DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

Institute for Creation Science ^ | 06/01/17 | Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.

[ifinnegan]

“No, not ipso facto, but in fact that has proved to be the case.”

That makes a lot of sense! Lol :)

[ifinnegan]

I find your comments to be polemical when there’s no need to be.

“But they’re not, because they are simple and obvious: Darwin said, speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection.”

150+ years later, what best represents the modifications?

“Darwin knew nothing about DNA or even Mendelian inheritance ...”

Mendel sent Darwin his manuscript. Darwin died never even opening it.

[BroJoeK]

iffinnegan: "I find your comments to be polemical when there’s no need to be."

I find your comments nonresponsive & silly beyond reasonableness.

[BroJoeK]

ifinnegan: "Structure is function."

But word definition games are not, they're just silly.

[Big Red Badger]

What ever are you Talking about?

[ifinnegan]

You’re the one focused on “word definitions”.

I suggest you move in to the genomic era.

You can start here.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/comparing-mouse-human-genomes

[ifinnegan]

“I find your comments nonresponsive & silly beyond reasonableness.”

Lol.

Defensive much?

Ok. Please tell me what I did not respond to, and I will respond to it

[ifinnegan]

Again:

“But they’re not, because they are simple and obvious: Darwin said, speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection.”

150+ years later, what best represents the modifications?

“Darwin knew nothing about DNA or even Mendelian inheritance ...”

[ifinnegan]

“Not really.
Yes, estimates of “junk DNA” have been reduced from maybe 90% to something less”

Oh something less.

Excellent work, quite detailed.

Lol.

[BroJoeK]

ifinnegan: "Please tell me what I did not respond to, and I will respond to it"

In fact, you've responded to nothing, except with snarky half-comments.

But those are very informative in saying that you really know nothing more.
So I don't think you should use more words to say the same thing over and over again.

I'll take them as your final answer.

Thanks.

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "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! "

Estimates of similarities in various species DNA were always dependent on the methodologies & logic used.
So, if we use one method to say that human DNA is 99.9% the same (understanding that means about 3 million differences!) and then a different method to say Neanderthals were 99% the same (30 million differences) and chimpanzees 98% (64 million differences), then such comparisons lose some meaning.

But obviously our author here, Mr. Thomkins, is using yet another methodology to arrive at a number which satisfies him, but seems to cast doubt on others.
I would question if Thomkins' methodology used on humans would still show us 99.9% the same genetically?

If not, then we might ask why Thomkins wants to show a larger number of human genetic differences than other methodologies produce?

[ifinnegan]

“I would question if Thomkins’ methodology used on humans would still show us 99.9% the same genetically?”

I think it would, actually. The issues of synteny and differencing chromosome numbers would not come in to play.

His method may or may not be more accurate than others. But it doesn’t change anything vis-a-vis common descent.

Phylogenetic results wouldn’t change, I don’t think. In other words, apes and humans would still be closest whether 98% or 85% etc... Down the line.

[Big Red Badger]

Still at it..

[ifinnegan]

"Estimates of similarities in various species DNA were always dependent on the methodologies & logic used."

This is not clear. Are you referring to determining which sequences to compare? And this include or exclude (which seems to be this guy's point).

Blat and blast are the most used and best tools (their developers deserve the Nobel Prize in my opinion).

It is easy to compare splices coding sequences (eg mRNA or cDNA) from start to stop. And it's easy with genome data (ie chromosome sequence data) to compared start to stop including introns.

Both these provide a degree of identity or homology, the former will be much higher, yet the latter is the more true comparison, physically.

And then, at the genomic level, synteny plays a huge factor.

Look at this syntenic map of human and chimp.

What does one do with the white regions?

And the degree of synteny is so high this isn't so hard compared to human mouse.

[ifinnegan]

“In fact, you’ve responded to nothing, except with snarky half-comments.”

I do not agree.

Again, please tell me what I did not respond to.

PS, if you think “structure is function” is a snarky non-response, then you do not understand biology. (And I don’t mean for this to be snarky, just an observation).

[ifinnegan]

““Not really.
Yes, estimates of “junk DNA” have been reduced from maybe 90% to something less”

Oh something less.

Excellent work, quite detailed.

Lol.”

Ok.

That was snarky.

But it made the point, yes sarcastically and snarky, so sorry for that.

The point being your comment was empty. Perhaps you could reference an article that tried to define the level of “junk DNA” that said it was “reduced from maybe 90% to something less” or you reviewing their evidence here to support your assertion.

And you have to admit, “something less” deserves some snark.

[ifinnegan]

“ifinnegan: “Structure is function.”

But word definition games are not, they’re just silly.”

Structure is function is not a word definition game. It is fundamental and foundational to all physical sciences.

It’s the first thing you learn in grad school (actually at an undergraduate level as well) when studying proteins and the same holds true for nucleic acid, even more I’d say.

All properties of chromosomes, which are individual large macromolecules, stem from their primary sequence. This is why whole genome sequence determination is important and fundamental for studying all aspects of biology.

[BroJoeK]

ifinnegan: "In other words, apes and humans would still be closest whether 98% or 85% etc... Down the line."

Right, the numbers themselves are not so important except possibly when different methodologies are used to produce them.
Also we see such words as "identical" and "similar" used more-or-less interchangeably.

So now Thomkins thinks he's made an important point by emphasizing the mismatches between human & chimp DNA.
He suggests it means the actual average rate of mutations must be much impossibly higher than most scientists now figure.
But if scientists are not measuring mutations in the areas where Thomkins finds differences, then his point is, well... pointless, is it not?

[BroJoeK]

"(And I don’t mean for this to be snarky, just an observation)."

Of course you do, your answer here, as elsewhere, is nonresponsive, even for those who can decode it.

[ifinnegan]

No. It’s not snarky.

If you don’t understand structure is function you are not a physical scientist, or don’t understand it.

I have known too many scientists who seem to think of amino acids or nucleotides as letters.

Structure is all we have.