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.

[BroJoeK]

Arrrrrrrrrgh!

"Assent" = "Ascent".

[BroJoeK]

Bob434: "don’t believe the nonsense about the Tiktaalik being transitional- Even evolutionists have had to admit that was a dead end"

Important to remember that three Tiktaalik individuals were found in 2004 and first proposed as a possible "missing links" between fish & amphibians.
Two years later that proposal was challenged, in 2006 and again in 2010, so science has been doing its thing -- reviewing, analyzing & hypothesizing.

In addition to Tiktaalik science has discovered at least half a dozen other "transitional" species from that time, any or all of which might fill the role:

Further, there are even older impressions in rocks which may or may not be "trackways" from as-yet undiscovered amphibians.
So, it's an exciting period for science, which on this subject at least is far from "settled".

Bob434: " '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."

Well... no, it's simply science doing what science does -- trying to make the best it can from available data.
All recognize that Tiktaalik, by itself cannot be the single "missing link", so the question is, precisely where in the great scheme of things does Tiktaalik fit?

Bob434 quoting: " '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 "
etc., etc.

Those quotes are talking about the 2004 first discovery if Tiktaalik and proposals for "missing link" status.
Two years later, in 2006 and again in 2010, such proposals were challenged by other scientists, and all now recognize this issue, at least, is far from "settled".

[UCANSEE2]

Fair to say that until several thousand years ago all selection was natural selection.

I think Abel would disagree with you.

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks for the lengthy response.

Understand that I probably know less about the true ‘evolutionary process’ than you, so I’m benefiting from our conversation.

One thing you said that I disagee with-

“Sure, but all scientists accept basic assumptions, premises & definitions of natural-science,”

Specifically the words “ALL” and “SCIENTISTS”.

[UCANSEE2]

BTW, ever notice that the only thing worse than getting into a debate on evolution is getting into a debate on religion ?

[UCANSEE2]

"Assent" = "Ascent".

Don't worry, that mistake just proves you are human.

[UCANSEE2]

Back to my original point, I think many people (including some scientists) mistakenly use the word ‘evolution’ when talking about ‘adaptation’.

[Bob434]

what don’t you get about the fact that i do not write for that publication? I NEVER said human and octopus eyes are homologous- again-

The site is making the point, (which you failed to bold) that evolutionists have bastardized the term homology in order to fit conflicting evidences into their failed hypothesis of evolution. The classical definition of homology was simply structures that were similar are homologous- Darwin came along and arbitrarily changed the definition because he couldn’t explain common ancestry between wholly dissimilar species- But simply changing the definition doesn’t jive with scientific fact, and his new definition had several serious flaws in it- which you can read for yourself in the following link:

https://trueorigin.org/homology.php

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE: "I think Abel would disagree with you."

And Cain was punished for acting, ahem, unnaturally.

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE2: "One thing you said that I disagee with-

'Sure, but all scientists accept basic assumptions, premises & definitions of natural-science,'

Specifically the words 'ALL' and 'SCIENTISTS'. "

Right, you might have a point there... except that by my definition anyone who does not accept such basic assumptions, premises & definitions, for methodological purposes, is not a real scientist.

So it's not a matter of dictating certain ideas, but rather of awarding only those who earn it the title "scientist".

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE2: "BTW, ever notice that the only thing worse than getting into a debate on evolution is getting into a debate on religion ?"

I did once or twice get into debate on religion & theology here...

And it did help change my mind on some subjects, so that's a positive.
Since then I can't really think of a religious issue I'd care to debate with my FRiends here...

Of course there are deep religious implications from science in general and evolution specifically, and they often come up on these threads.
Sorting some of those out is enough, I think, for my abilities.

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE2: "Back to my original point, I think many people (including some scientists) mistakenly use the word ‘evolution’ when talking about ‘adaptation’. "

I'll repeat: it's all the same processes, call it by whatever name you chose: "adaption", "micro-evolution", "macro-evolution" even "genetic drift", it's all the same things, only the time frames change.

"Adaption" & "micro-evolution" simply refer to relatively short-term changes which might produce new breeds & subspecies, where "macro-evolution" refers to those exact same changes accumulating over longer periods to produce new species, genera, etc.

The processes are the same, only the time periods differ.

[BroJoeK]

Bob434: "what don’t you get about the fact that i do not write for that publication?"

Yes, I do "get" that you posted a quote, not your own words.
But I still see no place where you've disagreed with those words, and if you do disagree, why even post them?
So in that context, those words appear to be your opinion, even if you didn't yourself write it.

Bob434: "The classical definition of homology was simply structures that were similar are homologous-
Darwin came along and arbitrarily changed the definition because he couldn’t explain common ancestry between wholly dissimilar species-"

Once again, as I see it, the distinctions between "homologous" and "analogous" are, simply, the degree to which two similar looking biological organs are, in fact, similar.
For example, in closely related mammals many organs are homologous if not outright identical.

By contrast, the eyes of octopus and humans, while remarkably similar in appearance, are actually quite different, especially at DNA levels.
So they are analogous.

I also "get" that you think some kind of... well, misdeed is being committed against true science by Darwin & Co., but precisely what that "misdeed" might be I'm still as clueless now as on my first response to you above.

[UCANSEE2]

except that by my definition anyone who does not accept such basic assumptions, premises & definitions, for methodological purposes, is not a real scientist.

Agreed.

[UCANSEE2]

And Cain was punished for acting, ahem, unnaturally.

If Cain was around today, he would be running as the Democrat Candidate for President.

[UCANSEE2]

I'll repeat: it's all the same processes,

I am not arguing that point.

I'm saying that others, including many so-called 'scientists' would and do argue that point. Many of today's 'scientists' believe in consensus instead of facts.

I.E. there's the way things SHOULD BE , and there's the way THEY ARE.

While humans might be 'evolving' physically, they seem to be 'devolving' mentally.

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE2 "I'm saying that others, including many so-called 'scientists' would and do argue that point."

You're talking about the distinctions between so-called micro evolution (aka "adaption") and macro-evolution.
I doubt if any scientist who pondered it for long would disagree with me.
The problem here is scientists themselves invented the terms "micro" & "macro" as simple shorthand to notate when they were talking about short-term & long-term evolution.
I doubt if any scientist then, or many today, grasped that they thereby handed anti-evolutionists a weapon to use against science.

My suggestion here would be to eliminate both the confusion and any deceptions by eliminating terms like micro, macro & adaption.
Simply refer to it all as evolution, short, medium or long term.

UCANSEE2: "While humans might be 'evolving' physically, they seem to be 'devolving' mentally.

Fair to to say that from Day One, life has always been a race between evolution and devolution, with evolution winning out only because it's "failures" (harmful mutations) were quickly eliminated by natural selection.
Today, with much of that selection gone, or indeed reversed by government programs, we can expect to find rapid devolution -- "rapid" in geological terms.
The "solutions" will begin when science can make routine gene therapy for in vitro conceptions.

I have no guess what new problems that will create...

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE2: "If Cain was around today, he would be running as the Democrat Candidate for President."

Maybe. but remember, Cain was the farmer, Abel the shepherd.
Cain, like all farmers worked hard to produce very little "profit" he could offer to God.
So Cain was jealous of his "easy-life" shepherd brother.
But I'd say, up to that point they are both producers, which means in today's terms, Republicans.

Now Cain decides to win God's favor, not by producing more, rather by eliminating Cain's competition, Abel.
That might make Cain a corrupt capitalist, or swamp critter, not to be claimed by either party today, though perhaps tolerated more by some than others, depending on which received more campaign contributions.

But God would have none of it, punished Cain, though also protected him so Cain moved to new land & built a city.
Now, so far as I can see, Cain is a normal human being who worked hard, grieved & sinned when others seemed to live an easier life.
But here's no doubt God still loved Cain (and Cain loved God!) despite Cain's great sin.

What would make Cain a Democrat, would be, first & foremost if he declared God had no power over him, because for all Cain knew, God did not even exist.
Next, Cain does not outright kill Abel so much as he taxes Abel to death and uses Abel's tax money to support Cain's jobless friends, the Nephilim.
Then Cain opens the gates of his new city to all comers taxing Abel ever more to support them.

But none of that happened, Cain was still loved by God and in time became the ancestor of many.
So I'm thinking Cain's was a forgiven & redeemed soul, and Cain himself a producer, a builder and in time a good citizen.
In short, in time a solid Republican.

You disagree?

[UCANSEE2]

You disagree?

It would be easier for Cain to qualify as a Democrat Candidate being a known murderer.

If he tried to run as a Republican, the media would trash him.

[BroJoeK]

LOL!

;-)