Posted on 06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT by lasereye
The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.
The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1
After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.
The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2
But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3
The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4
The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research
Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped” to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.
As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.
Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.
However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!
Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched” together with powerful computers.
In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.
Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10
A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.
So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.
What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?
So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.
So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.
The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.
In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
References
* Dr. Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University, where he worked as a research technician in a plant breeding/genetics program. After receiving his Ph.D., he worked at a genomics institute and became a faculty member in the Department of Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Was void? Or as Strongs points out “became” void. NIV also makes that possibility as well.
Became void, why? To destroy a world inhabited by Satan and the satanic host? Could that explains fossils? The yom could also translate as era’s. But vanity of the flesh reiterates a 24 hour period.
nah- we’ve got amth biology thermodynamics chemistry on our side as well=- all of which are impossible for evolution- Chemically pure anhorations out of dirty chemicals foudn in nature? Nope- sorry- Upper probability limits far surpassed for even just one positive mutation- say nothing of the billions of needed positive mutations needed in order for evolution to be true- biological impossibilities, irreducible complexity- on and on and on it goes- oh, and no transitional lines found- sure they tried deceiving people with deceitful drawings linking entire line of evolution- which is still visible in books today- even after being caught for doing so- Eukoroytes did not evolve, but they did result in symbiotic relationship- blowing another major evolution lie that is taught in schools out of the water
There’s a whole l ot more than just piltdown man- just spend a few hours on IRC- there are reams of evidences that debunk most of the major evolution lies- There are several great sites- and you can find william demski’s site which proves evolution is mathematically impossible- look up ‘chemical impossibility of evolution’ too just for fun in your spare time
[[No, your example is full of simple error- time alone would ruin/destroy both the the animal, the typewriter ( where did that come from) and the previous work, not even counting on the fact that someone with higher intelligence provided the typewriter, paper and etc to the chimp in the first place.]]
the revised analogy must then be that the monkey’s are eternal, that the typewriter and paper are indestructible, an that the ink is endless-
in other words- An Intelligent Designer would have to intelligently design the experiment, using supernatural intervention- and directign the moneky’s fingers from time to time, in order for it to work eventually-
You were bemoaning the lack of frizzards. Why can’t Niche?
Don’t you mean Friche?
Evolution is religion.
I think we can all agree that the world would be a nicer place with a few frizzards crawling or running or flying around.
“Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task.”
He is absolutely right. True for any genomic comparisons, with greater non-triviality with increasing size and complexity.
He left out a lot of very pertinent details--that is, he cherry-picked which facts to include and which to omit. That is not scientific. One of the very pertinent facts he "forgot" to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA. If you compare regions of non-coding DNA between any two species or even sub-species, you will find far more divergence than if you compare the coding regions between the same two species. That is because there is little to no selective pressure to maintain the DNA sequences of non-coding regions. If the only purpose of that stretch of DNA is to fill space, it does not matter much what the sequence is. Thus, any mutations within that region have no effect on survival. On the other hand, the coding regions of DNA are far less tolerant of changes in bases. Some mutations within the coding region will have little effect: for instance, TAA, TGA, and TAG all mean "Stop" (as in, that is the end of the protein molecule). Thus, an A to G or G to A mutation in those sequences has little effect. But a change in that T to anything else would have an effect, because the stop would be lost, and the protein coded there would be unusually long--with potentially lethal result. So, if I were looking for the degree of genetic similarity between two organisms, I would look at the coding regions, and at the redundancy within the code when.
By "coding" and "non-coding" DNA, I mean DNA which contains a template to make a protein, vs. DNA that contains no such template.
And whereas I agree with you that “DNA science” does not disprove evolution, your argument was mainly one of authority.
An argument of authority is not necessarily an invalid argument. If the person arguing from authority happens to be a subject matter expert on the topic being argued, then they are using their authority, i.e., their expertise on the subject, to make a valid argument. I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology, meaning that I have studied and worked in this field for decades and am very much a subject matter expert.
On the other hand, an argument of authority *is* invalid if the person claims knowledge they don't have, or uses legitimate knowledge in a deceptive manner. Clearly, the author of this screed is, in fact, arguing from authority in a very deceptive manner. He is only relaying those scientific facts that support his agenda--and he is counting on his target audience not having a sufficient level of scientific expertise to be able to spot where he is omitting essential facts that undermine his agenda.
You are not authorized to alter the definition of the word scientist.
The same ones that gave us the duck-billed platypus.
Say what?! You have a bizarre definition of the term “science” because so far the evolutionists have not presented a single shred of evidence to corroborate their psychopathic & UNSCIENTIFIC blather. Where are the fossils to prove their delusional one dimensional hypothesis? How can an obvious programming code like DNA manifest WITHOUT a programmer? How can the essential life sustaining process of clotting EVOLVE without killing the subject? How can the process of natural selection occur without killing off whole species? Any mutant offspring often die out rather than become the norm contrary to evolutionist meanderings. Those alleged human ancestor sea creatures that supposedly flopped around on land after exiting the ocean before “transitioning” into rodent like creatures WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY PREY & WOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED OFF BY PREDATORS. Simple logic DISPROVES the theory of evolution in spades. The evolutionists expend an awful amount of superfluous energy in attempting to deny the obvious fact that humans were CREATED by a purposeful designer / creator. Why is that? What are they trying to hide & obfuscate? What are they so afraid of? Are they perhaps serving a dark anti-human agenda? Are they the spiritual manifestation of a demonic consciousness that HATES humanity & revels in misleading them about their true origins? Do they fear the natural spiritual power of humans & work ridiculously hard at preventing them from learning the truth? Do they fear the creator they pathologically deny as part of a psychological coping mechanism or process aimed at attempting to mollify their paranoid fears of retribution incurred by their dark anti-human agenda? The evolutionists do not have the moral high ground by asserting that humans are the spawn of pond scum - because getting the people to accept the ridiculous & hateful notion that they are the product of pond scum is the height of unscientific based psychopathy aimed at gas lighting the public into accepting that there is no significance to their existence & that they then should ACQUIESCE in the face of their evolutionist overlords who tell them ad nauseum that there are “too may humans” who are “hurting the planet” & that they must “go away” [ re depopulation ] in the name of “saving” the planet. So no I will never get on board this psychopathic agenda of rationalization for the deliberate reduction [ re: genocide ] the human population. Look into the Globalist sickos who first promoted this psychopathic delusion euphemistically called “the theory of evolution”. What sanitized claptrap. The theory of evolution is just a sick but clever political cover for the rationalization for the mass GENOCIDE / depopulation of the human population.
what you left out was how many ‘non coding DNA sequences’ were ‘discounted’ by the author- and didn’t mention how similar you think we are to chimps?
You also didn’t address the point that the construction of the chimp genome was done using human scaffolding and contained contaminated human DNA
I guess the point I’m trying ot make is that you dismiss the author’s findings, but fail to point out yourself just how different or similar the two species are- you left the reader ot believe that the author was being deceptive, and that chimps and humans ‘really are similar’ after all- The author pointed out that there needs to be a certain percentage in order for common descent ot be viable- and showed that there isn’t that much- not even close- you are seemingly suggesting the author deceived and seem to imply that we are? How similar are we then?
[[the author of this screed is, in fact, arguing from authority in a very deceptive manner. He is only relaying those scientific facts that support his agenda]]
It seems to me the author relayed facts that evolutionists left out-
[[and he is counting on his target audience not having a sufficient level of scientific expertise to be able to spot where he is omitting essential facts that undermine his agenda.]]
You mean like the chimp DNA being contaminated with human DNA during recording?
[[That is not scientific. One of the very pertinent facts he “forgot” to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA. If you compare regions of non-coding DNA between any two species or even sub-species, you will find far more divergence than if you compare the coding regions between the same two species.]]
so again, how much was non coding and necessary to determine difference? What % are we left with? Seems to me that the evo side of things left out all the possible sequences for their set agenda- and used faulty chimp DNA which had been contaminated- Who’s beign deceptive again?
“One of the very pertinent facts he “forgot” to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA.”
I don’t think he left it out, that’s the point. It’s easy to compare cDNA for genes. Not so easy to compare genome structures of 23 and 24 chromosomes in context of all the DNA.
“That is because there is little to no selective pressure to maintain the DNA sequences of non-coding regions.”
The genome project and comparative functional genomics have shown that the key to differences in species is in the non-coding sequences and how the corresponding chromosomal structures regulate development and morphology by spatial-temporal regulation is, to my mind, the biggest question in biology.
if you wish to investigate deceptive comparison trends, check out hte following which goes into a pretty thorough breakdown of several notable chimp-human comparisons to see how data was ‘hand picked’ to support the macroevolution agenda-
http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated
I’m sorry, Bob, but I will not waste my time visiting a creationist anti-science website. Anti-science websites, unfortunately, proliferate. I’d rather spend my time reading real science; actually, that is part of my job since I oversee several research projects being conducted by real Ph.D. scientists.
No, it was a purposeful omission, meant to deceive those who do not have a solid background in the life sciences. Unfortunately, that is behavior that seems characteristic of those who actually have the knowledge base to speak of such matters, but decide to misuse that knowledge for personal profit.
The genome project and comparative functional genomics have shown that the key to differences in species is in the non-coding sequences and how the corresponding chromosomal structures regulate development and morphology by spatial-temporal regulation is, to my mind, the biggest question in biology.
Again, you need to understand the complete picture.
*Most* non-coding regions are filler. For instance, the introns contained in most chromosomal genes, which have no functional purpose other than to add size to a gene (and facilitate evolutionary mechanisms). As long as the sequences at the ends of the introns remains conserved, the rest can be any sequence at all without changing the function. Since there is no selective pressure to keep those sequences from mutating, they mutate the most rapidly. If you want to find out when humans and chimps started to diverge from a common ancestor, you would look at the number of mutations in those sequences, which roughly corresponds to the length of time since the two populations diverged.
Some non-coding DNA affects the expression levels of genes. Let's say that full expression of a gene leads to a cell containing 5% of a specific protein. But the cell does not want to consist of 5% of that protein, so the regulatory elements of DNA decrease the level of expression to the level that the cell needs, which could be 0.1% or zero except when the cell senses changes in its environment. The regulatory elements are interesting in that studying them gives insights into development and so forth. But if you are considering the actual genetic difference between two species, they also do not give a clear picture. A single change in a regulatory element can have a disproportionately large effect on function--which means that you could compare those between humans and chimps and find less than 1% difference. An example of how modulation in regulation affects function is skin color: all humans have the same mechanism for producing melanin, yet we range in color from ivory white to ebony black. That is because we regulate expression at different levels.
So I focus on the coding regions as the most pertinent when it comes to comparing the DNA level differences between two species. That is because the coding regions translate to proteins, and the functional molecules of organisms are proteins. Proteins direct how your bones are shaped, how your muscles are formed, the shape of your organs, etc. etc. Because of redundancy in the codon code, the DNA that codes for proteins can change slightly without changing the protein. So I compare the differences between coding regions and between proteins to come up with a more complete picture.
There is much, much, more to consider when comparing the similarity of two organisms--I spent seven years working on my biochemistry and molecular biology Ph.D., focusing on the structure and function of a single protein and trying to understand why, even though this protein functions identically in species as diverse as fish and humans, there are some very distinct differences in the effects of that function once the protein is (lethally) activated. But rather than getting into a dissertation length discussion of all of the intricacies of DNA structure and the implications on higher-order functions, I'll just point out that these complexities are completely consistent with evolutionary theory. Furthermore, it is because of the context provided by evolutionary theory that I am able to make predictions about what to look for if, for example, I want to find the protein responsible for a particular function in a species that has not been previously characterized with respect to that function. The 98-99% similarity between chimp and human genomes really is not significant when it comes to understanding the implications of how and when the two species diverged--it's basically just a fun trivia fact.
[[I’m sorry, Bob, but I will not waste my time visiting a creationist anti-science website.]]
Of course not-
[[Anti-science websites, unfortunately, proliferate.]]
I know, I run across many such pro macroevolution sites all the time- Care to point out what is ‘anti-science’ in the link i provided?
[[I’d rather spend my time reading real science;]]
So in other words you’ll not answer any questions or address any of the points that were brought out which refute your statements- got it! Typical-
P.S how much of the original article’s coding is irrelevant to his claim? How similar are apes? Care to provide unbiased evidence to back up your claim? You accused the author of deceit- yet I pointed out several articles and links that prove that the pro macroevolution claims were highly deceitful- which you just blow off because you ‘only read real science websites’ which I assume means anything that aligns with your macroevolution agenda regardless of how deceitful they are
and just for the record- that ‘non science site’ as you put it puts thel ie to several major chimp human studies throughout history- but we’ll just gloss right over that fact simply because it’s a ‘Christian site’ and by golly Christian sites ‘can’t possibly have anything truthful or worht reading it them’- bias much?
Bob434: "Absolutely it is- The bible states that there was no ‘spirit death’ before the fall (While there was cell death- ie grass being trampled underfoot)- in order for evolution to be true, there would have had to certainly be spirit death as species died while ‘evolving’..."
What an astonishing claim -- "no spirit death" -- before the Fall, I've never seen it before and hope it's true.
That's because it means the Bible itself recognizes a difference between creatures with no spirit and those with spirit.
And those with spirit can include only one species -- spiritual descendants of Adam.
So at the time of the Fall the world's population of fully human spiritual beings was exactly two: Adam & Eve and neither died until after the Fall.
So, in this understanding, the Bible is true & accurate even if, based on evolution, we didn't expect it to be!
It's good news and I hope you're right about it.
had you bothered to read the ‘Christian site’ you would have seen that several of the papers did not focus simply on the non coding areas or the ‘redundant’ areas, and that they actually went into great detail discussing how dissimilar the coding regions that were thrown out because they didn’t fit the agenda really were-
Pots shouldn’t call kettles black- you speak of ‘real science’ yet show a distinct unwillingness to engage in honest discussions when it comes to evidences that call into question your preferred belief- dismissing with a wave of the hand any such evidences, and attacking the messenger- all things that ‘real scientists’ don’t engage in- a ‘real scientists woudl take the facts, in this case, the claims made by such websites as i listed, and refute the points instead of attacking the author- if your position is strong enough your evidences should be strong enough to withstand such challenges- but when you accuse the author of things like ‘cherry picking’ and ‘deceit’ when your side does the very same thing- it simply shows a lack of strength on your own arguments-
[[*Most* non-coding regions are filler.]]
*MOST* as in? As in some are not simply filler? Again- the question is put to you- how much of the ‘filler’ is being included, and is there the chance that species specific filler might be important to that particular kind?
I’m willing to have a discussion based on your comments and the facts you present, and not your character- it would be nice if you could return the favor without resorting ot the tired out mantra of Christian bashing- I pointed you to that site because it challenges the things you were claiming- waving the site away simply because it is a ‘Christian site’ and implying that nothing o n the site could possibly be of any scientific value because it’s all ‘not real science’ isn’t very scientific of you-
[[Let’s say that full expression of a gene leads to a cell containing 5% of a specific protein. But the cell does not want to consist of 5% of that protein, so the regulatory elements of DNA decrease the level of expression to the level that the cell needs, which could be 0.1% or zero except when the cell senses changes in its environment.]]
Are you describing bacteria utilizing ‘nylon digestion capabilities’ shoudl the environment ‘change’? Would that be such a case?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.