I have often thought of genes and chromosomes as Lego bricks. They can be combined in infinite ways, but take some intelligent force to make anything functional, meaningful or useful.
Ping!
What??? You mean God is the Creator of all life???
BUMP.
Why? Evolution was proposed long before genes were ever discovered.
ping
I have often thought of genes and chromosomes as Lego bricks. They can be combined in infinite ways, but take some intelligent force to make anything functional, meaningful or useful.
Haven't you figured out yet that when these fundamentalist groups write about science they misrepresent, distort and ignore data, and otherwise lie to make things come out supporting their narrow beliefs?
Check out the ICR's Tenets of Scientific Creationism and tell me how much science you find.
the author is not reporting correctly.
He is giving a two dimentional analysis to a THREE dimentional reading of the genes. The fact genes could, through their three dimentional shape, be multitasked to produce multiple outputs via partial or cross reading is OLD news. In fact this is over 30 YEARS old news.
This is not science on the part of creationists.
This could be the explanation for homosexuality. Everyone has heterosexual genes but the homosexuals don’t get theirs expressed. I predict the gays will call it the “fabulous repressor”.
Even with the same or almost the same genes, many differences between apes and humans exist because the genes are “unpacked” differently during development. To make the story of human evolution plausible, its proponents need to demonstrate not only a natural mechanism that generates new complete genes from scratch, but another natural mechanism that generates the precise and effective gene unfolding programs that are known to produce distinct cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.
Mechanisms (yes, more than one) of DNA shuffling and alteration have been known for decades. The natural mechanisms that allow for the generation of new genes from scratch, likewise, have been known for decades, and are known collectively as "evolution."
Everything the author of this piece put forward is fully supported by evolutionary theory. What he did not do is present a null hypothesis. If I were truly in doubt as to whether evolutionary theory could account for the diversity of species, I would have to come up with a hypothesis and a null hypothesis.
For instance: I hypothesize that the Biblical account happened in a fashion very similar to the account presented in Genesis (discounting, for the moment, the internal inconsistencies in the stories of creation as told in Genesis). To support this hypothesis, I predict that the genetic make-up of all organisms is exactly the same (down to the exact DNA sequence), with the exception of the genes needed to distinguish one organism from another. My null hypothesis is that a perfect creator did not create every organism, and that they evolved independently, in which case the genetic make-up would not be the same, even when coding for the same function. Why do I make these predictions? Because an intelligent creator would not reinvent the wheel for every single species; once a solution to a design problem has been determined, it would be applied across the board. All mammals need to carry oxygen in their blood; therefore, all mammalian hemoglobins should be identical in protein and DNA sequence, because they have the same function. When I examine hemoglobin sequences, however, I see that, although they are similar, they are not identical. So the experimental data supports the null hypothesis. And so on. So far, there isn't any experimental or observational evidence that precludes evolutionary theory in favor of a sudden creation event.
"Reasons" that, unfortunately, are not logically sound.
First, even though research has found that a 4.4 percent average difference in sequence exists between the similar genes, there are in fact many distinct genes that humans have and chimps do not, and vice versa.
So what? There is no logical requirement for "evolutionary relatives" to have exactly the same gene structure. This is something that we'd expect, based on the simple acknowledgement that "differences" exist.
Second, there is a large percentage of the two separate genomes that have not yet been correlated, and it is likely that significant non-gene sequence differences will become known—just as one recent study discovered.
And again, so what? Even granting the full truth of this statement, it has no bearing on whether or not humans and chimps share a common genetic ancestor. If such "non-gene sequences" can be responsible for the bewildering variety of structures in a single human body, one would expect them to be involved in the differences between two "evolutionary relatives."
Even with the same or almost the same genes, many differences between apes and humans exist because the genes are “unpacked” differently during development. To make the story of human evolution plausible, its proponents need to demonstrate not only a natural mechanism that generates new complete genes from scratch, but another natural mechanism that generates the precise and effective gene unfolding programs that are known to produce distinct cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.
Which is all well and good. However, simply to demand such mechanisms (or even to fail to find them) is not sufficient to invalidate a "common ancestor" hypothesis. Indeed, one can very easily envision a "common ancestor" scenario in which Creator derived humans and chimps from some "base" version.
That's very much like my approach to computer programming, in fact: I've written a large amount of software, and many programs literally share a common ancestor -- even if the programs themselves have significant differences between them.
The problem I have with this article, and many others like it, is that the author evidently does not have a firm grasp of the underlying logic (or lack thereof) of his argument. He's obviously opposed to the theory of evolution, but fails to recognize that a Creator might in fact work in ways that are functionally the same as what has been hypothesized for evolution.
What is probably damaging, however, is that with his demand for "mechanisms," Mr. Thomas has evidently (perhaps unwittingly) bought into a "God of the gaps" scenario. If such mechanisms are found, his entire argument would collapse -- even though it needn't do so given a different worldview.
DNA is like C++, only better.
"In 2005, a landmark study found that certain very similar human and chimpanzee genes differ in sequence by an average of 4.4 percent.2 Evolutionary scientists believe that the percentage of shared gene sequences between chimps and people supports the hypothesis that they have a common biological ancestor."
Uh, if we didn't have some different genes, we would still be living in the trees ...
Great article!
I note that unlike evolutionists, Creation Scientists did their research well, with well-documented sources and research that confirm the article, unlike the random storytelling and juggling of unintelligible jargon like the evolutionists!
If only the Commie public schools and universities would figure it out, and give (at least) equal funding to the thousands of brilliant creation scientists that have been biting their tongues in fear of the Darwiniac establishment! Think of the advances in scientific knowledge that could be made, if only the Creator was properly acknowledged!
It has been noted that DNA does not drive evolution.
Admin,
Can something be done to stop the relentless evolutionist hi-jacking of the GodGunsGuts threads?
A singular evolutionary pattern should always be subject to question and doubt especially when its supporting theories are so far from the tangible scientific axioms applied to heal the sick, fly the airplanes, and provide for nuclear power.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another 'meta'-article from a group where no Science is actually done.
They would do well to purchase a few of these:
.......rather than continually spewing their drek with these:
Lolololololololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See my ***Tagline***