Posted on 07/18/2009 7:17:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The world of human phylogeny has been hit by a bombshell. Although scholars and textbooks are presenting chimpanzees as man's closest relatives, Grehan and Schwartz have revived the case for orangutans. They consider hominoids to be comprised of two sister clades: the human-orangutan clade (dental hominoids) and the chimpanzee-gorilla clade (African apes). They claim that humans and orangutans "share a common ancestor that excludes the extant African apes". Since it is received wisdom that chimps are the nearest relative to humans because we share over 98% of their genes and since humans are referred to as the "third chimpanzee", the ramifications of the new paper are immense!...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
==And once again he goes straight from an admitted 98% similarity in GENETIC comparison to a GENOMIC comparison without once mentioning all the reasons that the greater genomic difference was expected and fully in line with what we observe in other species of known common descent.
As Dr. Tomkins points out, there has yet to be an unbiased genome-wide comparison of the human-chimp genomes. They arrived at their 98-99% similarity by comparing only human-chimp gene fragmants that already exibited a high degree of similarity, and tossed the rest out. And when I say they threw the rest out, I mean they threw out the upstream and downstream flanking regions of the genes in question, not to mention the introns in between! In short, they threw out all the machinery that regulates and controls gene expression! And yet, the evos continue to perpetuate the myth that humans and chimps are 98-99% similar. What a joke!
Oh, I see, so the genic regions of the genome are all that matters? Give me a break. The protein coding regions only comprise around 1.5% of the genome. So your 98% genetic similarity comes from genes that were specifically selected for similarity, and not only that, they only represent 1.5% of the genome. Give me a break! You are still stuck in the days when your evo co-religionists assumed that the other 98.5% of the genome was functionless “junk” or fossil DNA. We now know that at least 93% of that so-called “junk” is transcribed, and we also know that it takes far more information/DNA to regulate and control the expression of a gene than the information/DNA that comprises the gene itself. Wake up and smell the coffee, Allmendream.
And of course it takes more than just coding DNA to regulate gene expression. That is why there are enhancers and repressors and promoter regions, etc.
Moreover if you want to look at EITHER genetic or genomic DNA we see the same pattern whereby humans and chimps are the most similar.
In fact it is the no-Genetic DNA that is of most use in tracking down relationships of common descent. When seeing what human populations are most related to what other human populations the genetic DNA doesn't offer enough diversity, so non-genetic DNA is compared.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This ”copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
Also, let's not forget, that this 70% is comparing only the less than 2% of the entire genetic material- the rest of the genetic material, the 98%, which the Macroevos concider to be 'junk DNA' but which we now know is NOT junk at all, is completely different from chimp's 'junk DNA'. So this claim that Chimps and humans are 98%, 96% or whatever % the macroevos have disingeniously 'settled on' nowadays, is very misleading- the % is comparing only less than 2% of the entire genome, and as you correctly point out, even that piddly amount is not what the macroevos claim to be %-wise, and it completely ignores the millions of differences even in that small percentage which they concentrate on- The claim that we're even 90% similar to chimps is a bogus LIE! Meant to decieve and to keep the failing claims of 'common descent' alive via blatant misrepresentation
If so-called "junk" DNA is passed down from generation to generation just like so called "genetic" DNA, and if we were related to chimps, then the "junk" DNA would (obviously) also have the same 98+% similarity as the "genetic" DNA cherrypicked by the evos to fit their failed theory! The whole premise is silly, considering from GGG's other posts, that we've found that non-coding (i.e. "junk") DNA is utilized just as fully as regular "genetic" DNA!
Not to mention that evolution from chimps to humans is impossible for a slew of other reasons (like the laws of thermodynamics, and that all the dubious "transitionals" could fit in the trunk of a car, and, as Ethan Clive Osgoode stated, that we haven't seen a chimp chessmaster or other such chimp genius...)
The only explanation I can think of for the evo scientists to hold on to such a failed theory is so they keep getting funding for their posh "conferences" and continue their immoral path of denying the full wonders of God.
I'm thankful to be here among bright folks who are capable of annihilating the myths of liberal science using simply common sense, elbow grease, and a keyboard!
There are reasons why non-coding DNA is not as similar and genetic DNA when comparing between species; and it is known as “neutral mutations” and “selective constraints”.
In other words changes to genetic DNA is more likely to be selected against by natural selection, whereas changes to non-genetic DNA is much less likely to have any effect on selection.
Moreover there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would deny God any more or less than any other scientific theory. Most Christian denomination have no problem with belief in evolution, and the Pope calls evolution “a fact which enriches our understanding of life and being and such.”
Yep- the so called ‘junk’ DNA gets completely ignored and ‘explained away’ except that the explanations falls flat on it’s face- IF, like you said, we are descended from chimps, ALL the DNA would be 98% similar given hte extremely short period of time that we’re supposed to have split from chimps- but some people are just desperate to link htemselves to chimps I guess.
Neutral mutaitons and selective constraints have absolutely squat to do with anyhting contrary to some people’s claims and attempts to explain away the serious roadblock to Macroevolution- the non coding DNA would still be almost completely like a chimps IF we were descended from chimps or even a common anscestor- but alas- apparently, nature, in all it’s wisdom and omnipotence, completely rewrote al lthe non coding DNA after we split form chimps, and completely rewrote the meatinformation code to deal with hte new and improved changes to the non coding DNA- Those makign such claims are grasping at straws hoping noone will notice- Allmen’s explaination shows that we would infact have almost exactly the same non coding DNA IF the non coding DNA weren’t changed and passed along ‘verbatim’- furthermore, changes to non coding DNA WOULD infact have a great deal of influence when being ‘passed along’ from species to species IF it were even possible, because we are finding out, like GGG said, that non codign DNA is NOT junk and plays a crucial role in species ability to remain fit.
apparently what soem in htis thread don’t understand is that the issue isn’t whether coding or non coding dna has an effect on selection, the FACT is that they BOTH would be passed along from species to species IF it were possible i nthe first place for macroevolution to occure, and BOTH the coding and non coding DNA would be close to 100% identical- which they most certainly are not, and as GGG points out, even that small %- less than 2% of the codign DNA isn;’t even close ot being exact or similar- contrary ot the claims of macroevos- as GGG showed, the % is much much smaller in hte coding region- different enough that the two species are uniquely seperate species altogether- the differences amount ot millions of differences, and even IF macroevolution were biologically possible, there simply would not have been enough time for htese differences to devlop- even given hte deceitful timelines claiemd by Macroevos- which is based of course, not on facts, but upon ASSUMPTIONS, since every single method used to date material past about 5000 years, are broken systems with problems that simpy don’t mesh with known facts, as I’ve documented several times here on FR
Alas, I guess if some people want to think they are relatives of chimps, despite the ammassing evidnece against such a notion, that’s their business, and if the pope wishes to beleive nature has omnipotent capabilites which is somehow able to violate natural laws, chemical, biological laws, and to thwart mathematical impossibilities, that’s his busienss too- but I hope he doesn’t expect rational people with common sense to swallow that nonsense. He may be the leader of religious groups, but he certainly has shown he doesn’t understand the actual science makign claims like he did
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
You can prove or disprove anything you want with statistics if you manipulate them enough.
That’s why I distrust the evos claims using them to support evolution so much. There’s usually a decided lack of detail in exactly what it is they’re comparing, a red flag in and of itself.
Statistics are not used to establish a 98% genetic identity between humans and chimps.
There is no lack of detail in what exactly is being compared, the only “confusion” is the decided attempts by Creationists to conflate the genetic comparison with the genomic comparison as if they were the same.
What is being compared is a human gene sequence with a chimp gene sequence.
When you compare a human gene sequence with a chimp gene sequence you will find they are around 98% the same.
Worse than wrong... seriously deluded.
You know, I've been thinking we creationists should ditch the whole conserved/unconserved, constrained/unconstrained language that Evos like Allmendream are so fond of using. After all, these terms simply ASSUME evolution. According to the Evos, what genes are conserved? Well, genes that have remained unchanged throughout evolution, of course! What is unconserved? Genes that have undergone significant change throughout evolution, of course! But what determines if genes have changed or remained the same? By comparing the genetic sequences of organisms to other organisms thought to have a common ancestor. The problem with this is that if creation is true, that which the Evos call unconserved can be just as necessary and fixed as that which the Evos call conserved. After all, the only way the Evos "know" if a sequence is conserved or not is if it is shared between one organism and another organism that the Evos assume to have a common ancestor. But if each biblical kind was created separate and distinct, then the genetic and non-coding DNA the Evos call "unconserved" may very well be just as important and just as unchanging as the genetic sequences they call "conserved."
==In other words changes to genetic DNA is more likely to be selected against by natural selection, whereas changes to non-genetic DNA is much less likely to have any effect on selection.
Wrong. From the Evo high priests over at Project ENCODE:
"Experimentally identified functional elements and constrained sequences.We first compared the detected constrained sequences with the positions of experimentally identified functional elements. A total of 40% of the constrained bases reside within protein-coding exons and their associated untranslated regions (Fig. 10) and, in agreement with previous genome-wide estimates, the remaining constrained bases do not overlap the mature transcripts of protein coding genes [4,5,88,105,106]."
The evo high priests over at Project ENCODE also found that
"Unconstrained experimentally identified functional elements. In contrast, an unexpectedly large fraction of experimentally identified functional elements show no evidence of evolutionary constraint ranging from 93% for Un.TxFrags to 12% for CDS."
For those who don't know, a "CDS" stands for "Coding Sequence." In other words, CDS's code for proteins. A full 12% show now sign of what the Evos call being "constrained"/"conserved". See my opening comments again with respect to "conserved" and "constrained" for some food for thought in this respect.
And finally, here's the biggest wopper of all, according to the Evo high priests over at Project ENCODE, only "a total of 5% of the bases in the genome can be confidently identified as being under evolutionary constraint in mammals".
Did you catch that? If only 5% of the genome can confidently be identified as being under evoutionary constraint, that means the other 95% is not. As Alex Williams points out in "Astonishing DNA Complexity Demolishes neo-Darwinism," that means that 95% of the genome is not under selective pressure, which means that "natural selection has not been a significant contributor to our ancestry."
This is mind-blowing stuff people! Can you dig it?!?!
Here's the link to the Project ENCODE paper I just quoted from:
Sheesh. What kind of "rationalist" assumes that natural physical laws (and not only natural physical laws, but our natural physical laws as they exist in our own day) pre-existed everything and are the standard for measuring the duration of exnihilation???
Perhaps you should address your comments to the person who wrote the reply you are responding to??? Just a thought.
Biologists call things “highly conserved” because it is exactly that. A hemoglobin protein, for example, must maintain function so many mutations are simply not “allowed” in that when and if they happen the resulting individual never passes on their DNA.
Out of many possible combinations to make a hemoglobin protein only a few are actually used and the ones used seem remarkably similar in similar species, even though most of the “changes” are absolutely immaterial to the resulting functioning hemoglobin protein (third position bias for example).
Comparing the differences we find the same pattern writ smaller that we find in ERV’s and other (usually) not conserved sequences, with similar species and disparate species separated into nested hierarchies of similarity and difference (the same pattern that we can SEE forming in fastly reproducing organisms related by common descent).
And the ENCODE findings are very interesting and CONFIRM that function denotes high “conservation” between species.
They found about half of conserved sequences were genetic. The other half are no doubt regulating those genes in some fashion.
Moreover the idea that function leads to conservation between species has led to them finding function in SOME regions that would have been dismissed as “junky” DNA if not for the finding of a high level of conservation between species.
And your conclusion that because only a small portion of the genome seems subject to natural selection that natural selection had no significant effect is ludicrous.
It is that small portion of the genome that has demonstrated FUNCTION.
Your insistence that the entirety of the genome have some esoteric function reminds me of how some used to insist that animal extinction was impossible because God wouldn't allow it.
Why is it a challenge to how you conceive of God if HE somehow found it more convient to package the useful DNA amid reels and reels of DNA that doesn't seem to have much if any use?
The self-loathing evolutionists prefer to classify themselves with the monkeys rather than with men. According to their "logic", we are 98% ape. So that means we are just 2% human. They also say that chimps are 98% human. So apes, therefore, are 96% more human than people. That's evolution logic.
annihilating the myths of liberal science using simply common sense
Evolution should be studied from a historical perspective too. Even a casual study of the history of Darwinism is sufficient to annihilate the credibility of all the demonic clowns and deceivers who postured as scientists. For example, read this: Darwinism-Eugenics.
OK. I read your post, slowly, and here is what I got.
As a species evolves, the changes are usually small, so only the DNA in the affected area make these changes, and maybe some in the brain/central nervous system.
Am I close?
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.