, still much to be learned from human genome map – April 12, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,”What’s more, about 10 percent of the human genome still hasn’t been sequenced and can’t be sequenced by existing technology, Green added. “There are parts of the genome we didn’t know existed back when the genome was completed,” he said.,,,
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....enome.html

    Verse and Music:

    Acts 3:15
    You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

    Evanescence – lies
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRk

  5. 5
    JLAfan2001 says:

    The similarity has NOT been refuted. It has not been accepted by people who’s faith won’t let them accept it.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    JLAfan2001 you state:

    “The similarity has NOT been refuted.”

    JLAfan2001, if you really are determined to perpetuate the 99% similarity myth between chimps and humans, perhaps you should drop a note to Jerry Coyne to stop stating stuff like the following:

    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.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60271.html

  7. 7
    sixthbook says:

    @JLAfan2001:
    And your faith in evolution seems to be making you reject anything that contradicts your faith. This is case in point.

  8. 8
    Optimus says:

    JLA @ 5
    I don’t think Cornelius’ article is denying DNA similarity – who would deny that there are similarities in genes shared among different species? The point he’s getting at, and I emphatically agree, is that the stubbornly persistent problem of phylogenetic incongruence (i.e. disagreement) gets worse the more data becomes available. That’s of incredible consequence. To phrase it another way, as more empirical data is collected, the hypothetical construct (i.e. the phylogeny) becomes more unstable! What if the conflict isn’t due to lateral gene transfer, too much data, too many species, wrong choice of genes sampled, molecular convergence, etc.? What if the conflict is so persistent because the underlying assumption, that all species have a common ancestor, is false? At what point does this simple explanation become more parsimonious than appealing everything under the sun to explain away the data? Cornelius did a good job with this post, and you should read the abstracts that he links to in his article before casually blowing off what he wrote.

  9. 9
    DonaldM says:

    This is of a piece with this recent discussion we had here on phylogentics. It appears systematics is falling on hard times, too, then. We know evolution is a “fact, Fact, FACT!” But pay no attention to that fact that every single mechanism that supposedly drives evolution is fraught with difficulties and controversies (including the Big One – Natural Selection) and as Dr. Hunter points out, even the methods of determining evolutionary relationships aren’t making any sense either, unless one “massages” (read “bluffs”) the data. It was only last week that PZ Myers assured us that “there is controversy” about evolution. Guess PZ isn’t keeping up with the latest developments in his own field.

    I can’t help but wonder what sort of “trees” would result if instead of trying to force the data into the common descent mold, instead we tried to look at the same data through the lens of common design. What relationships might that yield and what might that tell us about the over all Design Plan so inherent in all of biological systems? Clearly the common descent theme isn’t working. Let’s try common design for a bit and see where that leads.

  10. 10
    DonaldM says:

    Oops..typo in my last post. I wrote “It was only last week that PZ Myers assured us that “there is controversy” about evolution.” I meant “It was only last week that PZ Myers assured us that “there is NO controversy” about evolution. Sorry about that!

  11. 11
    DonaldM says:

    Optimus in #8

    What if the conflict is so persistent because the underlying assumption, that all species have a common ancestor, is false? At what point does this simple explanation become more parsimonious than appealing everything under the sun to explain away the data?

    Excellent question! Let us know when you get an excellent answer from a Darwinian.

  12. 12
    JLAfan2001 says:

    Optimus

    The data isn’t being explained away. The data is being misrepresented by creationists. The similarities in our DNA with chimps line up nicely with what the fossil record shows. That’s good phylogenetics. This evidence, and many more like it, is what’s killing creationists/IDists so they make it look like there’s a problem where there is none. PZ is right. The only controversy that exists is from people who can’t stand the truth.

    DonaldM

    “I can’t help but wonder what sort of “trees” would result if instead of trying to force the data into the common descent mold, instead we tried to look at the same data through the lens of common design. What relationships might that yield and what might that tell us about the over all Design Plan so inherent in all of biological systems? Clearly the common descent theme isn’t working. Let’s try common design for a bit and see where that leads.”

    This doesn’t even make sense. How can you tell if the similarities in the DNA are from common design or common descent? How would you group them in terms of design and not descent if the DNA are the EXACT same as they are now? Wouldn’t you come up with the same tree or would the DNA magically change because we are comparing design and not descent?

    sixthbrook

    You are rejecting the evidence so you can keep your faith. I can see the evidence but can you see your faith?

    BA77

    Get some new quotes, will you.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    JLAfan2001, the faith driven dogmatist claims:;

    ‘The similarities in our DNA with chimps line up nicely with what the fossil record shows.’

    yet,,

    It may surprise some people to learn that the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution does not exist save for in the fertile imagination of those who have been misled by, or dogmatically believe in, the Darwinian myths:

    “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
    Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

    Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research – Feb. 6, 2013
    Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.
    ,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus.
    http://crev.info/2013/02/paleo.....hoddiness/

    When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
    Richard Lewontin – “Human Diversity”, pg.163 (Scientific American Library, 1995) – Harvard Zoologist

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
    Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001)

    Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say? – Casey Luskin – July 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, far from supplying “a nice clean example” of “gradualistic evolutionary change,” the record reveals a dramatic discontinuity between ape-like and human-like fossils. Human-like fossils appear abruptly in the record, without clear evolutionary precursors, making the case for human evolution based on fossils highly speculative.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61771.html

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    Double Standards and a Single Variable – Casey Luskin – August 2012
    Excerpt: (arguments) revolving around a single variable (brain size) which he claims (wrongly) shows smooth, gradual evolution. Even if this variable did evolve smoothly, I provide an extensive discussion in my chapter of why that would not demonstrate that humans share a common ancestor with apes. McBride fails to engage my discussion of the evolution of brain size, ignoring my arguments why skulls of “intermediate” size demonstrate very little. And as we’ll see in a further article, the authorities he relies upon to claim that the evolution of cranial capacities displays a “lack of discontinuity” in fact argue that there is great discontinuity — including “punctuational changes” and “saltation” — in the hominin fossil record as it pertains to skull size.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63661.html

    As to the supposed ‘skull evidence’ in which Darwinists have lined up skulls which give the false impression of progression from apes to man, I would like to point out this little known fact:

    Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? – February 2011
    Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years,
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....arter.html

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    After looking through the ‘fossil evidence’ for human evolution, it seems to me that the most suggestive thing evolutionists have for proving to us ‘the fact that humans evolved from apes’, as they adamantly claim, are the infamous cartoon drawings that show a ape slowly evolving into man. Yet we find ‘artistic license’ to be rampant in these ape-men reconstructions:

    Paleoanthropology
    Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
    “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
    http://conservapedia.com/Evolu.....thropology

    “National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow.”
    “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140

    One can see that ‘artistic license’ for human evolution being played out on the following site.

    10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013
    http://listverse.com/2013/03/1.....evolution/

    Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists’ reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions have no clue whatsoever as to what the colors of the eyes, of these supposed transitional fossils, actually were.

    “alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public”
    Earnest A. Hooton – physical anthropologist – Harvard University

  14. 14
    DonaldM says:

    JLAFan in #12

    This doesn’t even make sense. How can you tell if the similarities in the DNA are from common design or common descent? How would you group them in terms of design and not descent if the DNA are the EXACT same as they are now? Wouldn’t you come up with the same tree or would the DNA magically change because we are comparing design and not descent?

    You completely missed the point of post. You did notice I put the word “trees” in quotes, right? That was for a reason. But, I do find it quite interesting that you ask “How can you tell if the similarities in the DNA are from common design or common descent?” Precisely. My point is exactly that there is no principled scientific way to eliminate common design and save common ancestry. CA is preserved as scientific for philosophical (ie worldview) considerations only. The trees are built on homologies and it is just assumed that the homologies exist because of common ancestry. And how do we know that CA is actual…well, because we have all these homologies. And, we wouldn’t have homologies if it was from common design? We know this scientifically how?

    Optimus was dead on! The trees are all messed up because the data is being interpreted through the wrong lens. Try the Design lens instead and see where that leads.

    Here’s a scientific challenge for you, JLFan…provide a purely scientific way to eliminate common design as an explanation for homologies. No philosophy, no metaphysics, no theology (ie God wouldn’t have done it that way)…just science.

  15. 15
    wd400 says:

    Donald,

    If you read the paper you’ll see they conclude that the gene-trees displayed similar (but not identical) topologies, so they genes have experience similar histories. The problem is specifically about reconstructing short inter-nodes in ancient phylogenies. It’s a well known problem, but this paper will be helpful as it makes it clear this is one where simply throwing more data at it doesn’t provide a solution.

    As for the common-design business, why do trees estimated from non-functional DNA recover very similar topologies as those derived from functional sequences?

  16. 16
    sixthbook says:

    JLAfan:
    “How can you tell if the similarities in the DNA are from common design or common descent?”
    You are right. Similarity can be evidence of both. Too bad this isnt being taught in schools where similarity is said to be proof of common descent. Maybe some academic freedom bills would fix that…

    “Wouldn’t you come up with the same tree or would the DNA magically change because we are comparing design and not descent?”
    Depending on your assumptions you can get radically different trees. If you assume common descent you will result in a single tree of life. If you assume separate creation of the kinds you will get an orchard of life. If you assume fixity of species you will get a whole ton of straight sticks.

  17. 17
    Optimus says:

    JLA:

    The data isn’t being explained away. The data is being misrepresented by creationists. The similarities in our DNA with chimps line up nicely with what the fossil record shows. That’s good phylogenetics. This evidence, and many more like it, is what’s killing creationists/IDists so they make it look like there’s a problem where there is none. PZ is right. The only controversy that exists is from people who can’t stand the truth.

    Rebuttal:

    “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”
    Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats.

    “Phylogenomic analysis of 1,070 orthologues from 23 yeast genomes identified 1,070 distinct gene trees, which were all incongruent with the phylogeny inferred from concatenation. Incongruence severity increased for shorter internodes located deeper in the phylogeny.”
    Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals.

    “With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree.”
    Biologists Herve Philippe and Patrick Forterre

    “No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”
    Late biologist Carl Woese

    “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”
    Eric Baptiste as quoted in New Scientist

    “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
    Evolutionary Biologist Michael Rose

    Did creationists somehow compel these researchers to make these statements? Who is it exactly that can’t stand the truth?

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    This statement an evolutionists made in the last paragraph of Dr. Hunter’s post is simply unbelievable:

    As one evolutionist explained, “if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering.

    In no other branch of science would such rampant, overt, massaging of data be tolerated. It is no exaggeration at all to say that it would literally cost careers and ruin reputations of anyone in the fields of physics, chemistry, and/or engineering, if anyone in those fields were to ever be found to be consistently ‘massaging’ the data. Please note, that Darwinists not only massage the way in which the data was gathered so that it would always give them their desired conclusion but now they are ‘recommending that everyone massage the data afterwards so as to give a desired conclusion.,,, It is simply unbelievable that this sort of practice is tolerated. ,,, As well Please note, all the while real ‘un-massaged’ evidence, which should be respected far more than this present tripe we are looking at, is always ignored by Darwinists. For instance this recent ‘un-massaged’ evidence that Darwinists will either ignore or will ridicule:

    Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. * – May 31, 2013
    Excerpt: A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.,,
    These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!
    More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!
    Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome.
    Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different(70% indentity).5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7526/

  19. 19
    Joe says:

    wd400:

    As for the common-design business, why do trees estimated from non-functional DNA recover very similar topologies as those derived from functional sequences?

    In a universal common descent scenario why would non-functional DNA stay intact enough to be used for a genetic marker, all the while changes are going on all around it?

    It doesn’t make any sense. So perhaps those sequences are functional.

  20. 20
    uoflcard says:

    JLA:

    The similarities in our DNA with chimps line up nicely with what the fossil record shows. That’s good phylogenetics. This evidence, and many more like it, is what’s killing creationists/IDists so they make it look like there’s a problem where there is none

    If you think phylogenetically proving evolutionary ancestry relations disproves ID, then you don’t know what ID is arguing. It’s not surprising, though, since I can count on both hands the number of times I have seen a Darwinist honestly engage the core ID argument. Why you think your worldview has a monopoly on evolution (in any form – i.e. if you prove evolution happened at all, then Darwinism explains why it happened by default), I have no idea.

  21. 21
    Alan Fox says:

    …the core ID argument

    That sounds as if there is a core ID argument (apart from evolution sucks, that is).

    Can you summarize it?

  22. 22
    Alan Fox says:

    I hear Behe accepts an old earth, common descent and microevolution with some tweaking.

    Dembski seems equivocal on the age of the Earth and presumably, having called this site Uncommon Descent, rejects common descent.

    Are you sure there is just one core ID argument? It seems most ID proponents have a different version. Sort of natural variation! 😉

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    That sounds as if there is a core ID argument (apart from evolution sucks, that is).

    There is and ID is not anti-evolution so it doesn’t say “evolution sucks”.

    BTW Alan, not all evos agree on everything. Heck not one evo can tell us much of anything anyway, so it really doesn’t matter if they agree or not.

    >I hear Behe accepts an old earth, common descent and microevolution with some tweaking.

    Age of the earth has nothing to do with ID. Universal common descent has nothing to do with ID.

    Geez for someone who has allegedly followed ID for 8 years, you sure are ignorant as to what it says, even though there is plenty of literture explaining ID.

  24. 24
    Joe says:

    ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    Alan Fox, as usual, has nothing to offer.

    Anything relevant to the OP Alan?

    Anything at all?

  26. 26
    Mung says:

    wd400:

    It’s a well known problem, but this paper will be helpful as it makes it clear this is one where simply throwing more data at it doesn’t provide a solution.

    lol

    Why not?

    The data is not informative.

    No amount of additional information will be sufficient to change the original assessment.

    blah blah blah Evolution is True!

Leave a Reply