Human-Chimp Genomic Differences

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

One of the most popular evidences proclaimed for evolution in recent years is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The cousin genomes are about 99% similar and this has repeatedly been expounded as an obvious proof text of evolution. But these comparisons did not include the finicky Y chromosome which only recently has been decoded from the chimp genome. These new results show an entirely different picture. Read more

Comments

Mammal hair hasn't changed much like scales haven't changed much. (except when on one lineage where the scales formed hairs.). Or like the porcupine where hairs make quills, or on the rhino, where hairs made the horn. It's all tiny scales. :)Fross_{May 22, 2010
May
05
May
22
22
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PST}

Biblical creationism should have no problem with mans likeness to apes. A line of reasoning. We are made in the image of God. Then we are put into creation. this means either our image in creation represents our God image or a natural image within the boundaries of nature. Surely the latter. God simply put us into the best body for a being(in his image) that could be found on earth. Simply. What else would we look like? what other type of body on earth would be better? The ape body is the best one for a unique being to enjoy and rule creation. We have not only eyes, ears, head, and legs like everyone (which God doesn't) but we fit within the line of best to worst. As a biblical creationist I welcome all genetic sameness with apes as can be got! We are different because of a few differences. yet we have surely got the ape body save with dignified manipulations. Yet this is not evidence of biological relationship. We are not related.Robert Byers_{May 22, 2010
May
05
May
22
22
2010
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST}

This may interest you Dr. Hunter: from breaking the second code: Canadian Team Develops Alternative Splicing Code from Mouse Tissue Data Excerpt: “Our method takes as an input a collection of exons and surrounding intron sequences and data profiling how those exons are spliced in different tissues,” Frey and his co-authors wrote. “ The method assembles a code that can predict how a transcript will be spliced in different tissues. http://www.genomeweb.com/informatics/canadian-team-develops-alternative-splicing-code-mouse-tissue-data it seems clear that a “unique higher level programming code of active information” is deciphered by their methodology for each species by taking into consideration the entirety of exon and intron sequence dissimilarity found between species. Indeed Evolution News and Views comments: Nature Reports Discovery of "Second Genetic Code" But Misses Intelligent Design Implications Excerpt: One of the most beautiful aspects of the genetic code is its simplicity: three letters of DNA combine in 64 different ways, easily spelled out in a handy table, to encode the 20 standard amino acids that combine to form a protein.,,,, This time there is no simple table — in its place are algorithms that combine more than 200 different features of DNA with predictions of RNA structure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/nature_reports_discovery_of_se.html so I looked around to see if I could find a paper on the differences of intron-exon organization to see if a completely unique regulatory code, set apart from chimps, would be forthcoming for humans and found: Patterns of exon-intron architecture variation of genes in eukaryotic genomes - 2009 Excerpt: However, the relationship between intron length and GC content appears to be complicated. Gazave et al. [7] showed that there was a strong negative correlation among intron length and GC content and divergence in primates, whereas Haddrill et al. [18] found that the class of long introns had higher GC content and lower divergence than that of short introns in fruit fly. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/47 Though the preceding article was fairly humorous in the authors liberal use of evolutionary just so stories for why this or that feature was as different, or similar, as it was to other genomes, I was still stuck by how many surprises they encountered in the differences of exon-intron architecture. Hopefully the Canada team that "broke the code" in the mouse genome will move up to the chimp and human genomes and give the evolutionists some real headaches with a code that is 100% completely unique for each species's genome deciphered.bornagain77_{May 21, 2010
May
05
May
21
21
2010
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PST}

off topic song: This music video starts off slow but ends up giving a punch: You Are The Music In Me http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=70e8bdd99697a29718d8bornagain77_{May 21, 2010
May
05
May
21
21
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

semi off topic hot off the press: CSI 100 million years BC: oldest mammalian hair found: Excerpt:The oldest sample of mammalian hair ever found has been retrieved from a 100-million-year-old lump of amber. The scales on the hair – which provide its protective waterproof cover – are identical to those found on the hairs of mammals walking the Earth today.",,, It turns out that the pattern is identical to that found on modern mammalian hair: rows of overlapping scales stacked on top of each other in an orderly fashion, with each row roughly 2 to 8 micrometres high.,,,"It shows the microstructure of hairs of mammals have always been the same." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18937-csi-100-million-years-bc-oldest-mammalian-hair-found.html Let's see mammals popped out of evolutionary wonderland about 100 million years ago, and the reason given for why the stunning lack of change in mammal hair by the researchers, during that entire time, is,,,,, "Perhaps mammalian hair does its job so well that it does not need to evolve." That is not a scientific explanation for why it remained unchanged, that is a excuse similar to what you would expect from a six-year old child for something broken in the house.bornagain77_{May 21, 2010
May
05
May
21
21
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST}

Cornelius, RE: your concluding paragraph, here are David Belinski's comments in "The Deniable Darwin":
An inversion of life's fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evolutionary biologists with few difficulties. Various organisms try various things. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever, an interesting example of a Darwinian mechanism in the development of Darwinian thought itself. A comparison with geology is instructive. No geological theory makes it possible to specify a particular mountain's shape; but the underlying process of upthrust and crumbling is well understood, and geologists can specify something like a mountain's generic shape...The theory of evolution, by contrast, in incapable of ruling anything out of court...But a theory that can confront any contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control of the facts is an illusion.
I can't resist one additional comment. Have biologists now concluded, then, that human females are very similar to chimp females, but we males are far more evolved? :-)Granville Sewell_{May 21, 2010
May
05
May
21
21
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply