New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 9-28-18 | Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.

[fishtank]

New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research

BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018

The more DNA sequencing technologies improve, the worse it gets for the evolutionary paradigm. Such is the case with the newest version of the chimpanzee genome.

[Lurker]

“My response to the evolutionary 's is "show me the monkey men". 😄” Look in a mirror. We are them. L

[fishtank]

It’s called engineered adaptability.

The pre-designed DNA information was turned on in response to environmental (dietary) changes.

No evolution.

No new information in the genome.

Engineered adaptability.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Good points all. It’s always been my understanding, too, that evolution doesn’t have to proceed in any particular direction, or to any particular end. That’s where selective pressures come in ... selective pressures aren’t really a part of evolution, but they guide it to the point where we can perceive changes between a “species” at one point in time and another point in time.

[BroJoeK]

chuckles: "There is not ONE example of species to species mutation ever.
Changing from brown eyes to blue is NOT evolution."

Of course no species suddenly mutates to another, so far as we know.
However, FRiend, you are not the authority to define what is, or is not, "evolution" or even what is or is not a "species".
Those are scientific terms and science is, by US law, in charge of their definitions, not you.
Sorry about that.

In fact, science defines "evolution" as including anything which you might call "adaption" or "micro-evolution" or even long term "genetic drift".
You personally, chuckles, don't get to rule what is, or is not, evolution.

You can of course comment on what you think is, or is not, Biblical, and in that you sound like an expert.
I'd guess your church is lucky to have you.

[BroJoeK]

ml/nj: " 'Muddled or wrong,' according to Coyne and Orr "

Well, "muddled"? sure, since Darwin knew nothing of genetics, much less DNA, so it was only a vaguely defined concept 150+ years ago.

But it was remarkably correct: 1) descent with modifications plus 2) natural selection = 3) evolution.

[BroJoeK]

winslow: "Many transitional fossils do not show huge leaps and certainly do not prove that fish became land amphibians or that mammals became whales."

I'm going to ask you to put some numbers in your head and mull them around until you can grasp their importance.

The first number are: over the past ~150 years many billions of individual fossils representing hundreds of thousands of species have been discovered & classified.
Clear lines of descent with dozens of "transitional fossils" have been found in many cases.
But more important, every fossil, if identified in time and biological category, can be shown to be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.

The second number is my guess that so far fewer than 1% of all species which ever lived on earth have been found in fossil form, and because of the rarity of fossilization, it's unlikely most of those ever will be found.

So, my point is there's an awful lot we do know, but still vastly more which we don't.

winslow: "There are known issues with the timelines such as evidence that there were already creatures crawling around on the land when tiktaalik and other fishopods were around."

Tiktaalik is a representative of transitional forms between fish and early land-dwelling tetrapods.
No claim and no "law" says Tiktaalik was the first or only fish transitioning to part-time land-dweller.

winslow: "Even in the mammal to whale transitional fossils, there are huge problems."

Recent decades have seen fossils of many new species of ancient whales or pre-whales discovered, giving us a more complete picture of transitional forms.

[BroJoeK]

Secret Agent Man: "How bout the list without all the disproven frauds in it?"

I'd guess that maybe your definition of "disproven frauds" is a bit... skewed?
If you're thinking of Piltdown Man or Nebraska man, they're not on that list.

So far as I can see, those are all legit.

[dubyagee]

And your (their) conclusions have to agree with evolutionary theory. Just a different belief system.

[BroJoeK]

American in Israel: "Evolutionists are like lie-berals, they always refute logic and fact with slander and insults..."

Are you referring to post #78 above?

[BroJoeK]

Verginius Rufus: "If every species was created separately, why should there be any DNA in common at all between chimpanzees and human beings?"

Not sure what you mean by "created separately", but sure, it makes sense.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Good summary for folks interested in the science.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "What I’m looking for are large scale morphological changes, of the type we could notice only from the fossil record if we didn’t have access to DNA."

Why? What value is it?
Would you consider the relatively recent evolution of wolves to many dog breeds as a satisfactory answer?

Boogieman: "If the two assumptions (constant rate of genetic change over long scales of time, and constant appearance of morphological changes accompanying that change over long scales of time) are both true, then we should expect to see something of that in the last 100,000 years for which we have a relatively large fossil record for homo sapiens."

But why assume such things, what evidence do we have that either is true?
Doesn't the fossil evidence manifestly show they're not true?
so what's the point of your exercise?

Boogieman: "It seems to me we actually do not see that, and the obvious conclusion I come to is that one or the other assumption (or both) is false, and therefore, the other speculative conclusions that evolutionists come to based on whichever assumption is false are also invalid."

I've seen nothing claiming either assumption is true, indeed, I've read for many years now that establishing and "average rate of change" in DNA has been problematic, with each new methodology producing different results.
I've read nothing recently saying "now scientists are confident of their rate of DNA change numbers."

My guess is the reason is that "average rate of change" can vary rather widely, depending on short-term conditions.

[BroJoeK]

Bob434: "Some homologous structures, such as the eyes of a human and the eyes of an octopus are very similar but are extremely distant on the evolutionary tree.
Evolutionists, then, are quick to label these structures as analogous, though they are really more homologous, in order to save their theory. "

But what evidence do you have of octopus & human eyes being "homologous"?
Similar, sure, but look at their DNA -- is it even remotely the same?
I think not, which makes them analogous, and makes you a stretcher of truth, FRiend.

Why?

[theoldmarine]

If you are going to pose as some kind of scientific intellectual... you really should know how to spell... or don’t use Latin Terms

[Bob434]

where did i state that EVERY SINGLE SPECIES HAS EXACT SAME FEATURES Brokejoe? You intentionally misrepresented what i said- so what does that make you FRiend?

[chuckles]

There are no transitional fossils to show any evolution. showing pictures of monkeys following apes and apes following gorilla's, and gorilla's following a man doesn't prove they are connected in any way. We have over 5000 years of known history and humans haven't changed any other than maybe getting taller which could be from diet. Evolution is a myth at best and a hoax at worst.

This of course, is predicted in Scripture. Romans 1 tells us that we would NOT acknowledge God as Creator and we will think we are wise, but have been made fools. God gives these people reprobate minds to the point they believe homosexuality is normal.( Rom 1:26-27) Now we don't even know if a boy is a girl or not, so how far is science willing to go before straight jackets are required? God says we will suppress the truth. When talking about almost any subject, the moment Scripture is mentioned, we hear, "What does that have to do with anything?" God says the proof of a Creator is all around you. Any thinking person should be able to see that any organism that is "born" needs something to eat. Did they eat rocks? If there is nothing to eat, how did it ever reproduce? How did it ever find food if it had no eyes? If it ate something, how did it know how to digest the food? We are without excuse to know that God Created the Creation. "Professing themselves wise they became fools". You said I'm not the ruler of what evolution is or isn't. I suppose you are wiser than me. If you want to believe a cow was the forerunner of a whale or vice versa, have at it. If a chicken can lay an egg and a lizard comes out, that's supposed to be "punctuated equilibrium". Wait a year or two and "All the textbooks will have to be rewritten". The Bible has never changed, yet God predicted everything that we are experiencing today. Scripture says it will be as in the days of Noah and Lot when He comes to judge the world. God hasn't repented for Flooding the planet and burning up Sodom. Yet somehow we continue to shake our fist in His face.

How many times have you had to rethink what you think? Piltdown man? Java man? How many new creatures have been built from an extinct hog's tooth? How many animals have been built from a number of animal bones collected from a scattering over a mile of dirt?

I have encyclopedias and anthropology books from the 20's and 30's, 60's up to today, and one common theme in each one is they are considered wrong today. This "theory" has changed so many times most people can't keep up with the latest tale. Even top scientists admit today that Darwinism has failed. This "shotgun" method of science just doesn't work. There are books of anomalies that disprove the latest theories, yet it is pushed endlessly until finally someone changes it to accommodate some anomaly or two. In the mean time, Nobel Prize winners at put to shame and lose their grant money if they don't rubber stamp the latest meme.

[Bob434]

don’t believe the nonsense about the Tiktaalik being transitional- Even evolutionists have had to admit that was a dead end

“Tiktaalik, the transitional star, faces an evolutionary dead-end”

A total upset

This is not some small correction or a minor detail. It has turned the paleontological world upside down. Something of the magnitude of the upset can be gleaned from statements made about the find.

“They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”7

“[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins.”8

“[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.”9

“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.”10

“That’s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us.”11

“These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals.”12

https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

[Bob434]

“Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land.

Transitional limb?

Cladogram of the pectoral fins on the tetrapod stem
Fig. 2: Cladogram of the pectoral fins on the tetrapod stem, from Ref. 3. Click to see larger image
Quite aside from the huge problems explaining the origin of locomotion, there are other problems. The series of corresponding limbs (Fig. 2, right) does not appear to show the clear progression. Even from looking at it, it is not obvious that the Panderichthys limb belongs in between the adjacent ones in the series. It has fewer small bones. The authors themselves appear to recognize this:

‘In some features, Tiktaalik is similar to rhizodontids such as Sauripterus. These similarities, which are probably homoplastic, include the shape and number of radial articulations on the ulnare, the presence of extensive and branched endochondral radials, and the retention of unjointed lepidotrichia.’

Fossil order

Alleged lineage including Tiktaalik
Fig. 3: Alleged lineage including Tiktaalik, from ref. 1. Click to see larger image.
Fig. 3 (right) does much to popularize evolution, but there are a number of problems.

The caption admits, ‘These drawings are not to scale, but all animals are between 75 cm and 1.5 m in length.’ If size were taken into account, would there be such a clear progression? Compare a far more extreme example, the supposed land-mammal–to–whale sequence. This was also illustrated as equally sized, but Basilosaurus was 10 times longer than Ambulocetus.
Another admission is, ‘The vertebral column of Panderichthys is poorly known and not shown.’ We should remember the Pakicetus fiasco: when a few bones were known, evolutionists drew it like a half-way land-water form. But when more bones were found, it was realized that it was a fast-running land mammal.
All the fossils of this entire series are assigned to middle-upper Devonian, or 385–365 Ma. Naturally, there are many problems with dating , but even under the evolutionists’ own scenario, there are problems. E.g. the entire fish-to-tetrapod transition is supposed to have occurred in 20 Ma, but other salamanders, according to Shubin himself, have remained unchanged for far longer :

‘Despite its Bathonian age, the new cryptobranchid [salamander] shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives. This similarity underscores the stasis [no change] within salamander anatomical evolution. Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160 million years.’8

and so on and so on:

https://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link

[Labyrinthos]

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/11/1215-jeffrey-p-tomkins.html

[freedumb2003]

b/c scientists don’t have fingers.

You lost this discussion the moment you just made it personal since you have no actual argument.

Bye.

For real this time.