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.
i know they are but demmom seemed to indicate it shouldn’t be included becasue, in her words,
“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...
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.”
That seemed to indicate that only the coding DNA should be taken into account unless i was misunderstanding her comments-
I cannot speak for her but I believe she was not saying anything should be excluded but was addressing the claim in the title that DNA science disproves evolution, using this as evidence from DNA science that supports evolutionary theory.
again, i may have misunderstood, but it seemed she was accusing the author of being intentionally deceitful for including areas that shouldn’t have been included or taken into consideration because they were ‘non coding’-
Our FRiend iffinnegan is obviously putting out dog whistles to our anti-evolutionists who respond warmly, while (presumably) *his* posts to us are consistently hostile.
But at the same time, iffinnegan seems to claim he's not anti-evolution.
So he's playing some kind of game, likely involving word definitions, but I've not figured out what it is.
So whatever "tree" iffinnegan has actually climbed up, he's working hard to conceal its true location.
It should not surprise anyone that calculations of percent similarities & differences in DNA will vary depending what assumptions and rules are used.
So when we say all human DNA is 99.9% identical, that is based on different assumptions than when we say human & chimp DNA is 98% or 84% *similar*.
The key point exDemMom brings out is that mutations accumulate faster in non-coding regions of DNA than in coding regions.
And she tells us the reason: because non-coding mutations have no significant effects on survival, whereas coding mutations can be catastrophic and prevent reproduction.
Now ifinnegan wishes us to understand that non-coding DNA can have important functions, but that idea is not fully accepted, for one reason because non-coding mutations accumulate so readily.
The key point then is: if non-coding regions have no or little functions, then **any** differences there are totally irrelevant and should not be used in percent comparisons.
On the other hand, if non-coding has important functions then their differences are significant enough to consider in percent similar calculations.
[[On the other hand, if non-coding has important functions then their differences are significant enough to consider in percent similar calculations.]]
That’s the key point of hte discussion- the link i gave cites several articles, done by ‘secularists’ btw, throughout history, that indicate we should be counting it all, or at least much of what had been deceitfully thrown out when doing comparisons
“So he’s playing some kind of game, likely involving word definitions, but I’ve not figured out what it is.”
I suggest dropping your paranoia and tribalism.
“Now ifinnegan wishes us to understand that non-coding DNA can have important functions, but that idea is not fully accepted”
Yes it is. Questions exist as to the degree of “functionality” and what is considered functional, hence my quotes.
“The key point then is: if non-coding regions have no or little functions, then **any** differences there are totally irrelevant and should not be used in percent comparisons.”
No. Apples must be compared to apples so if it is a whole genome comparison all base pairs in each entire genome are compared, if it is a coding sequence then coding sequences are compared.
It’s not hard to understand. Neither is “better”.
I can’t make up my mind
Is this piece balderdacious drivel or drivelous balderdash?
;-)
I suggest you tell us what game you're really playing here.
Or, to use your own metaphor, which tree are you hiding in?
“I suggest you tell us what game you’re really playing here.”
This is what I mean by your paranoia.
But there's no "deceit" if we understand that over 90% of DNA is non-coding and mutations there have no visible effects on survival & reproduction.
But coding regions are quite different -- there any mutations can be fatal resulting in Natural Selection weeding those mutations out of our gene pools.
Yes, I "get" that some people now suspect some non-coding DNA does have some functions.
However, it's not yet been shown that DNA mutations there effect survivability, and therefore in terms of coding percent similarities, such mutations are irrelevant.
Bottom line: if you wish to include all non-coding DNA in your comparison of chimps & humans such that it shows only, what is it, 85% similarities, that's fine.
So long as you properly identify how you arrived at your number, it's legit.
But in terms of DNA that truly matters -- protein coding DNA -- the figure of 98% (plus or minus) similarity between chimps & humans is still valid.
The reason is Natural Selection working on Descent with Modifications, just as Darwin predicted.
Bob434 is calling comparisons of just the coding regions "deceitful" because they give us figures like 98% similarity between chimps & humans.
ExDemMom points out that non-coding regions are much more subject to enduring mutations, since such mutations have no known effects on survival or reproduction.
Hence non-coding mutations are not weeded out by Natural Selection and thus accumulate generation to generation.
So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity, I have no real problem with it, so long as you properly identify what you did.
But in terms of actual working parts -- protein coding DNA -- the old number of 98% (plus or minus) similarity remains as valid as ever.
And the reason is Natural Selection.
No "paranoia" here, just responding reasonably to your inexplicable hostility and notable dishonesty.
What's up with that?
[[So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity,]]
I never stated that the whole genome was necessary to compare- only pointing out that, as ifinnigan states, that some of the non coding regions are more important than we’re being led to believe by the ‘ape to man’ crowd-
And yes, I use the word deceit because of how the latest studies were conducted- throwing out info that was pertinent, and ‘filling in the gaps/ by using human genome instead of a complete chimp genome to do the comparisons as the original article indicated
[[since such mutations have no known effects on survival or reproduction.]]
Two posts ago you stated it may- which is it? “No known Effect”? Or “May be according to some”?
“So, if you wish to compare 100% genome to genome and arrive at a figure of 85% similarity, I have no real problem with it, so long as you properly identify what you did.”
That’s right.
It was right hundreds of posts ago too.
“...your inexplicable hostility and notable dishonesty.”
This is untrue and unsupportable and reflects poorly on your character.
Both are true: some researchers say some non-coding DNA may have actual functions, however, no researchers have identified positive or negative affects on survivability & reproduction from mutations in non-coding DNA.
That's why Natural Selection does not eliminate mutations in non-coding DNA and so they accumulate generation after generation.
So, when you use non-coding DNA to claim only 85% similarity between chimps & humans, well, then, imho, you are practicing just a weee little bit of, ahem, deceit yourself, aren't you?
But it was never expressed until my post #234.
Why is that?
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.