Picture that terrifies creationists?
| February 5, 2014 | Posted by News under Culture, Genetics, Intelligent Design |
In the leadup to the Nye–Ham debate, over at Mother Jones, Chris Mooney tells us, “This Picture Has Creationists Terrified: And no wonder: It’s the most powerful evidence for evolution that you can imagine.”
Naturally, I thought they had discovered a man actually morphing into a fly.
It turns out, Mooney provides only primate gene sequences showing similar chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Which mainly shows what genetics doesn’t do.
That is, if someone wants us to know that a (frequently claimed) 98% similarity between the guy fixing a computer and the chimp throwing poop proves something, I’d say it sure does. It proves that genes are only a tiny part of the story of inheritance. Seems we got a long ways to go to understand that.
I sometimes wonder why appreciation of that fact isn’t a sort of sanity test. You should see the comments over at MJ.
Next question?
Oh, and by the way, if that’s really the most powerful evidence for (Darwinian) evolution, things are way worse over in Darwintown than we thought. We thought their hat had way more rabbits.
– O’Leary for News
PS: In fairness, some people dispute the high figures. See also: Genomics scientist Jeffrey Tompkins takes issue with BioLogos’ we are 98% chimpanzee claim
Also: Epigenetic differences between humans and chimps (vs. 98% similarity claims)
Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose
Follow UD News at Twitter!
28 Responses to Picture that terrifies creationists?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
O’Leary:
Exactly.
This is too funny as the alleged fusion occurred in the human lineage and had nothing to do with humans becoming more human, Also the alleged fusion has nothing to do with natural selection nor drift. And it is easily explained by design.
I honestly don’t know the answer to this…why do people say we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, but I also hear we only share 2% with Neanderthals? Something doesn’t seem right.
Joe @ 2
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....ome-fusion
How evolutionism explains the alleged human chromosome 2 fusion:
“It just happened and somehow became fixed.”
Related:
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....chromosome
“Summary
Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions.
Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.”
JGuy@3- According to Ken Miller that paper is wrong and the gene is 1300 base pairs away- at least that is what Ken sez at the link “most powerful evidence”- but he just sez it
Joe @ 4
I think that is a good point of interest. If it wasn’t fused (or appearing to be fused as claimed), wouldn’t it be better for the evolutionists position/claim of chimp human ancestry if the number of chromosomes between humans and chimps were identical? Methinksso… in fact, with more evaluation, this might be evidence in alignment with ReMine’s Biotic Message theory.
Joe @ 7
Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll look into it more and maybe forward it to AIG or wherever Tomkins is working.
Off topic: In the process of just now researching that, I typed in google, “Tomkins 1,300 bases away from the gene”.
Your comment was already indexed by Google!… Wow, that was fast!
terrified between yawns! 🙂
Here is a good summary of why the chromosome 2 argument does not wash – 2012
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-431951
More notes:
It’s Cherry Picking Season – July 24, 2012
Excerpt (Guy walks into a bar and thinks he is a chimp): I try to outline all the functions of telomeric repeats, but my friend tells me that I am getting off the subject.
He wants to me to focus on the ITSs, the tracks of the hexamer TTAGGG that reside within chromosome arms or around the centromere, not at the ends. I tell him that I was just coming to that topic. The story, you see, is that in the lineage leading up (or down, I forget which) to chimps and humans, a fusion of chromosome ends occurred — two telomeres became stuck together, the DNA was stitched together, and now we find the remnants of this event on the inside of chromosomes. And to be fair, I concede at this point that the 2q13 ITS site shared by chimps and humans can be considered a synapomorphy, a five-dollar cladistic term meaning a genetic marker that the two species share. As this is said, it is apparent that the countenance of my acquaintance lightens a bit only to darken a second later. For I follow up by saying that of all the known ITSs, and there are many in the genomes of chimps and humans, as well as mice and rats and cows…, the 2q13 ITS is the only one that can be associated with an evolutionary breakpoint or fusion. The other ITSs, I hasten to add, do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates (Farré M, Ponsà M, Bosch M. 2009, “Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates,” Cytogenetic and Genome Research 124(2): 128-131.). In brief, to hone in on the 2q13 ITS as being typical of what we see in the human and chimp genomes seems almost like cherry-picking data. Most are not DNA scars in the way they have been portrayed.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62491.html
Chromosome 2: The Best Evidence for Evolution? – Dr. Fazale Rana – June 2010
Excerpt: For human chromosome 2 to arise, it would have required either telomere-telomere fusion (a virtual impossibility), or fusion of an intact chromosome at its telomere with a sticky end generated when another chromosome fractured near its telomere. This type of fusion can happen, but it is a rare occurrence.
The event would have had to occur in one of the gametes (sperm and egg cells), changing the number of chromosomes. When the chromosome number in the sperm doesn’t match that of the egg , fertilization almost always results in either: (1) a nonviable zygote/embryo; (2) a viable offspring that suffers from a diseased state; or (3) a viable but infertile offspring. Again, it is possible, but extremely rare for the resulting offspring to be viable and fertile.
Finally, once the fusion took place between chimp chromosomes 2A and 2B, there would have had to have been what evolutionary biologists call a selective sweep. This event occurs when a mutation imparts such a large advantage that it rapidly sweeps through the population, becoming fixed, and reducing the genetic variability of the group.
To summarize, in order for human chromosome 2 to arise from the fusion of two chromosomes, a succession of several highly improbable events would have had to have taken place. Thus, the evolutionary account of the history of human beings seems untenable.
http://www.reasons.org/article.....-evolution
PaV, has a excellent rebuttal of evolutionist (Zimmer) claim that Chromosome 2 proved human evolution:
Let me quote Zimmer, as he quotes a 1997 paper of Carol Greider:
The mice were healthy enough to grow up and have babies. But from one generation to the next, their telomeres got shorter until they disappeared. After just four generations, the mice suffered an explosion of chromosome fusion. Their dangling DNA then began to get chewed away, damaging their genes until they became sterile.
You Darwinists are blinded by your materialist bias.
In his effort to defend himself against the charge that we can’t know for sure that human chromosome two was formed by fusion, Zimmer cites an experiment in which mice “suffered an explosion of chromosome fusion.”
And what was the outcome?
Their DNA was so damaged they became sterile.
And how do Darwinists claim that humans were formed? By chromosomal fusion.
Now, can I ask some simple questions:
Did the mice become rats? No. Did they become hens? No.
Did they become monkeys? No.
They became STERILE.
But, somehow, in the minds of great thinkers such as evolutionary biologists, THIS is the explanation of why humans are no longer apes.
Fantastic! I’m impressed.
So, instead of noticing that this article debunks his theory, desperate to salvage his hypothesis, Zimmer writes:
This experiment and other studies indicate that defective telomeres with few repeats are vulnerable to chromosome fusion. So it would be no surprise to find that a fusion between two chromosome had a low number of repeating bits of DNA.
Do you guys ever try and think things through?
Zimmer’s argument is completely demolished. And he’s the one who demolished it!!
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....6668853045
Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – October 16, 2013
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....ome-fusion
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked – Jeffrey P. Tomkins – Oct. 26, 2013
http://designed-dna.org/blog/f.....c29-86.php
Perhaps Darwinists, when they are through ‘terrifying creationists’, can actually do some real science and provide some actual proof that Darwinian processes can create a single functional gene?
I blogged about this back in July 2012- 5 months before the end of the world:
Even before the release of “Science and Human Origins” there has been an uproar over human chromosome 2, the alleged fusion of two other chromosomes (still found in other primates) and sharing a common ancestor with chimps. According to evos this was supposed to be a chromosomal fusion that occurred in some gamete and then got passed along- a random event.
However if we look at it from a design perspective the randomness disappears. Why? Chromosome/ DNA packaging and chromosome territories.
Ya see gene expression and regulation depend on both the packaging and the location of the chromosomes within the nucleus, ie chromosome territories. And if you have two different/ separate chromosomes then they can be packaged differently and ferried around separately also, meaning they can be separated and placed in different territories.
So perhaps with humans it is required that the information never be separated. And the easiest way to accomplish that was by splicing the two together. Snip off the excess and splice.*
The research would be to determine where HC2 resides in certain tissues and cells and during development and then compare with the two primate chromosomes for the same tissues/ cells and stages of development.
So HC2 is explained as a design feature, for humans. It not only helps with reproductive isolation but it also allows for a different gene expression and regulation pattern necessary for the different requirements of humans.
* it could also be that the two chimp chromosomes were the result of splitting HC2 into two separate chromosomes
JGuy, I doubt that Ken Miller even read the Tomkins paper.
I use to think the evidence for humans evolving from some chimp-like ancestor was a whole lot stronger than it has turned out to be. But, as with the misleading fusion evidence, through the years, no thanks to Darwinists, I have found it to be pathetically weak:
Evolutionists claim that:
How do they know this? What is their specific evidence? We can’t even get a bacteria to evolve into a different type of bacteria! Much less an animal into a different type of animal!
Nor do we have evidence that a fruit fly can evolve into anything but another fruit fly:
Nor does empirical evidence coupled with mathematics support that such a transition is even possible from apes to humans by Darwinian mechanisms in the first place:
In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that radical plasticity of body plans, as is required by Darwinism, is even possible:
Moreover, it is seriously questioned whether or not ‘form’ is even reducible to the reductive materialism of neo-Darwinism:
As well, the genetic evidence for the hypothesized ape to human transition is now known to not be nearly as conducive to Darwinian speculations as was/is erroneously believed in popular imagination:
Moreover, just as with the genetic evidence, the anatomy between chimps and humans is far different than most people imagine it to be:
Nor does the fossil record reveal a gradual transition between apes and humans, as Darwinists would prefer people to imagine:
In fact, the ‘march to modern man’ drawing as depicted in popular imagination (and as is ‘still’ depicted in grade school textbooks), has been known to wrong for over 60 years:
One can see that ‘artistic license’ for human evolution being played out on the following site.
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.
Here are a few more notes about the ‘artistic license’, (imagination instead of hard evidence), being the only ‘real’ support for evolution:
An Evolutionist claimed
To which I asked him: So being made ‘in the image of God’ emerged when some supposed ape ancestor to humans lost its habitat??? And since you said this ‘proves’ your point, may I be so bold as to ask you what proof you actually have that a change in environment will drive evolutionary change?
(the Evolutionist) then offered this Theistic caveat,,,
To which I responded: Well, that is just so sentimental of you to give God a little room right there at the end because you can’t seem to imagine a job for natural selection to do (never mind that natural selection can’t explain trees or monkeys (or proteins) in the first place)! I’m sure He is mighty pleased that you did not completely forget him in your just so story.,,, But may I offer word of advice from the wise wordsmith of old England?
Supplemental notes;
Verse, Quote, and Music:
@ 3 Axiomatic
“I honestly don’t know the answer to this…why do people say we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, but I also hear we only share 2% with Neanderthals? Something doesn’t seem right.”
Wow! Excellent Question! Never thought about that!
Maybe we’re missing something, but it doesn’t seem to add up.
People without recent African ancestory have ~2% neanderthal DNA in the same way you have 50% of your mother’s DNA. Not in the same way we all have DNA that has ~98% identity to that of a chimp.
In other words, if you were to randomly take wa section of your DNA and compare it to the corresponding sequence from a chimps then about 98% of the bases would be the same. On the other hand, if you don’t have recent African ancestory then 2% of your DNA descends from neanderthals.
Color me unterrified.
Let’s assume for the moment that humans had common ancestry with chimpanzees, ignoring all the lousy science. How would that affect my faith?
The answer is “not in the least.” In Genesis, God is portrayed as forming things out of other things. In fact, it would surprise me if God didn’t have a “genetic library” including genetic backup systems such as demonstrated in Galapagos finches. Also, I think homologous structures are excellent: theme and variation designed for broad adaptation to extreme and changing conditions! What a great designer!
I used to wonder about Genesis, where it says that among animals, God’s first creations were birds and fish.
Birds? Aren’t birds supposed to be much more highly evolved? Well yes, unless of course, God thought of dinosaurs as large birds . . .
And humans were created on the same day as other land animals, similar but with the exception that God apparently equipped us for a unique role and a unique niche on the planet: ecology and planetary curation.
Nice! 🙂
-Q
wd400 claims:
That claim is false:
etc.. etc..
To 3&18, (from wikipedia, Neanderthal Genome Project. I am not an expert)
“According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[5] (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 98% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)”
Why that picture should terrify evolutionists-
Blind watchmaker evolution cannot explain chromosomes. The best it can do is say “Look at that. Now let’s find some ad hoc naturalistic narrative.”
Anyone else who read the title of this article think,
“Disprove Creationism with this one weird trick!”?
As to what should truly terrify Darwinists,,, I posted on this earlier this week but think it bears worth repeating, since in regards to terror, Darwinists seem to have their priorities severely misplaced:
Two Very Different Eternities Revealed To Us By Physics:
Well, to borrow Tipler’s term (but not his ideas), in so far as the “Physics of Immortality” are concerned, I’ve found black holes to lend strong support for the Theistic contention of eternal life after death. In Theism, particularly Christian Theism, it is held that there are two ultimate destinies for our eternal souls. Heaven or Hell! And in physics we find two very different ‘eternities’ just as Theism has held for millenia. One eternity in physics is found ‘if’ a hypothetical observer were to accelerate to the speed of light. In this scenario time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for the hypothetical observer. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Some may think that time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light is pure science fiction, but, as incredible as it sounds, Einstein’s infamous thought experiment has many lines of evidence now supporting it.
This following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film
(of note: light travels approximately 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise it would simply be ‘frozen in time’. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Moreover, we have ‘observational’ evidence that corroborates what our physics is telling us in that people who have had deep Judeo-Christian Near Death Experiences (NDEs) report both ‘eternity’ and traveling through the tunnel to a higher dimension:
Moreover, as with special relativity, in General Relativity we find that temporal time slows down the further down in a gravitational well a person is:
As well, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any ‘hypothetical’ observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. This is because the accelerative force of gravity at black holes is so intense that not even light can escape its grip:
But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes,, it is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness/Chaos), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternity of time’ at black holes can rightly be described as ‘eternities of decay and/or eternities of destruction’.
i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of a ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!
It is also interesting to note that Gravity, despite intense effort, refuses to be unified with Quantum Mechanics:
In light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and special relativity, i.e. QED, with Gravity, I consider the preceding nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:
Supplemental notes:
Verse and Music:
To Axiomatic and tjguy (3&18) and myself since I forgot all about it…
I am rereading Chris Stringer’s ‘The Origin of our Species’. On page 192 he explains the 2%. It appears that people from Europe, Asia and New Guinea have a genome that is slightly closer to the Neanderthal genome than the genome of African individuals is to the Neanderthal genome.
The most likely explanation? Interbreeding. The amount is estimated at around 2%.