Home » Intelligent Design » If This Were Science

If This Were Science

The twentieth century’s revolution in molecular biology has produced volumes of sequence data which evolutionists have marshaled in defense of their theory. One high-profile example is the molecular similarity between humans and chimpanzees. First proteins and later the genomes of these two species were found to be practically identical. These findings have often been touted as compelling confirmations of evolution. But there are also differences—significant differences. One example is the differences in the Y chromosome, which recent research has elucidated. These differences are explained by evolutionists, of course, as arising from various evolutionary processes. But the differences are significant and the evolutionary scenarios are speculative. In fact a recent paper appealed to several different mechanisms in order to explain the differences. Of course none of this is impossible, but the ease with which evolutionists can explain observations that are at various points in the spectrum (such as high similarity and significant difference) is an example of why some observers view evolution as a tautology. When I pointed this out evolutionists responded with a variety of protectionist maneuvers. Here is an example.  Read more

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to If This Were Science

  1. Dr. Hunter I take exception to you stating:

    “First proteins and later the genomes of these two species were found to be practically identical.”

    This study states:

    Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees.
    The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species.

    Seeing as 80% is not “practically identical” I hope you can see my concern Dr. Hunter.

    As far as the oft touted 99% nucleotide similarity:

    The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – Sternberg PhD evolutionary Biology
    Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.,,, Also, the 99% identity figure is often derived from protein-coding regions that only comprise about 1.5% of the two genomes.

    Given the fact that the genome is revealing itself to be +95% functional, with the refutation of so called junk DNA, this following study is in reality more accurate since it considered the entirety of the two genomes instead of just the oft touted minicule 1.5% fraction of protein coding genes that were used to derive the highest similarity to get to the 99% number:

    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

    further note:

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”

  2. Wow, BA! I’ve long known tht that so-common assertion of 99% similarity was wholly bogus, but I didn’t know about the 80% difference in the two species’ proteins.

    And, in fact, wasn’t the 99% identical myth initially floated on the basis of comparisons of a small number of proteins?

  3. llion, I don’t know if the 99% myth was initially floated on a small number of proteins, but I do know that, even with the 99% myth in place, the evolutionists were unable to account for what Stephen Meyer calls “body plan morphogenesis”. i.e. there is found to be no correlation from mutations to the DNA to the origination novel body plans. and of course this correlates to the stasis of overall body plans seen in the fossil record:


    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video

    The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories – Stephen Meyer”Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.”

    Hopeful monsters,’ transposons, and the Metazoan radiation:
    Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable “hopeful monsters” render these explanations untenable.
    Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine

    “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan).” Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent

    even just gene count difference gives us:

    Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences.

    and humans have completely unique genes as well:

    First study hints at insights to come from genes unique to humans
    Among the approximately 23,000 genes found in human DNA, scientists currently estimate that there may be as few as 50 to 100 that have no counterparts in other species.

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”


    Human genes are multitaskers:
    Abstract: Genome-wide surveys of gene expression in 15 different tissues and cell lines have revealed that up to 94% of human genes generate more than one (protein) product. http://www.nature.com/news/200......1199.html

  4. First our genome was 99% similar to chimps. Then, 98%….Then 95% according to some other study. Then we find out our genome is similar to kangaroos, and mice and plants too. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, we should expect to find the re-use of parts of a genome that work very well….just like what an engineer would do.

  5. Thanks to idnet.com here is a corrected perma-link to the Buggs article:

    10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
    …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

    Here is a article that found slightly more than 80% difference in proteins:

    Chimps are not like humans – May 2004
    Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm

    this article referenced 48.6 percent whole genome (DNA) similarity:

    Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
    Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]

    Though evolutionists claim all sorts of radical changes for the Y chromosome, to “explain its dramatic difference, when we measure for a actual rate of change in the Y chromosome we find no difference at all much less the staggering levels required by Darwinism:

    Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.


    Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb – video

    Are Humans and Chimps Really 98% Genetically Identical? – video

    Awake and Alive” – Skillet

Leave a Reply