Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

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.

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.

http://www.icr.org/article/what-connection-between-homosexuality-evolution/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=877

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution,_Liberalism,_Atheism,_and_Irrationality

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church are all somewhat ambivalent about accepting the theory of evolution, and you are free to be a member of either church and reject Darwinism. Both churches are cautious about explicitly advocating Darwinist nonsense for a good reason (in fact, scientific incompatibility is a legitimate doctrine in the EOC).

Among Protestant churches, there is a consistent correlation between acceptance of Darwinism, acceptance of abortion, acceptance of homosexuality, and acceptance of female pastors.

Go ahead, deny the correlation of Darwinism with degeneracy (Eric Harris alone proves my point). Don't be surprised if you have to answer for that belief at the Final Judgment.

Also,

most stupidest

that's just priceless.

Sorry for the repost, the multiple reply function screwed up.

http://www.icr.org/article/what-connection-between-homosexuality-evolution/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=877

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution,_Liberalism,_Atheism,_and_Irrationality

Among Protestant churches, there is a consistent correlation between acceptance of Darwinism, acceptance of abortion, acceptance of homosexuality, and acceptance of female pastors.

Go ahead, deny the correlation of Darwinism with degeneracy (Eric Harris alone proves my point). Don't be surprised if you have to answer for that belief at the Final Judgment.

Also,

most stupidest

that's just priceless.

Partially true. The possible combinations of intestinal flora are great. However families who live together tend to “normalize” their flora a lot.

Yet killing off a part will not kill a person, usually, unless they get a bloom of a drug resistant bacteria, of which there are at least a dozen types killing many people in the US right now.

Naturally, people have about four different floral combinations in their life. Their first one is mostly from their mother, via both contamination and breast milk. It develops over about a two week period after birth, while the baby is still using a subset of its mothers immune system, until its own system comes on line.

The second one is when they start eating solid food. They need a different combination of flora for digestion. The third is when they move to a normal diet, of what is typically eaten in that region. Around the world there are several predominant adult diet floral patterns.

The fourth floral pattern can either be induced through sickness, radiation, antibiotics, toxic chemicals, or old age. So it, and other patterns can happen several times in adulthood. It can also be voluntarily modified, though that can take several months.

And yes, doctors have known for a long time that people with damaged flora can get a floral replacement, sometimes called a “fecal transplant” from someone with good flora. While traditionally this was done, literally, by adding feces to a chocolate ice cream shake, it is now done directly with a colonoscope.

To avoid the possibility of a drug resistant bacterial bloom, some doctors are recommending that live culture yoghurt or Kefir drink are consumed in between doses of antibiotic, to repair the healthy floral balance after killing the pathological bacteria.

Actually, a new species only happens when its offspring can no longer reproduce with the old species. This was observed to happen a few decades ago in the US.

There were three breeds of wild bird, one western, one central US, and one eastern. The western and eastern birds could reproduce with the central breed, but western and eastern breeds could not reproduce with each other. And the central US breed was dying out. So technically, once it was extinct, the western and eastern breeds would become two different species.

The only known real mutation of humans to happen in recorded history was in one family in Europe, whose parents had five or six boys, who became known as “the hedgehog men”, because they had very rough skin from their knees to their navel, like hedgehog skin. For the time, about 400 years ago, they were seen as smarter, stronger and faster than were typical people.

Unfortunately for them they could not easily mate. Had they tried they could have caused significant harm to the woman. So they died out. Such is natural selection.

Speaking of "name calling", someone (whom I respect more than you might think) has this on his FRProfile page:

******* "A fanatic is one who can not change his mind and will not change the subject." Winston Churchill *******

That, to me, is a fair description of what I called, "boneheaded dogmatists" -- as a behaviorial class (not as a personal accusation).

Since you were making scurrilous charges about scientists as a class, I felt it only proper to counter your accusation with a strong categorization of those who DO NOT continue to seek truth, because their minds are closed.

On that matter, your FRProfile position seemed to place us in fairly close accordance.

I did not make any claims (as you did) about all "scientists", per se, nor did I claim that there are no "bad apples" within the greater profession.

I corrected your misperception re "how science is done" -- and, then, questioned your authority to make the perfidious accusation that all scientists (including me) are pecuniarily driven.

If one makes sweeping claims, one must possess very broad authority -- so I asked if you were so equipped. Seemed a fair response to one who had denigrated me and my profession -- and my very motivation for how I have spent my life -- and my calling. Since I am a member of your reviled vocation, I (silly me!) took it as a personal insult.

While we consider who owes whom an apology, I will review all your comments on this thread to see if there are any "factual statements" that I overlooked. Meanwhile, you might repeat (or at least point out) whatever you deemed "factual" for my edification and education; I wouldn't want to miss any enlightenment...

I'm so sorry to take this long to reply, dear brother in Christ! I have been swamped, as you know.

Only boneheaded dogmatists take a position -- and stick with it -- no matter what the evidence shows.

From all that I know of you and what you have done and are working on, I'm confident that you love God unreservedly and are following His leading in everything whether spiritual endeavors, family, science, archeology, community or whatever.

Every day is a learning adventure for you and with you. And that is how Christ does these things, He brings us along according to our ability and willingness:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

It would be sad for any Christian to think he has it all down pat and worse, be unwilling to see something new whether in the Father's revelation of Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ - or through the indwelling Holy Spirit - or Scripture - or His Creation, whether spiritual or physical.

***Despite agreeing that science doesn’t have the tools to investigate the supernatural, you still want it to accept it’s existence?***

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive... the supernatural can exist even though science does not have the tools to investigate it.

***You also want an area of study that only deals in the knowable do bring into it’s realm the unknowable?***

No.... I just want secular science to admit that the answer to some of the problems that have been heretofore insoluble may exist outside of nature.

Consider this, Natufian:

One of these statements is true as they are the only options available:

1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.

Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.

Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As a universe, we are headed for heat death....the sun, for example, can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.

Secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory anyway, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.

Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).

That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law and is the only available option we have left.

A Creator would by definition exist outside of his creation and the Laws of Nature point directly to a Creator.

Which brings me back to the original point that has you so angry. Naturalism is a philosophy. I’ll go further and say that it is an important one for learning about the natural world in which we live.

What I reject is this: “The answer to all of life’s questions can be found in the natural world.... now let’s study the natural world.” That is philosophical and can be refuted by using natural law itself.... I just did it above.

Here’s a quote from a Nobel Prize winning Harvard neurobiologist, George Wald:

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

Secular science throws out the Creator before they look at the evidence....he just said it.

I’ll say once more......If my keys are in the kitchen and I refuse to look there, I’m never going to find them..... if the answer is a Creator and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find Him.

Incidentally, Natufian. I know the Creator. If you’d like to know him as well I can help you with that.

From all that I know of you [TXnMA] and what you have done and are working on, I'm confident that you love God unreservedly and are following His leading in everything whether spiritual endeavors, family, science, archeology, community or whatever.

I'll second that, dearest sister in Christ!!! Completely!!!

Indeed, it seems to me that my dear brother in Christ, TXnMA's foundational premise (as a man, as a scientist, as a son of God) is:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: — Romans 20.

God's inerrant Word here, taken very much to heart by my physical chemist friend, TXnMA — who is Christian, right down to the ground.

Why putative co-religionists are finding fault with him is, to me, inexplicable.

JMHO, FWIW

"Those two statements are not mutually exclusive... the supernatural can exist even though science does not have the tools to investigate it."

You're right, they're not mutually exclusive but if science doesn't have the tools to investigate something, they might as well be mutually exclusive.

"No.... I just want secular science to admit that the answer to some of the problems that have been heretofore insoluble may exist outside of nature."

They do. They just use a phrase you don't like. They say 'we don't know'.

"That leaves us with Option 4... that matter and energy were created."

There is an another option (maybe #5 in your eyes but which I think is merely a tweak to your #4), it goes like this...

...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand.

If you want to fill that 'not understood space" with the supernatural, knock yourself out but don't start whining that other folk might find the intellectually more rigorous concept of 'I don't know' more than acceptable.

"Which brings me back to the original point that has you so angry. Naturalism is a philosophy.

Not sure where you get that idea from, I'm about as relaxed as I could be.

"What I reject is this: “The answer to all of life’s questions can be found in the natural world.... now let’s study the natural world.” That is philosophical and can be refuted by using natural law itself.... I just did it above."

Really, you refuted nothing. You merely filled in a gap with your own prejudice. I've asked you this several times without getting a response. What do you find so problematic with the concept of "I don't know".

"I’ll say once more......If my keys are in the kitchen and I refuse to look there, I’m never going to find them..... if the answer is a Creator and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find Him."

Here we go again. Science doesn't have the tools to detect the supernatural. However much you want science to find the keys in the kitchen, until you explain HOW they can do so, you'll never be successful. Can you do it?

"Incidentally, Natufian. I know the Creator. If you’d like to know him as well I can help you with that."

Thanks for the offer but unless you can use science to reveal this creator, I'll take a pass.

***They do. They just use a phrase you don’t like. They say ‘we don’t know’. ***

I love the phrase “I don’t know”. What I don’t like is the phrase “I don’t know but I know you are wrong”.

***There is an another option (maybe #5 in your eyes but which I think is merely a tweak to your #4), it goes like this...

...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand.***

Now if I had said something like that you would accuse me of using the “God of the gaps” fallacy, right?

Let me expand on that for you: “...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand but that would have to violate natural law.”

***Here we go again. Science doesn’t have the tools to detect the supernatural. However much you want science to find the keys in the kitchen, until you explain HOW they can do so, you’ll never be successful. Can you do it? ***

Natufian, I’m merely suggesting that you look elsewhere. I’m not suggesting that you use science to look elsewhere.

The Bible is a historically accurate document that makes a lot of claims and it is filled with a lot of prophesy that has been fulfilled, including the regathering of Israel, which occurred less than 70 years ago (and about 3000 years after the prophesy was written). The bible predicted this event... nothing like it had ever happened before or since.

I will suggest to you that by studying the bible and looking into those claims you just might find the Creator.

***Thanks for the offer but unless you can use science to reveal this creator, I’ll take a pass.***

Understanding science has led a lot of people to the Creator. When you look at the intricacy of the cell, the awesome morphology displayed in the animal kingdom, the wonderful symmetry that exists in the universe that makes life even possible at all here on earth...
Creator God makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals (where did they come from) in a mud puddle (where did it come from) billions of years ago..... if you’re honest with yourself, deep down inside you know there is a creator.

Ignore Him at your peril.... the Bible says He was here and He is coming back.

Blessings to you, Natufian.

"I love the phrase “I don’t know”. What I don’t like is the phrase “I don’t know but I know you are wrong”."

I agree with you. Science only uses the the lovely bit. Some scientists might use the not so lovely bit but they'd be wrong (scientifically speaking).

"Now if I had said something like that you would accuse me of using the “God of the gaps” fallacy, right?"

Certainly not. You might need to do some more work on the god of the gaps argument.

"Let me expand on that for you: “...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand but that would have to violate natural law.”

Well if we're going to extend it, let's keep going.... “...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand but that might require new scientific evidence that would require us to revisit our current understanding of the universe.”

Are you ok with that? Or do you still insist on inserting the supernatural into it.

The Bible is a historically accurate document that makes a lot of claims and it is filled with a lot of prophesy that has been fulfilled,.....

It also claims that in about 2,300BC there were only 8 people on the planet and only one language. The evidence would strongly suggest that it is incorrect.

"Understanding science has led a lot of people to the Creator. When you look at the intricacy of the cell, the awesome morphology displayed in the animal kingdom, the wonderful symmetry that exists in the universe that makes life even possible at all here on earth...Creator God makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals (where did they come from) in a mud puddle (where did it come from) billions of years ago..... if you’re honest with yourself, deep down inside you know there is a creator."

I couldn't agree more that the universe at both a micro and macro level is stupefyingly wonderful place and I'm incredibly thankful that science has given me at least a partial understanding of how it works. As for the parts that are still hidden, I'm more than happy to wait for science to reveal more of it's secrets. There will be things that I will never know and that's just too bad.

Shalom Aleychem, Shaef.

One last thing for you, Natufian.

***It also claims that in about 2,300BC there were only 8 people on the planet and only one language. The evidence would strongly suggest that it is incorrect.***

Many studies have been done on that, Natufian, that back up the biblical account. Here’s an interesting read on that:

http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

I know Dr. Carter personally.... he’s a brilliant guy.

Extra-biblical evidence of the flood and biblical genealogies can be found in the book “After the Flood”:

Here’s a link to the book:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/

If you take the time, the information on the Miautso people of China is extremely interesting. In fact here is their genealogy (appendix from the book):

http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen12.html

Blessings, Natufian.

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.