DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

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

[BroJoeK]

exDemMom: "The process of evolution is truly amazing."

Agreed, thanks again for a great post, much appreciated.

[Bob434]

i spelled it out ot you in my previous posts- knock yerself out rereading them- You can feign innocence all you like- noone is falling for it- typical liberal tactic-

[[If there were an ignore function, I would just ignore you now.]]

awww don’t go away mad-

[[Do not expect me to answer any more of your posts.]]

As if

[Bob434]

Hey man did tyou read the link i posted that cited several ‘secular studies’ of human chimp similarities? It looks like the different studies came up with different results- some as low as 81% (I think one was even lower- I basically just skimmed the article) Some were 95% one was 98%

What would you say would be closer to the truth?

http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated

If you’d rather not wade through it that’s fine-

[ifinnegan]

This article came out when I was in Grad school and it was a game-changer for me.

Nature. 1987 Sep 3-9;329(6134):75-9.
An intronless gene encoding a potential member of the family of receptors coupled to guanine nucleotide regulatory proteins.

Kobilka BK, Frielle T, Collins S, Yang-Feng T, Kobilka TS, Francke U, Lefkowitz RJ, Caron MG.
Abstract
Plasma membrane receptors for hormones, drugs, neurotransmitters and sensory stimuli are coupled to guanine nucleotide regulatory proteins. Recent cloning of the genes and/or cDNAs for several of these receptors including the visual pigment rhodopsin, the adenylate-cyclase stimulatory beta-adrenergic receptor and two subtypes of muscarinic cholinergic receptors has suggested that these are homologous proteins with several conserved structural and functional features. Whereas the rhodopsin gene consists of five exons interrupted by four introns, surprisingly the human and hamster beta-adrenergic receptor genes contain no introns in either their coding or untranslated sequences. We have cloned and sequenced a DNA fragment in the human genome which cross-hybridizes with a full-length beta 2-adrenergic receptor probe at reduced stringency. Like the beta 2-adrenergic receptor this gene appears to be intronless, containing an uninterrupted long open reading frame which encodes a putative protein with all the expected structural features of a G-protein-coupled receptor.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3041227

---

Lefkowitz has since won the Nobel Prize, quite deservedly.

[Bob434]

[[So I will try to walk you through the most recent findings in the amazing world of nucleic acids and the key importance of non-coding DNA.]]

This is exactly why i asked exdemmom what % of the genes were to be discounted and what % similarity this would wind up being between chimps and humans- i got no answer- She caled the author of the original article a liar- deceiver or soem such ridiculing comment- psuedoscience was another big bash- but when asked she couldn’t brign herself to answer the question

[[This is great stuff and reflects how intricate, multifunctional and complex DNA is.]]

That’s what i was wondering- how much of the ‘irrelevant’ coding was actually relevant, or even species specific- I noted she was careful to say “”Little” to “None” function- one of the sites i listed stated that when they come up with the 98% figure they do so throwing out important coding- granted, all may not be essential, but I’m sure some was more essential than others but still thrown out- which again is why i asked for a guesstimate on how much actual ‘irrelevant’ coding we’re actually talking about?

[hopespringseternal]

May I point out that a monkey pounding keys on a typewriter randomly given infinite time will type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Except that you don't have infinite time or infinite monkeys. If you decide every atom in the universe is a monkey/typewriter combination and use the age of the universe, you get...nothing.

Information does not arise from random processes, and the information in the simplest organism is vastly more complicated than Shakespeare's works. If life (or even the universe itself) is a result of random chance, it isn't a cosmic miracle, it is a series of cosmic miracles, piled one after the other in a sequence that boggles the imagination.

[itsahoot]

That's why you don't want government union employees teaching your children your religious beliefs.

B$ you want them taught disbelief but it won't matter in any case they will soon enough will be required to learn Shari.

Sure, 97% of "scientists" will say that it's warmer today than it was at some time in the past -- for example, in January. But the full throated Leftist One World Big Government socialist agenda is not approved by 97% of anybody regardless of how often AlGore claims otherwise.

You don't know where it came from, likely because none of your scientific journals have told you, since they are complicit in creating that lie.

You are the one that keeps interjecting God in this discussion, I only mentioned Him in an attempt to show that you do not have to believe in God to believe evolutionist are bigger fibbers than most fisherman.

[ifinnegan]

It’s all essential. This paragraph from the Smithsonian describes the issue well

—

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

—

In other words the regions shared between the species are 98% or more on average.

But human have sequences chinos don’t have and vice versa. So the overall identity or similarity is 95% or so. The original press release from NIH in 2005 states 96%.

https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level/

This includes the extra/missing regions that ExDemMom criticized the author for including.

This author is saying that the 95-96% figure is higher, in his opinion, than it actually is and better characterization of the Chimp sequence would show this.

He could be correct, or not, but it would be difficult to determine and the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium isn’t going to spend resources on a review.

The original 2005 article is here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

This author argues for a large margin of error and the probability of a lesser identity percent based on certain technical aspects described in the article, e.g.

“The observable insertions fall into two classes: (1) ‘completely covered’ insertions, occurring within continuous sequence in both species; and (2) ‘incompletely covered’ insertions, occurring within sequence containing one or more gaps in the chimpanzee, but revealed by a clear discrepancy between the species in sequence length. Different methods are needed for reliable identification of modest-sized insertions (1 base to 15kb) and large insertions (> 15kb), with the latter only being reliably identifiable in the human genome (see Supplementary Information ‘Genome evolution’).”

Which means not all the sequences are accounted for, and also that only 94% of the Chimp genome was sequenced:

“The draft genome assembly—generated from ~3.6-fold sequence redundancy of the autosomes and ~1.8-fold redundancy of both sex chromosomes—covers ~94% of the chimpanzee genome with >98% of the sequence in high-quality bases.”

Since this report I am not sure how many blanks have been filled in or what more analysis or publications have been done.

[BroJoeK]

itsahoot: "B$ you want them taught disbelief..."

No, I want your children taught your beliefs in your church.
I don't want your children taught government religion in government schools.

How can that not be clear?

itsahoot: "You don't know where it came from, likely because none of your scientific journals have told you..."

More important, I don't care where it came from because I consider it bogus.
Was that not clear, do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

itsahoot: "You are the one that keeps interjecting God in this discussion, I only mentioned Him in an attempt to show that you do not have to believe in God to believe evolutionist are bigger fibbers than most fisherman."

So, itsahoot you don't mention God because you believe in Him, but since I mentioned God that means I don't believe?
Have you had the wiring in your brain checked recently?

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

If you think evolution theory is just one huge pack of lies, well then we disagree.

[exDemMom]

Oh, my, in your eagerness to post random trivia related to genetics and molecular biology, you have inadvertently posted an article that supports what I said several posts ago.

My previous post: "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."

Versus your quote from Smithsonian magazine (where you omitted a citation): "Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes."

Of course, the major differences here are that I was not quoting any source while you were copy/pasting, and I understand and discuss the significance and implications of the information, and you have not offered any kind of explanation of how the information fails to support or even contradicts theory.

Far from invalidating any aspect of the theory of evolution, the fact that coding regions within two similar species are more similar than the non-coding regions is a direct consequence of evolutionary processes, and can be predicted by one who has a fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory.

The same can be said for the fact that intronless genes have been identified in eukaryotes. Most genes in bacteria have no introns--again, a consequence of evolutionary processes, not a "disproof" of the theory of evolution. (It is a consequence because bacteria are small and have high energy requirements; bacteria that do not shed useless DNA have a survival disadvantage compared to bacteria that do get rid of the junk. Eukaryotes do not have that energy disadvantage, so can continue to carry huge genomes, even when the bulk of the genome is non-coding.)

Oh, and I should point out here that I didn't bring up the term "junk DNA," you did--I only talked about coding and non-coding DNA.

Now, while you are on this spree of posting all kinds of molecular biology trivia, you have not provided any indication of understanding the biological implications of the trivia facts, or their relevance within the theoretical framework. The identification of a handful of intronless genes in eukaryotes does not change the fact that well over 99% of eukaryotic genes consist primarily of introns that are discarded during mRNA processing. I will also point out that the fact that histone genes have no poly(A) tail when virtually every other gene does is an interesting fact, but has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.

Instead of throwing out an endless stream of trivia that does not address the theoretical framework of evolution at all (but is actually quite consistent with the theory, although you don't seem to grasp that fact), why don't you try to develop testable hypotheses that would be consistent with a theory of a one-time creation event that occurred ~6,000 years ago at a single geographic location? Surely, if such a singular event happened and all life on earth exists because of it, a whole slew of testable hypotheses can be generated and tested. Where are the researchers developing and testing those hypotheses? I have yet to see any--at most, there is a random (and exceedingly rare) scientist who discovers that being paid to "debunk" established scientific facts, methodology, and so forth is more lucrative than working in the field. But there is no genuine research going on in "creation science." Could it be because any testable hypothesis that could be generated is quickly rejected because the evidence does not support it?

[Bob434]

Thank you for explaining that- and pointing out not all sequences are accounted for in those articles- I’ll check otu those links you posted- see if i can make heads or tails of them- probably not-

[[It’s all essential.]]

What i meant was that exdemmom was complaining that ‘basic’ sequences like the redundancy within coding and non coding shouldn’t be counted or included in comparisons-

[PigRigger]

And many geneticists say in their studies of DNA they see see repeating patterns so intricate that it resembles design patterns in software development... which leads them to believe it is a sign of intelligence​ and random chance...

[PigRigger]

The multiverse faith... No proof... So it is faith in science...

But yet even in that faith... it can’t explain where all this matter came from... It just was...

[PigRigger]

Should correct to say NOT random chance...

[ifinnegan]

“...and you have not offered any kind of explanation of how the information fails to support or even contradicts theory.”

You’re barking up the wrong tree.

[itsahoot]

If you think evolution theory is just one huge pack of lies, well then we disagree.

Nope never did I think evolution was a pack of lies, I just think the point should be proved with honest science not atheistic B$.

I don't think you do not believe in God, I just don't see how your position enhances faith. I don't think creationists should make up cr@p to prove evolution is wrong and I don't think science should either, because it isn't really science, it is opinion based on evidence just not all the evidence.

[ifinnegan]

“you have inadvertently posted an article that supports what I said several posts ago.”

No one disagreed that coding regions have greater homology among species than non-coding regions.

This of course was not a prediction under the modern synthesis - that genes would be so similar and essentially interchangeable among species. It was felt genes would be species-specific and differences in genes among spices would account for for their differences.

What genomics has shown is that the important regions of the genome for organismal specificity in eukaryotes is in the non-coding regions that regulate chromatin remodeling and gene expression.

[ifinnegan]

“None, because it’s science and science, by definition, only covers natural causes for natural processes.”

Yes. Exactly.

But many atheists and liberals don’t seem to understand this and think science disproves religion.

Examples are Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, etc...

Stephen Gould, an atheist and Marxist, did understand this and said science doesn’t and can’t address God Richard Dawkins was furious at him for saying that. My respect for Gould increased a lot when I learned he had made this point.

This belief that science negates God is part of the politicalization of science and it is harming science. The so-called March for Science is a prime example of the Politicalization of Science.

[Bob434]

[[What genomics has shown is that the important regions of the genome for organismal specificity in eukaryotes is in the non-coding regions that regulate chromatin remodeling and gene expression.]]

Is this a fancy way of saying that non coding areas are indeed unique and species specific? IF that is the case, then why in the world wouldn’t the non coding areas be taken into account when comparing two separate species?

[ifinnegan]

“Is this a fancy way of saying that non coding areas are indeed unique and species specific? IF that is the case, then why in the world wouldn’t the non coding areas be taken into account when comparing two separate species?”

Non-coding regions are taken in to account when comparing genomes