Image from this ICR article:
http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthal-were-human-babies/
Posted on 05/07/2013 7:58:39 AM PDT by fishtank
Modern Y-Chromosome Variation Surpasses Archaic Humans by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
The human Y-chromosome has been a sore point among secular scientists in recent years because of its many anti-evolutionary surprises. Adding to the Darwinian grief, is yet one more shocking Y-chromosome study that more clearly illustrates the boundaries of human genetic diversity.
Much controversy has brewed during the past few years over the genomic sequences of what have been termed "archaic" humans. This so-called "ancient DNA" was extracted from bone fragments of "Neandertal" and "Denisovan" specimens and then sequenced, providing draft blue prints of these respective genomes.1, 2 While much hypothetical speculation has raged over how much interbreeding went on between modern humans and archaic humans, the fact remains that both types were shown to be fully human.
Now, a modern living human has been discovered who has Y-chromosome variation that increases the range of human DNA diversity beyond that of so-called archaic humans.3 This new data unequivocally proves that Neandertals and Denisovans were well within the DNA variability range of modern humans—not extinct primitive evolutionary offshoots of the human lineage.
Earlier DNA studies attempted to prove that archaic humans were different than modern humans, based on slight variations in their mitochondrial DNA—a small circular piece of DNA outside the nucleus in the cell’s mitochondria that is inherited maternally. In fact, because the Y-chromosome undergoes very little DNA change, and is considerably larger in size than the mitochondrial genome, it is a much more reliable measure of human DNA diversity.
Not surprisingly, this new discovery confirms the conclusions and predictions first proposed by researchers when the entire Neandertal genome draft sequence was published in 2010.1 In this report, the authors state, "Neandertals are expected to be more closely related to some present-day humans than they are to each other." The new Y-chromosome study now fully confirms this hypothesis made by evolutionists themselves.
Another Y-chromosome study of great importance in the human-origins debate is the recent report of extreme differences between the human and chimpanzee MSY (male determining) regions. The MSY region contains most of the genes in the Y-chromosome. In this report, approximately 50% of the DNA sequence did not even match between chimps and humans. Humans also had twice as many genes as chimps in the MSY region. In fact, the evolutionary authors of the study shockingly note that given "6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."4
Confirming this stunning human-chimp Y-chromosome data is another recent research report in which the analysis of all chimpanzee chromosomes showed only a 70% DNA similarity on average to human.5
These scientific discoveries related to human origins, as revealed by modern DNA sequencing technologies, can be summarized by the following key points.
Modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans are all part of the same human "created kind." Chimpanzees are simply a type of ape, created distinctly and uniquely as their own "kind." These findings fully confirm the Bible which states in the book of Genesis that all living things were created with distinct genetic boundaries "after their kind." The Bible also clearly tells us that, concerning mankind’s genetics, God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26).
References
Green, R. E. et al. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science. 328 (5979) : 710-722.
Reich, D. et al. 2010. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature. 468 (7329): 1053-1060.
Mendez, F. L. et al. 2013. An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 92 (3): 454-459.
Hughes, J. F. et al. 2013. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature. 463(7280): 536-539.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.
*Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.
Article posted on May 6, 2013
Image from this ICR article:
http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthal-were-human-babies/
Here, buried in the third paragraph, we find a single sentence which should actually be the main focus of any article on these findings.
Who is this living human, and - considering that he is regarded as being as far or farther from "average" modern humans than Neanderthal Man and Denisovan Man - what does he look like?
Regards,
As a believing Christian...but also an educated scientist....this stuff is a bunch of Bull Obama.
As an aside, the vast majority of my close associates also hold post-grad degrees in math/physics/engineering, and have strong religious beliefs...and NONE of them buy the output of that particular organization.
I'm the Juggernaut, beeyotch.
Modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans are all part of the same human “created kind.”
Yes, but HOW OLD are those species??
As a believing Christian...but also an educated scientist....this stuff is a bunch of Bull Obama.
As an aside, the vast majority of my close associates also hold post-grad degrees in math/physics/engineering, and have strong religious beliefs...and NONE of them buy the output of that particular organization.
I agree with you the world isn’t 6,000 years old, it is 6,001 years, 2 months, 3 weeks and 2 days old....
:P
thank goodness there are intellectual giants like you with your fancy degrees (as opposed to ICR’s scientists with fancy degrees) to protect us, the great unwashed, from these christian believers in the biblical account of creation.
There is an element to the controversy that is often overlooked and that is simply looking at the final living chimpanzee and the skeleton of the dead Neanderthal. No matter what the genes do or donot say they “ain’t homo sapiens.”
The linked chart is itself suspect since there weren't records back to 10,000 BC to support their 1 million headcount. But even so, 27 million in 2000 B.C. to 6 billion in a 4,000 year period, gives a growth rate of over 200x every 4,000 years.
Extrapolating back gives 135,000 in 8,000 B.C., 675 in 12,000 B.C. and 3 around 16,000 B.C.
The population growth rate of humans just doesn't support 6,000,000 years of history. Plus I think population growth has slowed in recent years. Extrapolating from that curve gives in my opinion ultra conservative results.
It's not logical that our population would only increase from 3 to just 675 in the first 4,000 years.
“Neandertals are expected to be more closely related to some present-day humans than they are to each other.”
So the folks with Neanderthal DNA aren’t quite human?
Wow. This guy is either stupid or dishonest. The Y-chromosome undergoes MORE DNA change generation to generation than the rest of the genome. It is the fastest changing part of the human genome.
What else does this author either not know, or is he willing to lie about?
No your liberal free loading neighbors are not quite human, the Neaderthals worked for a living and are much closer to modern humans than the Democrat party.
Yeah, I would call into question his sources for that.
There are several physiological reasons why the Y-chromosome accumulates mutations faster than the rest of the genome. I went to a recent discussion based upon Icelandic DNA analysis that said (IIRC) that a 20 year old father passes on around 20 mutations, and a 40 year old father passes on around 80 mutations.
Most of these mutations will be in regions where they make absolutely no difference - but still, almost all changes in the human genome over time are from the males - and the Y-chromosome passes exclusively through the male line and doesn't recombine with the X-chromosome over the majority of its sequence.
The RATE Project
In 1997, a group of young-earth creationists met in San Diego, California, to discuss the age of the earth. Their goal was to clarify the chronology of earth history and search for a fundamental correction to the usual assumptions of deep time. They were skeptical of the evolutionary timescale that dominates modern geology. These scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rock strata and they recognized multiple weaknesses.
The group identified itself with the acronym RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. The RATE team included the following scientists and scholars:
Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. Soft rock geologist
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysicist
Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D. Hebrew scholar
Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physicist
Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D. Physicist
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physicist
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Hard rock geologist
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Meteorologist, Chairman
The RATE project was sponsored and promoted by three leading creation science organizations. These included the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. Answers in Genesis gave startup support to the project. Technical research activity is expensive, and all RATE costs, which amounted to about $2 million, were covered by private donations. Sincere thanks are expressed to the many individuals and organizations that financially supported the RATE effort.
Several research initiatives were identified and conducted over an eight-year period. The main research initiatives and their principle investigators were:
1. Carbon-14 Dating John R. Baumgardner
2. Helium Diffusion in Zircon Crystals D. Russell Humphreys
3. Radiohalos in Granite Andrew A. Snelling
4. Fission Tracks in Zircons Andrew A. Snelling
5. Discordant Radioisotope Dates Steven A. Austin
6. Radioisotope Dating Case Studies Andrew A. Snelling
7. Theories of Accelerated Nuclear Decay Eugene F. Chaffin
8. A Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 Steven W. Boyd
The RATE project reported on the following five general conclusions:
1. A large amount of radioactive decay has occurred.
2. Nuclear decay processes were accelerated during episodes in earth history.
3. Conventional radioisotope dates are therefore incorrect by large factors.
4. Creation and the Genesis Flood are genuine historical events.
5. Scripture is scientifically reliable.
A comprehensive treatment of the RATE research is available in three primary publications. The first technical book is titled Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative.1 It fully explains the initial RATE research plans and also includes a comprehensive 90-page glossary of terms. The second technical book has the same main title with the subtitle Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative.2 It gives full details of the final RATE research results with complete documentation. The third is a less technical book titled Thousands…Not Billions.3 It summarizes the RATE research and results with a minimum of technical terms. Several related references, available in many public and college libraries, are listed at the end of the book.
In addition to the primary publications in books, the RATE research was reported at the fall 2003 meeting of the American Geophysical Society in San Francisco, California (pdf files of the actual posters are available in this article4); in the proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creation;5 in two DVDs titled Thousands Not Billions and The Premier RATE Conference; and in numerous short articles in Acts & Facts.6-13
References
Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds. 2000. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society.
Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
DeYoung, D. B. 2005. Thousands Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Vardiman, L. 2004. RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference. Presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Conference, San Francisco CA, December 2003.
Vardiman, L. et al. 2003. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Ivey, R., ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
Snelling, A. A. 2005. Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified. Acts & Facts. 34 (8). Snelling, A. A. 2004. Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology. Acts & Facts. 33 (10).
Humphreys, D. R. 2003. New RATE Data Support a Young World. Acts & Facts. 32 (12).
Baumgardner, J. 2003. Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages. Acts & Facts. 32 (10).
Snelling, A. A. 2002. Radiohalos—Significant and Exciting Research Results. Acts & Facts. 31 (11).
Humphreys, D. R. 2002. Nuclear Decay: Evidence for A Young World. Acts & Facts. 31 (10).
Snelling, A. A. 1999. Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon. Acts & Facts. 28 (3).
Humphreys, D. R. 2005. Evidence for a Young World. Acts & Facts. 34 (6).
Click here to return to the main ICR Research page
I know two of the scientists on the RATE project.
Both of them worked at DOE laboratories.
It would be best if you addressed the substance of the issues, rather than relying on consensus, peer pressure and ridicule.
When those type of approaches are used, it has the dank and musty odor of the followers of global warming.
I have often thought the same thing. And I also wonder why we wouldn’t be much more technologically advanced than we are at this point. If you look at technology in the past 100 years, shouldn’t we be much more advanced at 6 million years?
Six million years? IIRC australopithicis was around three million years ago. The Homo genus is only two million years old, and humans 100,000. Rapid technological progress also requires language and writing.
You are using circular reasoning to get those dates.
Well if one is going to use the dates one should at least be in the ballpark of the dates being used.
Six million years is around the estimated time of common ancestry with chimpanzees, not the emergence of modern humans.
Care to address how the author characterized the Y chromosome as a slow changing part of the genome rather than correctly identifying it as the fastest changing part of the genome? Is getting basic facts bass ackwards circular reasoning as well?
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.