Posted on 06/25/2014 8:10:58 AM PDT by fishtank
Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A popular evolutionary belief is that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor 2 to 6 million years ago. Apparently, evolutionists still aren't too sure of their own theory: now they've more than doubled that timeline.
Scientists just published a study describing chimp DNA mutation rates and compared a number of cherry-picked genomic regions to human—and this research doubled their evolutionary timeline.1 However, the selective data did not account for the vast chasm of documented genome differences that were not included in the analyses.
Heritable mutations are the rare changes that occur in DNA during the process of making egg cells in females and sperm in males, known as the germ line. Scientists believe that by determining the rate of mutations in the germ line, they can predict when evolutionary events occurred in the past. In this recent study, they sequenced the germ line genomes of nine different chimpanzees in a three-generation pedigree (family).
The researchers then compared selected DNA segments between chimpanzee and human that were highly similar, omitting the many non-similar regions. They state, "In the intersection of the autosomal genome accessible in this study and regions where human and chimpanzee genomes can be aligned with high confidence, the rate is slightly lower (0.45 × 10−9 bp−1 year−1) and the level of divergence is 1.2%...implying an average time to the most common ancestor of 13 million years [page 1274, emphasis added]."1 There are basically two notable points from this summary statement that I will address.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Maybe you just need to research the Bible here bub. Covers over 1500 years being compiled in 3 different languages on 3 different continents and yet time and again each and every chapter in it either alludes to our Saviour or names Him directly. How is the message so consistent over 40 scribes and 66 different chapters. Name one other book, Holy or not, that even comes close to all of these facts.
How did it come into being? Why is it the #1 book in the world today? Are the miracles and supernatural events in it just made up stories? If so, then Jesus Christ was nothing but a fictional character and yet the conundrum - how did He affect the lives and historical reporting of so many - a man who held no office, no power, no money, no prestige...
Here’s a simple one to remember Psalm 22 [the 23rd Psalm is the one most often repeated at funerals] - look at it and realize how accurately it describes Jesus sacrifice - written hundreds of years before he was born yet also hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented.
As a physical scientist and creationist who rejected a biology BS -- because I reject Darwinism on scientific grounds, I needed to do no more than scan Tompkins' mind-barf. As a "target", this article totally "missed" me...
Get this through your head: no real scientist ever sets out to "prove" anything.
Scientists seek TRUTH -- even if it reveals their pet beliefs to be wrong -- always. Dogmatists peddle ...DOGMA... no matter what the FACTS are.
ICR are not "researchers"; they are searchers for facts to twist to fit their dogma. Posting their trash here offends true believers in Divine creation.
Quit wasting your ammunition.
***The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural?***
I never suggested that it could be. My point is that science (at the present and in general) is undergirded by a belief that there are natural answers for everything. This is a belief just like my belief in God. It is not knowable and therefore philosophical.
I believe that the evidence, when evaluated with an open mind, points toward a Creator.
Bill Gates once said: “DNA is like a computer program only far, far more complex than any computer program ever invented.”
You would never believe that a computer could program itself (unless it was programmed to program itself) but yet you seem to believe (I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that complex life did just that.
Occam’s Razor would tell you (in my opinion and in this instance) that a Creator is the most logical explanation. Your philosophy throws Him out before the evidence is even evaluated.
In essence, “There is no God, now let’s look at the evidence”. By doing that, you’re going to see what you want to see.
As I said in an earlier post... If the keys are in the kitchen and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find them.
Don’t be afraid to look elsewhere, Natufian.
What ‘laws of evolution’ ?!?!
Name one please. Evolution violates the law of Biogenesis [only life can reproduce life, like kinds beget like kinds, life does not arise on it’s own]. Or how about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? There are many laws science has discovered that they would then have to discard if evolution could ever rise to the level of a law.
And don’t bother with micro-evolution which is just another way of saying natural adaptation. All mutations lead to the extinctions not higher life forms all a proven fact of science.
Evolution does not and never will rise to the level of science.
Thanks for the reply. Am out right now and this phone is not a suitable tool for a considered reply. Will get back to you when i can.
The way your post reads scientists are nearly infallible and are always willing to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth even when it violates their own self-interests or might eliminate their source(s) of funding.
OH PLEASE - give it a rest!
Now get this:
If you have anything valid to say it will be about what ICR wrote and not drop to the level of name-calling.
Also evolution is a tool of the devil - it has caused many who accept it as science to abandon their trust and hope in God’s Word.
For the most part, the parasites didn’t go extinct. But things like wearing shoes and using outhouses instead of just pooping on the ground significantly limited them.
For example, hookworm used to be endemic to the southeast US, but is now so rare that researchers had to go to Africa to get a healthy sample of them. But they were needed because of an association they had with asthma. In this case, severe, life threatening asthma, unresponsive to other medicines.
Their effect only lasts for a few months before people have to be re-inoculated with them, but that is for a few months of not suffering terribly, or even dying.
Another good example was for the horrific Crohn’s disease, that was associated with whipworms. On a hunch, instead of infecting people with human whipworms, which is a serious infection, they gave them pig whipworms, that are similar but can only live in the human body for a week or two.
And some of their test subjects went into lasting remission. Which is not bad for an otherwise “incurable” disease.
But wait, there’s more. Now the research is focused on the gut flora bacteria (typically 300 to 1000 different types), that are both interactive with our immune systems, *and* interactive with other microorganisms and parasites.
And nobody is even trying to figure out how many viruses live within us, and how they relate. Though they guess that at least half of them keep the bacteria under control.
Then -- considering how you, fishtank and your ilk misuse it -- So is FR.
Sir Isaac Newton was an amatuer scientist = he did it for the love of discovery, And you sir are no Sir Isaac Newton!
This fact is shared amongst most all of the notable scientists from history. The funds they used were mostly their own.
I’ve personally had my fill of you modern-day professional scientists - whether paid for by gov or private corporations - all share in filthy lucre.
Tell me please why is it that nearly everday we have yet another scientific study disproving another scientific study - it’s become a catch 22. The motives would be laid bare if we could all just follow the money trail.
You, obviously, are not a practicing scientist, and are unqualified to make edicts as to how science "is done". Your ignorance is glaring!
My answer to you is this: Your above is precisely how science "is done". Results of conflicting studies are either replicated -- or found to be invalid -- by other research. IOW, one (or both) studies will be invalidated as more and better data are acquired.
Such happens when you probe into the unknown with imperfect tools -- in a continued, honest search for truth.
Only boneheaded dogmatists take a position -- and stick with it -- no matter what the evidence shows.
Consider my #50 to have been written for you too.
Note how I "got into" science -- and take care when you accuse a fellow Christian with "...all share in filthy lucre..." (Or, has your own life been spent working for zero $$$?)
~~~~~~~
You've already "thrown the first stone"... How many such stones will serve to bury your own witness?
More name-calling when your arguments don’t stand up to reason and common sense [Only boneheaded dogmatists...]
According to you there is zero fraudulent scientific studies - they’re all just honest mistakes.
I can’t help but notice the majority of my factual statements are ignored.
Regarding post #50 - I’m an amateur scientist - I study, research and dig dig dig for the love of truth.
If the bible is not absolute truth to you then it indicates your faith has much more room to grow. Jesus affirmed the old testament as trustworthy and true - all of it.
As another Bible believing Christian I suggest that you read what the bible says about how to treat a brother:
James 4:11 - Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law.
And if you do have a disagreement with a brother (like me), take heed of this:
2 Thessalonians 3:15 - Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
I can cite many more passages for you if you’d like.
My desire is that people know Christ. One way I do that is to try to get them to think critically about Him as Creator. (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrew 1:2).
I normally start with generalizations to get people thinking and then get more specific after I’ve found out more about their worldview.
You just undermined that.
If you think I’ve said something wrong or untrue, the best thing, you could have done (as a Christian) is to have sent me a private message to discuss it so I don’t make the same mistake again (if it was a mistake).
Instead what you did was tell everyone reading this thread that you are a Christian..... and then you acted in a most unChristian manner.
I suggest you rethink a few things and dig into the Word.... Based on your attitude, I’d say thatPaul’s epistles are a good place to start.
Despite agreeing that science doesn’t have the tools to investigate the supernatural, you still want it to accept it’s existence? You also want an area of study that only deals in the knowable do bring into it’s realm the unknowable?
So, we come back again to the issue of how exactly is science supposed to do this? Rather than complaining about how science isn’t jumping through the impossibly difficult hoops that you place before it, why don’t you describe how it it should achieve what you want? Describe an experiment that scientists can undertake that can deal with the supernatural/unknowable. List out the steps needed, how the results can be tabulated and peer reviewed.
If I want something philosophical to consider, the Bible is a pretty good choice. When I want something scientific, I go elsewhere.
yes, and among the things i find especially interesting about your comment is the talks i’ve had with experienced medical professional “friends” who point out that each of us has a completely independent and unique set of accompanying flora and fauna, gut and otherwise. that to kill one set off will likely kill off the host as no one else’s seems to be transferable. go figure how those individual sets can account for speciation. but it must be true.
and of course, your examples bring to mind what we all *know* about the relationship between mousquitos and sickle cell anemia. how a very *stable* relationship exists between the sickling of red blood cells and the survivability of human beings suffering malaria. one expects that relationship to generatate a new species at any moment now.
yes, and among the things i find especially interesting about your comment is the talks i’ve had with experienced medical professional “friends” who point out that each of us has a completely independent and unique set of accompanying flora and fauna, gut and otherwise. that to kill one set off will likely kill off the host as no one else’s seems to be transferable. go figure how those individual sets can account for speciation. but it must be true.
and of course, your examples bring to mind what we all *know* about the relationship between mousquitos and sickle cell anemia. how a very *stable* relationship exists between the sickling of red blood cells and the survivability of human beings suffering malaria. one expects that relationship to generatate a new species at any moment now.
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.