From the Biologic Institute, “A Facebook Dialogue”

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 12, 2012

News}

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

Ann Gauger posted an amusing facebook dialogue on the blog of the Biologic Institute: “Sometimes it might be a good idea to actually read what ID proponents write before critiquing it.” Click here to read the rest.

Comments

Nick @ 35,43 What distinguishes using DNA in forensics or paternity testing from using it to infer phylogenetic relationships is that the former cases possess sufficient empirical warrant whereas the latter does not. We have abundant, incontrovertible evidence that gives us good reason to use DNA similarities WITHIN a species to infer relationships. Descent with modification is an observed fact in that limited context. However, to apply that same reasoning to trace out phylogenetic relationships is problematic. There is good reason to suspect that Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are not robust enough to account for the major changes that would be a part of the contiuous spectrum view of biology. No breeding experiment has ever shown a species to have the plasticity needed to make radical changes to its muscular, skeletal, reproductive, cardio-pulmonary, digestive, or nervous system whilst still maintaining (or even improving) fitness. Thus, the bare fact that humans and chimps have considerable similarity in their genomes (pick whatever percentage you fancy) is not sufficient to establish their evolutionary relatedness, much less so the mechanism responsible for such relatedness. In fact, it's entirely possible that at some point in the future biology will progress to the point where human engineers could synthesize biological systems. This engineered life could possess genetic similarity to "natural" forms of life. What, then, would we make of genetic similarity arguments in that case?Optimus_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
It doesn’t alter the fact that comparing DNA sequences is done by… …comparing DNA sequences.
What a genius. That's your rebuttal?Mung_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Well, Alan, I see neither you nor Nick saw fit to answer my question:
If a relationship is in question, and you have suggested DNA testing for additional evidence, you must identify the specific genetic relationship to be tested. It is not sufficiently specific for you to ask whether two people are "related;" rather, you must indicate how you think they may be related - parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, siblings, etc. here
Now just how does that work for humans, chimps, and their alleged common ancestor (for whom you have no DNA sample)? Who's your momma? If you send in a sample of your DNA and a sample of DNA from a chimp and ask if the two of you are cousins, you think the answer is going to be yes? (Who knows, maybe it would be.)Mung_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

So what happened Alan? Did you really think I was totally wrong and when you bothered to looked it up found out I was correct? LoL!Joe_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

LoL! You don't know what a nested hierarchy is. But thanks for admitting that I am correct and that you and Nick are deceivers.Joe_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Sure, joe. It doesn't alter the fact that comparing DNA sequences is done by... ...comparing DNA sequences. It is valid as a method for matching forensic samples to suspects, individuals to relatives and organisms into nested hierarchies.Alan Fox_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

And you are just determined to be a pimple on the arse of progress. Congratulations, I would say that you have made it.Joe_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Jee whizz, Joe, I take my hat off to you! You are determined to outshine mung!Alan Fox_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Same process, different sequences of DNA. That means the DNA testing is NOT the same, Alan. For example paternity is not done via alleged pseudogenes and ERVs.Joe_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Oops, now I am making disinterested observers look bad. Forgot blockquotes, first paragraph is quoting mung.Alan Fox_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

And DNA testing to see who a sample of blood belongs to is the same as the determination of paternity, is the same as determining who the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps was? Really? You know, mung, some people on other sites have been suggesting you are a deep-cover pro-Darwin agent trying to make ID proponents look bad. I think you are now making deep-cover pro-Darwin agents look bad! Yes, it's the same process.Alan Fox_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

However no one knows how much of a genetic difference exists between chimps and humans
What? This is just sheer nonsense, inherited from desperate creationist poo-flinging to obscure the fact that basically no matter how you measure it, chimps and humans are the two most similar genomes known (unless you count the Neanderthal genome, of course). This isn’t just me saying this, go ask Todd Wodd of Bryan College: https://uncommondescent.com.....-identity/
It is very noticeable that you didn't give a number. Also genetic similarity is evidence for a COMMON DESIGN and the DNA sequences used to infer common ancestry is NOT the same DNA sequences used to infer paternity.Joe_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Nick @45: Nick, you indirectly raise a question I've been contemplating recently. I'm sincerely interested in your thoughts on this issue. The concept of a "mitochondrial Eve" has received a lot of press over the years. Do you think there is in fact a single female individual from whom all humans descended? That individual would presumably have come from two parents, who also each came from two parents, etc., in a broadening cone of ancestors, if you will. So this would suggest that there is a kind of "hourglass" shape to our descent: broad now, but converging in the past to a single mitochondrial Eve, and then broadening again after mitochondrial Eve. Does that make any sense, or am I not describing this clearly?Eric Anderson_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Nick @35 (and to also answer your question @44):
The real point is that no matter how you slice it, chimps are the closest living relatives of humans . . .
Almost. Let's try this: Chimps and humans share many common features, and in several areas humans are more similar to chimps than to any other creatures currently alive. One possible explanation for this similarity is that both humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor. Indeed, there are some tantalizing pieces of data that would be consistent with and explainable on the theory of common descent. However, there are also some anomalies or exceptions. Further, we do not know (i) exactly which changes would be required to get to humans, (ii) whether evolutionary processes could actually produce those changes in the real world, and (iii) whether the time available or the population numbers available could reasonably be expected to result in those changes. Finally, there are some differences between humans and chimps that may or may not be reducible to DNA changes alone. ----- I think that would be more accurate statement of the current state of knowledge.Eric Anderson_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

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/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/mcbride_misstat063931.htmlbornagain77_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

So Nick do you disagree that new fossil lineages appear suddenly in the fossil record just because it may smack of 'biblical fundamentalism' to you??? i.e. do you think that neo-Darwinism must be true because the alternative is unthinkable for you??? And exactly why, scientifically, would this alternative be so unthinkable for you even though the evidence points to the sudden appearance of new forms in the fossil record??? “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life Here are some quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK) "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience [sic] of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.' Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), 'The nature of the fossil record'. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132. "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist - D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467. "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion." Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46 "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." - Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert L Carroll (born 1938) - vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions— Donald Prothero - evolutionary biologist https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/donald-prothero-in-evolution-stasis-was-the-general-pattern-gradualism-was-rare-and-that-is-still-the-consensus-40-years-later/ Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change - Douglas Axe - October 16, 2012 Excerpt: [T]he data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis during climate change, too. - Donald Prothero and colleagues http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/tar_pit_study_s065321.html Stasis in Pleistocene mammals and birds - Oct. 26, 2012 - David Tyler Excerpt: "After six years of work and publication, the conclusion is clear: none of the common Ice Age mammals and birds responded to any of the climate changes at La Brea in the last 35,000 years, even though the region went from dry chaparral to snowy pinon-juniper forests during the peak glacial 20,000 years ago, and then back to the modern chaparral again." ,,, "In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. ,,, "Such stasis, along with the examples documented from nearly all other Pleistocene mammals and birds, argues that organisms are not as responsive to environmental change as classical neo-Darwinian theory predicts." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/10/26/stasis_in_pleistocene_mammals_and_birdsbornagain77_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Hmm I wonder if we can make a case for humans being descended from the kangaroo lineage: Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 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.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html But then again why are we even discussing the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism in the first place? The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012 Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",, Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/11/09/revisiting_the_central_dogmabornagain77_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Nick, tell us, how many generations does it take before you can no longer tell how closely related any two people are? And DNA testing to see who a sample of blood belongs to is the same as the determination of paternity, is the same as determining who the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps was? Really?Mung_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

You guys are the ones who want to toss logic and experience and the very regular process of inheritance to the wolves, in favor of divine creation, basically to defend a particular fundamentalist reading of the Bible. There you go, projecting again.
Also, the origin of this thread is a facebook discussion of the Ann Gauger/Discovery Institute book, which attempts to disprove human evolution and argue for the historical reality of Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of humans. That's straight-up fundamentalist Genesis literalism, and creationism. That's not me projecting, that's their position, a position they are proud to take and to defend.NickMatzke_UD_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Eric AndersonNovember 16, 2012 at 12:54 pm Nick @35: You guys are the ones who want to toss logic and experience and the very regular process of inheritance to the wolves, in favor of divine creation, basically to defend a particular fundamentalist reading of the Bible. There you go, projecting again. You should know that I am not trying to defend any fundamentalist reading of the Bible and have never tried to do so. I find it quite amusing that you are the one who keeps bringing religion into the discussion. But I realize that is how you view the entire debate through your twisted creationism-in-a-cheap-tuxedo perspective that you unfortunately acquired and honed at that bastion of propaganda, the NCSE.
Oh, my bad. What's your position on the relationship of chimps and humans, then, and where do you think humans came from? Ditto for anyone else who disputes my characterization. All you have to do is say "the evidence is clear that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and that humans don't descend from only two humans (Adam and Eve)", and I'll believe you.NickMatzke_UD_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

41 MungNovember 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm Nick Matzke: …and the evidence for this is exactly the same sort of DNA evidence that we use to determine paternity… That statement is patently false.
Oh really? Do paternity tests, DNA tests for blood samples, etc., rely on DNA similarity, or not?NickMatzke_UD_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Nick @34: Sorry, I don’t mean to be pedantic, but there are two ways to interpret your response. Just to clarify, are you saying that: (i) “of course not” (i.e., the differences between humans and chimps of course do not result primarily from changes in the DNA), or (ii) “of course not” (i.e., you disagree with the statement and would instead say that the differences do indeed result primarily from changes in the DNA)
The second.NickMatzke_UD_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
...and the evidence for this is exactly the same sort of DNA evidence that we use to determine paternity...
That statement is patently false.Mung_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

...no matter how you measure it, chimps and humans are the two most similar genomes known (unless you count the Neanderthal genome, of course).
He's right you know Joe. A monkey's genome is closer to my genome than yours is.Mung_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

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/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education – Casey Luskin – January, 2012 Excerpt: DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed “junk DNA,” which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html 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%. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/ 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 Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010 Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows034291.html The Gorilla Who Broke the Tree – Doug Axe PhD. – March 2012 Excerpt: Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic. According to a recent report [1], “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…” That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19703401390/the-gorilla-who-broke-the-tree Dr. Fazale Rana states the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome.bornagain77_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

as to "the similarity would be 1% instead of 1.5% (say), but the argument would be the same." This statement is false: 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/2012/05/from_jerry_coyn060271.html The Demise of Junk DNA and Why It Matters – Jonathan M. – September 2012 Excerpt: “the prized 98% sequence-identify figure between humans and chimpanzees relates to the 2% of DNA that codes for the production of proteins. The non-protein-coding (Junk) regions of DNA are far more species-specific.,,, these (Junk) stretches of non-coding DNA really are functional, then what becomes of this (98%) sequence-identity figure and its significance with respect to shared ancestry?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/the_demise_of_j_1064061.html “Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms” - November 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/news/from-science-daily-humans-chimpanzees-and-monkeys-share-dna-but-not-gene-regulatory-mechanisms/ Chimp chromosome creates puzzles – 2004 Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in ‘Nature’ that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed “significant structural changes”. In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, “we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated.” The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. http://www.nature.com/news/199.....524-8.html Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity 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.nature.com/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html 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.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think020401.html DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps – Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. http://www.reasons.org/articles/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-a-response-to-the-venema-critique-of-the-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2 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-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluatedbornagain77_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Nick @35:
You guys are the ones who want to toss logic and experience and the very regular process of inheritance to the wolves, in favor of divine creation, basically to defend a particular fundamentalist reading of the Bible.
There you go, projecting again. You should know that I am not trying to defend any fundamentalist reading of the Bible and have never tried to do so. I find it quite amusing that you are the one who keeps bringing religion into the discussion. But I realize that is how you view the entire debate through your twisted creationism-in-a-cheap-tuxedo perspective that you unfortunately acquired and honed at that bastion of propaganda, the NCSE.Eric Anderson_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Nick @34: Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, but there are two ways to interpret your response. Just to clarify, are you saying that: (i) "of course not" (i.e., the differences between humans and chimps of course do not result primarily from changes in the DNA), or (ii) "of course not" (i.e., you disagree with the statement and would instead say that the differences do indeed result primarily from changes in the DNA)Eric Anderson_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Of course, “similar” is subjective, so it can be used however one finds it convenient in the particular instance. I presume we can both agree that the exact percentage of identical DNA or even similar DNA does not either prove or disprove a Darwinian or ID origin?
The exact percentage doesn't matter for the question of evolution vs. ID, that is true. If chimps had gone extinct and an Australopithecus had survived instead, the similarity would be 1% instead of 1.5% (say), but the argument would be the same. The real point is that no matter how you slice it, chimps are the closest living relatives of humans, and the evidence for this is exactly the same sort of DNA evidence that we use to determine paternity, identify the source of blood samples at crime scenes, track who gave HIV to whom, determine what portion of the world various chunks of some American's chromosomes came from, etc. DNA is what gets copied from cell-to-cell, from generation to generation. We know how it mutates and approximately how fast. That plus the observed DNA similarity is all you need to make the argument go through. It's a very simple argument. You guys are the ones who want to toss logic and experience and the very regular process of inheritance to the wolves, in favor of divine creation, basically to defend a particular fundamentalist reading of the Bible.NickMatzke_UD_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Assuming the above to be true, does this suggest that the differences between humans and chimps do not result primarily from changes in the DNA?
Of course not.NickMatzke_UD_{November 16, 2012
November
11
Nov
16
16
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply