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.
Both you should read this and the associated article it is based on.
Regulatory Dynamism in Evolution
While the proteins stay mostly the same, the management evolves much faster.
https://biophilic.blogspot.com/2014/10/regulatory-dynamism-in-evolution.html
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003771
So now you want a serious answer to a snarky post?
OK, here it is:
"Junk DNA" is a term left over from the 1960s, studied since 1972 and referring originally to all non-coding DNA, more than 90% of our genome.
But over the years other non-coding functions have been found for alleged "junk" such that today only 65% is thought definitely not used and 26% as "likely junk", meaning suspected of actual functions.
However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope.
Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology."
So, yet again depending on definitions, a certain amount of word-gaming involved here.
Structure is function.
I reiterate, not snark, fundamental.
Let's look at the entire paragraph: -- Not really. Yes, estimates of "junk DNA" have been reduced from maybe 90% to something less, but alleged functions of most "junk" are not, as yet, determined, and the fact remains that most mutations within the "junk DNA" regions have no discernable affect on offspring. -- It's gibberish. Hand waving empty rhetoric and non-sequitur.
So no one really knows.
And the idea of junk DNA and all this junk DNA in eukaryotes as evolutionary insulators was all hand waving and ever supported.
My point is that there is inherent function in the structure itself beyond simply narrow definitions of function, eg coding, enzymatic, regulatory.
It was presumptuous to have thought otherwise, but it was fair enough.
I am reminded of the story of when Venter made the case to Watson to sequence the entire genome, Watson said no, just the gene coding regions, that’s all that matter.
Boy was he wrong.
more ICS drivel
Always pretending to be relevant
One of my daughters is a degreed biologist, but she is never snarky with me about it and doesn't challenge me with silly word definition games.
ifinnegan: "Structure is all we have."
I "get" that, but in DNA just a few base pairs have protein coding functions while over 90% do not.
It's an important point for anti-evolutionists who want to show those non-coding sections are not really "junk".
They assume somehow God would not create "junk".
I don't care either way, makes no difference to me.
But I will confess to confusing your snarkiness with anti-evolutionism, and that's my bad.
Sorry FRiend.
Only to someone whose normal language is not American-English, you know, the kind we talk here at Free Republic?
Maybe you need to go back to school and learn to translate your language of science to real English?
I'd be interested, especially if they teach you to drop the snarky nonsense.
That is the ultimate lack of faith, in both God and in human reasoning (which was a gift from God).
Global warming is a hoax and that is provable but Consensus claims to be the authority.
Just like evolution there is no criticism allowed it is settled science. Show me a school college or university that allows anyone to teach against global warming or evolution, they don't exist. Both opinions bear more resemblance to religion than science.
One does not have to even let Creation enter into the argument to disprove what is taught about evolution in schools today is inherently flawed. Of course the whole fight is with God not evidence.
“I “get” that, but in DNA just a few base pairs have protein coding functions while over 90% do not.”
Thanks.
This is the problem. Deserves a lot more time.
DNA and nucleic acid have much more function that that.
[[I disagree with your ideas of “impossible”,]]
According to the greatest mathematicians of all time, even just one positive mutation that —adds new non species specific information— (This is a very important point- in order to evolve on a macro level- species MUST receive non species specific NEW information from an outside source) is impossible- not just improbable-
It’ the right question- A symposium of the world’s renown mathematicians was held in 960’s and they all concluded these results and a recent mathematician, William dembski also agrees- He’s currently the best well known math dude
[[Either provide an example of my engaging in Christian bashing, or refrain from making that claim.]]
LOL with the demands- your posts are rife with them- knock yerself out- Bearing false witness lol- that’s rich-
Since you can’t refrain from doing so- I’m done with you- dealt enough with your kind in the past-
[[So, if your claim there was no “spiritual death” before Adam’s Fall is correct, then an explanation is: that’s because there were no fully human living souls at the time.]]
It’s not just huans that had spirits- there was no death of vertebrates of any kind- so there was no evolution- in order for evolution to be true (IF it were even possible) you woudl need billions of years and much much nephesh chayyah death
“I spent seven years working on my biochemistry and molecular biology Ph.D.”
Took me five.
25 years on now.
Exactly. I have learned that if you tell one of these folks that the force behind the event is that of God, they laugh and carry on. But when they arrive at that same conclusion on their own, the lights come on and they are able to take faith a loving Creator to heart. Or not.
I would give AGW some credit as a partially falsifiable hypothesis, meaning we can measure actual temperatures and, if done honestly, compare them to the past and future projections.
That's how we know now that much of it is just wrong and some outright hoax.
That's the science, in a nutshell.
But politicians and Leftist activists are a much different matter.
They fold imperfect science into their Leftist agenda making it a matter of partisan loyalty to the point of near-religious fervor.
So, far from encouraging real scientific investigations, they seek to shut down debates in favor of more One World Big Government socialism.
By stark contrast, evolution theory has been around for over 150 years, studied & worked-on by many thousands of scientists & scholars who had no Leftist agenda to push.
As a scientific theory it's confirmed daily by workers in many related fields (i.e., geology, medicine), so it's on solid ground.
itsahoot: "Just like evolution there is no criticism allowed it is settled science.
Show me a school college or university that allows anyone to teach against global warming or evolution, they don't exist.
Both opinions bear more resemblance to religion than science. "
I "get" that, but you're talking about public school children here who need to learn science in science classes and should be taught their religion in churches, by their families' pastors.
Even you don't want government employee union teachers telling your children what their religion teaches.
And really, that's the crux of it.
Your children should learn their religion in your church, and if you're too lazy to take them, then don't blame your government school for not teaching your religion.
Of course, many people home-school or use private religious schools, and for them, this is not an issue at all, ever.
Those teachers can teach whatever you want them to, including that evolution theory is just "fake science".
But not in public schools.
itsahoot: "One does not have to even let Creation enter into the argument to disprove what is taught about evolution in schools today is inherently flawed.
Of course the whole fight is with God not evidence."
But in fact, evolution theory is only "inherently flawed" if you reject science's basic premises & assumptions.
Those include 1) natural causes for natural processes and 2) today's natural processes were the same in Deep Past.
From that point on, basic evolution theory follows quite... well, naturally.
As for God, I frankly don't think He objects to evolution theory, just so long as we "get" Who is the Master of evolution -- Who's Plan does evolution support, Who created the dust of the earth out of which we are made?
I think He's fine with that.
Sure, no problem.
Sounds to me like you are sensitive to my use of the term "junk DNA", but from a scientific perspective, that's fine.
And the fact that "junk" fell from over 90% in, say, 1975 to just 65% now doesn't much impress you.
You wish us to understand there's much more function than we yet acknowledge, fine.
So remind me, is there a larger point?
Math is like any other science, if you begin with the wrong assumptions, then you'll end with false conclusions, regardless of how accurate your process is.
What you and your mathematicians here are trying to do is measure the "probability" of a single huge mutation which suddenly adds a totally new biological feature.
But evolution is not seen to work that way.
Instead, what we see in both extant species and the fossil record are many different small changes, which over time build up to major species differences.
The probability of small mutations is now observed to be 100% with every offspring.
Yes, most mutations are harmless or harmful, but occasionally some are helpful, and that's evolution, in a nutshell.
Then, sadly, we disagree.
I don't think any other creature has the spirit soul which God first breathed into Adam.
And without such souls they could not suffer your term, "spirit death".
Have a great day, FRiend.
You’re 20 years behind the times at least.
You base that claim on what, exactly? On the fact that I do not repeat creationist pseudoscience nonsense, and only stick with the actual scientific papers published in journals like Science or Journal of Biological Chemistry?
“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.”
DNA is an amazing molecule (as is RNA) you should look in to it some day.
Too many people, yourself apparently included, think nucleic acids are generic blocks with a static structure.
I guess you missed the part where I said that my Ph.D. is in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. Biochemistry is the study of biomolecule structure and function, as well as the various metabolic pathways that function within the cell. Molecular biology is the study of nucleic acid structure, regulation, and function. That means that I know every detail of the physical structure of these molecules at the molecular level: how many base pairs make up a helix, the differing chemistries of the nucleic acid minor groove vs. the major groove, etc. If I do not jump into a discussion of minute details such as the hydrophobic nature of nucleotide base stacking as compared to the polar/hydrophilic nature of the phosphate backbone, it is not because I don't know these details, but because they are a) irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and b) the vast majority of people who might read anything I post here won't have a clue what I am talking about.
You, of course, keep bringing up more and more details that are outside of the scope of this discussion--I know, the tactic is meant to trip me up so that you can incorrectly claim that because I have not memorized one among hundreds thousands of scientific papers written on the topic, I don't know anything.
The fact is that junk DNA is still junk DNA. The protein whose biochemistry and molecular biology I characterized in grad school takes up 74,146 base pairs on the chromosome, but the coding region is only 2547 base pairs--meaning that 96.6% of that gene is junk that the cell excises and discards when it makes the template mRNA that is actually used to make the protein. I can guarantee you that if I want to make that protein in vitro, I do not need those extra 71,599 space-filling nucleotides--they truly are useless, hence their designation as "junk." FYI, the scientist, Dr. Phillip Sharp, who determined that most genetic DNA is actually junk was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work. I have seen him speak about that work (and he provided lunch, too, but that wasn't why all of the graduate students went to watch him speak).
Anyway, I find myself here falling for your purposeful distractions. The point of my original comment is that the author of the original article may claim to have a genuine Ph.D. in genetics (and I can actually find his name on genuine scientific articles), but he is misusing his knowledge to mislead people for reasons I do not understand. First, he made an assertion that is not based on any facts and is certainly not known within the scientific community, and then he used that assertion to support a baseless claim that genetic similarity does not "prove" evolution. Regardless of how many times you (figuratively) shout "squirrel!" or throw shiny objects, the basic fact remains that he took a false premise and presented a false conclusion.
I can't help but observe that a "discussion" with a creationist is much like the "investigation" into Trump-Russia ties. The investigation has found nothing, so the politicians behind it keep widening it to include more and more extraneous and irrelevant stuff. Much like creationists: when their claim that they've "disproven" evolution is debunked, they jump to another claim, and another, ad infinitum. I believe the proper term for that is the "Gish gallop"--named after another scientist who found the allure of delving into pseudoscience irresistible.
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.