Right... everyone else had their fun with this, but here is a serious answer:
Posted on 10/04/2018 6:59:49 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I assume the rate of mutations over time of DNA for humans has been studied for a few decades, and this known rate is the basis for the assertion that 98.5% similarity is what is required for the assumption that humans and apes share a common ancestor going back 3 to 6 million years?
80% is nowhere near close enough then, and that’s assuming there are no problems with the dating of the rocks or the fossils found in the rocks (and let’s face it there are huge problems with the accuracy of dating methods). I read another article a while ago that suggested the similarity might only be around 70%. I’m sure this will have little effect in causing most evolutionists to doubt their faith, although it should. For me the biggest problems for them by far are the fossil record not showing what it should if evolution was true, and abiogenesis. I’ve watched a few creation/evolution debates on the fossil record and the evolutionists never seem to make a convincing case at all.
Right... everyone else had their fun with this, but here is a serious answer:
Yes, but in which direction ?
And even more to the point...
Unfortunately, the word ‘evolution’ is thrown around without definition or any agreement on the definition, just like ‘climate-change’.
That’s the problem according to Prof John Sanford. He wrote a book studying mutations of the human genome and believes that our DNA is accumulating harmful mutations at a much faster rate than expected and based on this rate of deterioration you can’t fit in millions of years of change because we should have been extinct a long time ago. The book is called Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome I think.
Each animal species has a characteristic chromosome number. We humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Please explain these "accumulated modifications" that got us from 22 or 24 or whatever pairs to 23.
It's not as if humans (or other animals) are never born with a different number of chromosome pairs, but none of these humans (or other animals) ever have grandchildren; which is sort of a bummer for anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution as you seem to.
ML/NJ
Okay, I’ll bite. If we are still evolving, then what are the significant morphological changes between modern man and the first homo sapiens specimens that scientists date to around 100,000 years ago?
If six million years is enough to change a great ape into a homo sapiens, then we should see around 1.5% of that level of change in the 100,000 years of specimens of homo sapiens we have available, right? At least a few of our features should be noticeably different.
>>Thanks “freeDUMB” <<
Ad hominnum using my scree name. I have NEVER seen that before!
>>for outing yourself as a dumb & godless lost soul.<<
Not true and not your call. God detests ignorance more than actual evil.
How sad that here on a Conservative site we have someone who like you who is so easily triggered.
I will issue a trigger warning in the future when I point out basic science information so you can leave before you have another tantrum.
Humans have 50% of genes in common with bananas. Puts the other number in perspective.
The ones complaining of the scientific halitosis in creationists often stand in need of a bath and good deodorant. The stink arises from their unscientific apriori pre-bias that God is not necessary for life to have been created or to have stayed involved in the “domino” end over end thinking of the evolutionists.
Answers Research Journal 9 (2016):294–298.www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v9/101_chimpanzee_human_DNA.pdf
Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Institute for Creation Research, 1806
Royal Lane, Dallas, Texas 75229.
Abstract
The current chimpanzee genome assembly has problems that reduce its veracity as an authentic representation.
First, it has been assembled using the human genome as a reference scaffold and does not stand on its own merits. Second, given the fact that significant levels of human DNA exist in non-primate databases due to laboratory and worker contamination, the potential for human DNA in the pre-assembled chimpanzee sequencing reads is highly probable.
Therefore, 101 Sanger-style publically available trace read data sets were downloaded, end-trimmed for low quality bases, and purged of vector sequence.
Then, 25,000 sequences were selected at random from each of the 101 data sets and queried against the human genome using BLASTN v2.2.31 with gap extension.
Results from the BLASTN analysis indicated that two different groups of chimpanzee DNA sequences could be found. Those that were completed early in the chimpanzee genome project that contributed to the initial 5-fold draft genome, were considerably more similar to human than those that were produced later in the project by a difference of about 7% overall data set identity and produced 6% less hits onto the human genome.
Sequences (both alignable and non-alignable) from the seemingly less contaminated data sets indicate that the chimpanzee genome is approximately 85% identical overall to human.
Extensive poor alignment of chimpanzee DNA sequences that did not have hits on the human genome that were blasted on the chimpanzee genome revealed regions of miss-assembly for the chimpanzee genome.
Keywords: comparative genomics, human-chimp DNA similarity, human genome, chimpanzee genome, primate evolution
“The assertion that the evos “need” 98.5% etc is goofy.”
Not really, when you understand the nature of the speculative assertions they make. Evolutionists assume a relatively constant rate of change in the genome over long periods of time, then use that assumed rate of change to extrapolate when species must have diverged from their assumed common ancestors based on the discrepancies we observe in their genomes today.
If the discrepancy is much larger than previously thought, then all of the subsequent estimations based on it are invalid. If we assume a relatively constant rate of change, then going from a 1.5% difference in the genome to a 15% difference means that instead of a common ancestor 6 million years ago, now scientists would have to speculate that the common ancestor was 60 million years ago. Unfortunately for them, 60 million years places them back in the time of the dinosaurs, when mammals were tiny shrew-like creatures hiding in little holes in the rocks, not primates.
So that is very inconvenient for the current model of human evolution.
The order of figures needs to be reversed, start the man with Founding Fathers, then early Progressives, Bull Moose and early modern Democrats, McGovernites and finally SJWs as the chimps.
Ok, so the “missing link” being sought occurred sometime from 6 to 4 million years ago?
But evos first assume evolution too! What really shows you’re bias is ignoring all the recent DNA studies which show devolution of DNA. Micro changes are basically encoded within the DNA BUT micro have only been assumed to lead to macro nothing more...
>>A quicker answer is God created man<<
Of course He did. The issue is the mechanism.
You said...”God detests ignorance more than actual evil.”
No! He destroys absolute evil in hell fire; the ignorant he can instruct and discipline through his Spirit! He sent His Son to save us ignorant folks, from the effects of “absolute evil”...us “deplorables” if you will!!! I suspect that you are expressing your own ungodly hate of the ignorant(while putting in your own words as though they were coming from God’s mind!!) while ignoring scripture that states...”All we like sheep have gone astray, everyone to his own way!” And that means...you too!
“It has nothing to do with morphology...”
Now that is a bit dishonest, since the theory posits that all changes in morphology are a result of evolution. It is also a theory generally based on gradualism as well, so over long time scales, we should see a relatively constant rate of change in morphology. After all, evolutionists use changes in morphology in the fossil record to estimate the times of divergence of species absent any other evidence, which shouldn’t be possible unless they are assuming that evolution necessitates some fairly steady rate of morphological change.
Of course that contradicts the idea that we see species from millions, or hundreds of millions of years ago in the fossil record that are to this day identical. So special pleading must be invoked in those cases to explain that they remain unchanged because they are “perfectly adapted” to their environment. Never mind that in all that time, no creature could remain so perfectly adapted, since the environment itself would be subject to change.
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.