Home » Darwinism, Human evolution, Intelligent Design, News » Latest findings show: We are all humans now, and the missing link is still missing

26 Responses to Latest findings show: We are all humans now, and the missing link is still missing

1. 1

   bornagain77August 30, 2011 at 7:54 am

   I use to think that the ‘supposed’ evidence for human-ape evolution, from a common ancestor, was very strong, (in fact I thought it was the strongest evidence that Darwinists had going for them) but now I find that that initial impression that I had had of the ‘supposed’ evidence was brought on by the fact that the supposed evidence for human-ape evolution, from a common ancestor, is the evidence that Darwinists are most apt to severely, and dogmatically, distort to accord to their preconceived conclusions and is thus the evidence that should be viewed with the most suspicion when presented from a Darwinist:

   For instance, instead of the 99% genetic similarity, between chimps and man, which we were told for years that was irrefutable proof of common descent of apes and man, it turns out that the reality of the fact is far different than what Darwinists had initial led everybody to believe:

   Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011
   Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47041.html

   Chimpanzee?
   10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida
   …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
   http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf

   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.]
   http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

   A False Trichotomy
   Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

   This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 ‘ORFan’ genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, and that very well may directly code for proteins, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science!

   Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

   The same goes for the fossil record. i.e. Despite the claims of many Darwinists of a unbroken sequence of fossils for supposed human evolution, the truth is that the fossil record for supposed human evolution displays the same pattern of suddenness and stasis nas the rest of the fossil record does:

   When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
   Richard Lewontin – Harvard Zoologist
   http://www.discovery.org/a/9961

   Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
   Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
   http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

   Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr

   “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
   Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
   (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

   “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
   http://www.geneticarchaeology......lieved.asp

   Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens – 05/27/2009 – Creation Safaris:
   Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period….”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: “Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be.” By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.”
   http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20090527a

   Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo? – Ann Gibbons – June 2011
   Abstract: In the past decade, Homo habilis’s status as the first member of our genus has been undermined. Newer analytical methods suggested that H. habilis matured and moved less like a human and more like an australopithecine, such as the famous partial skeleton of Lucy. Now, a report in press in the Journal of Human Evolution finds that H. habilis’s dietary range was also more like Lucy’s than that of H. erectus, which many consider the first fully human species to walk the earth. That suggests the handyman had yet to make the key adaptations associated with our genus, such as the ability to exploit a variety of foods in many environments, the authors say.

   New findings raise questions about who evolved from whom
   Excerpt: The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years,,, The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.
2. 2

   Chris DoyleAugust 30, 2011 at 8:13 am

   Hi Alan,

   I hope you are well. You said:

   Perhaps the Muslim scientists(sorry, the Arab scientists)recognised that faith in (scientific)progress was replacing faith in God, and that the fruits of science and discovery can bring some harm as well as good.

   And I find this fascinating. Something in that for sure.

   I can see a large and interesting gap between theory and practice here: Islam, in theory, particularly as espoused by the Qu’ran is just about as good as it gets. Unfortunately, the practice of Islam – by certain groups in certain parts of the world – does not do the Qu’ran (and its wisdom) justice.

   Whereas Christianity, in theory, particularly as espoused by the Bible, can be problematic: especially when it comes to reconciling St Paul’s teachings with the Jewish tradition he attached those teachings to. And yet the practice of Christianity – by certain groups in certain parts of the world – more closely resembles Islam!

   With the discipline of good religious theory, we can, in practice, embrace the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture (esp. the Qu’ran and the Old Testament) and make substantial progress as a civilization.

   Not that we have, in practice, but that’s the theory!
3. 3

   Chris DoyleAugust 30, 2011 at 8:14 am

   Please delete (or ignore) this comment appeared on the wrong thread for some reason…
4. 4

   JosephAugust 30, 2011 at 8:17 am

   I still like the story about ancient astronauts, ie aliens, genetically engineering modern humans using Neanderthals, ie native populations, to get better workers.

   (I like it in the way I think it is a good story yet it also holds a possible verification- a revisitation- I do not think we are alone (cue twilight zone music))
5. 5

   NickMatzke_UDAugust 30, 2011 at 10:43 am

   “Translation: The missing link is still missing.”

   …and ID shows yet again that it is just bottom-of-the-barrel creationist propaganda. What does the “missing link is still missing” even mean? If something is “the same” species, it’s not a missing link, even though it is obviously different from any living human? If something is “a different species”, it’s not a missing link either, because it’s different? It’s just creationist word salad.

   Over here in reality-land, we realize that “species” split up gradually — evolution says this, remember, it’s creationists who are the ones who think that the species category is absolute.

   Because evolution is a slow process, therefore there are all kinds of complex forms of partial separation. Finding this happened with humans is just more evidence that we are like the rest of biology.

   Re: missing links – Deal with this evidence:

   http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....ini_1.html

   Bornagain77:

   Even well-informed young-earth creationists don’t like the games that Casey Luskin and others play with the human-chimp genome similarity statistics:

   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-identity/
6. 6

   Clyde_ColirrufoAugust 30, 2011 at 11:51 am

   What is the problem with using the word “group”? I get very frustrated with the lack of knowledge about cladistic analysis on this site. I agree with NickMatzke_UD: really, there are many modern examples of true species that begin to interbreed–and it doesn’t mean they weren’t good species to begin with, only that they didn’t have reproductive isolating mechanisms in place because they originally didn’t need them.
7. 7

   ScottAndrewsAugust 30, 2011 at 12:17 pm

   Nick,

   Who said that believing in creation meant believing that all species are absolute? Please, speak for your own point of view.
   Finding slightly different men would be much more convincing if we weren’t surrounded by slightly different men right now. I have no doubt that if we could bury a sample of people from every corner of the world and dig them up again that they would all suddenly become different groups on different evolutionary journeys that co-existed for a time.
   Are the variations between Denisovans and your next door neighbor any greater than those between a chihuahua and a german shepherd?
8. 8

   bornagain77August 30, 2011 at 12:44 pm

   Well Nick, being the unbiased, on the NCSE (National Center for Selling Evolution) payroll, person that you are, perhaps these studies are more to your liking:

   Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
   Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

   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

   Chimp chromosome creates puzzles – 2004
   Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in ‘Nature’ that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed “significant structural changes”. In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, “we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated.” The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.
   http://www.nature.com/news/199.....524-8.html

   Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

   Moreover,

   Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
   Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
   http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

   Nick do you see ANY problem here at all? If not perhaps this will help;

   the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.

   Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
   Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”

   I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

   HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
   http://www.biobase-internation.....mddatabase

   I really question their use of the word ‘celebrating’.

   This following study confirmed the detrimental mutation rate for humans, of 100 to 300 per generation, estimated by John Sanford in his book ‘Genetic Entropy’ in 2005:

   Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009
   Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after “compensatory mutations”)
   http://www.nature.com/news/200.....9.864.html

   This more recent study found a slightly lower figure than Dr. Sanford’s estimate:

   We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us – June 2011
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....012758.htm

   This ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 60 per generation is far greater than even what evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate for an organism:

   Beyond A ‘Speed Limit’ On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
   Excerpt: Shakhnovich’s group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism’s rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....172753.htm

   etc.. etc.. etc..

   As well Nick I really would appreciate if you would address the falsification that non-local quantum information presents to neo-Darwinian evolution. Do you think that just ignoring the elephant in the living room will make it go away???
9. 9

   bornagain77August 30, 2011 at 1:31 pm

   As well, Nick while you are working on the falsification that non-local quantum information presents to the neo-Darwinian framework, I have another insurmountable problem for you to look at. You see Nick this study presents about 7000 genes that are unique to the supposed human lineage:

   For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place.
   (Ingo Ebersberger, Petra Galgoczy, Stefan Taudien, Simone Taenzer, Matthias Platzer, and Arndt von Haeseler, “Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007).)

   Whereas this study presents over 1000 ORFan genes that are completely unique to humans:

   Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
   Excerpt: the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

   Moreover a large percentage of completely unique ORFan sequences are found in every different species’ genome that has been sequenced thus far:

   Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
   http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

   Moreover these ‘new’ ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as ‘old’ genes:

   Age doesn’t matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones – December 2010
   Excerpt: “A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. “New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.”
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142523.htm

   New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. – December 2010
   Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
   http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....2.abstract

   You see Nick, the problem I have is that in all the lab work in the last four decades, (Lenski’s ‘long term evolution experiment’ work included), we have yet to see even one gene arise spontaneously by neo-Darwinian processes;

   “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
   Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net ‘fitness gain’ within a ‘stressed’ environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more ‘fit’)
   http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

   Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
   Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
   http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

   Moreover Nick, besides there being ZERO empirical support from the lab that neo-Darwininian evolution can account for even one gene and/or protein, the math is also telling us that it astronomically impossible for evolution to account for the origination of even one single gene and/or protein

   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).”
   http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

   “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: – Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”
   http://www.mendeley.com/resear.....yme-folds/

   Boy I sure am glad people are not too emotionally attached to this neo-Darwinism thing Nick, and can just admit that it is wrong when they see it for what it is, like you can Nick, because this evidence sure would make it sad for someone who had his whole atheistic worldview tied into it! Don’t you agree???

   ======================

   Skillet – Awake and Alive – music
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aJUnltwsqs
10. 10

    junkdnaforlifeAugust 31, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Bury Bruce Lee next to Wilt Chamberlin and dig them up in 30,000 years.
11. 11

    NickMatzke_UDAugust 31, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    bornagain77 — you have no idea what you are talking about and quoting, and you have no ability to stay on topic. Why should I engage you?

    E.g.:

    As well, Nick while you are working on the falsification that non-local quantum information presents to the neo-Darwinian framework, I have another insurmountable problem for you to look at. You see Nick this study presents about 7000 genes that are unique to the supposed human lineage:

    For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place.
    (Ingo Ebersberger, Petra Galgoczy, Stefan Taudien, Simone Taenzer, Matthias Platzer, and Arndt von Haeseler, “Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007).)

    What they are saying, if you had ever bothered to read up in this field, is that part of the human genome is slightly more closely related to the gorilla than the chimpanzee. This is due to a phenomenon called “incomplete lineage sorting”. It is a direct result of standard microevolutionary population genetics. When a population divides, each descendent population gets a sample of the population variability. If one of the populations divides again soon after, the sampling happens again. By chance, some of the alleles (a minority) in each population will be closer to the more distant sister group than the closer sister group.

    In other words, like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you don’t admit your error and your complete misunderstanding of the work you quoted, I have no reason to ever talk to you again.

    Whereas this study presents over 1000 ORFan genes that are completely unique to humans:

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..161406.htm

    “Orphans” are produced by all kinds of things — sequencing errors creating start codons, mutations and chance variation creating start codons that do nothing functional because they don’t have any promoter regulators, etc. And by the fact that the human genome is more completely sequenced than other genomes, meaning that there are bits of the human genome that have not been correspondingly sequenced in chimps or whatever.

    Naively thinking that these are all “genes” unique to humans is, well, very silly.

    More on orfans:
    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....nt-is.html
12. 12

    NickMatzke_UDAugust 31, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Who said that believing in creation meant believing that all species are absolute? Please, speak for your own point of view.

    I guess the “missing link” isn’t “missing”, then.

    I have no doubt that if we could bury a sample of people from every corner of the world and dig them up again that they would all suddenly become different groups on different evolutionary journeys that co-existed for a time.

    Then you aren’t very well informed. Neanderthals fall outside of the range of variation of modern humans in a variety of ways. The one tooth they have with Denisovan DNA sequence is apparently huge and bigger than either Neanderthal or modern humans — it groups with Homo erectus and Australopithecine teeth on a multivariate principle components plot. I saw a talk on it just yesterday by Svante Paabo…
13. 13

    JosephAugust 31, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Nick,

    Unfortunately for you organisms do not appear to be a product of their genome and “The Island of Dr. Moreau” is still science-fiction.
14. 14

    JosephAugust 31, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Dude, Creationism predicts reproductive isolation. Darwin only offered a post-hoc explanation.

    As for cladistic analysis- I can use that grouping scheme for common design.
15. 15

    rhampton7August 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    What do you mean by reproductive isolation – and how does it apply to the various Fox species?
16. 16

    goodusernameAugust 31, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    “As scientists “produce evidence that Denisovans interbred with modern humans (as did Neanderthals) then the implication is that modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals are all subspecies of Homo sapiens,” he said.

    Translation: The missing link is still missing.”

    –That’s a rather odd “translation”. The missing link between what and what? No one is claiming that Neanderthals or Denisovans are a “link” of any kind; the debate is on whether they were a side branch that stayed separate, or whether they are a side branch that rejoined (at least partially) – so what relevance would they have to any “missing link”?

    Even more bizarrely, there seems to be the implication that Neanderthals and Denisovans COULD be “links” if only they didn’t interbreed with modern humans – but if they didn’t interbreed with modern humans than they wouldn’t be ancestors. Kinda hard to be a “link” if you aren’t part of the chain.
17. 17

    JosephAugust 31, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Unable to produce an offspring- that is one that lives- ie cannot interbreed. The Bible says each reproduces after its own kind. And YEC is OK with speciation.
18. 18

    forestsAugust 31, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    There is a book which lists 100s of differences between chimps and humans, I can not list them all here, you will have to buy the book, but guess what, the book was not written by a creationist! It was written by two writers, who firmly believe in extraterrestrial life.

    The book is called Mankind Child of the Stars, it was written by the writers Otto Binder and Max Flindt, their theory is that extraterrestrials tampered around with genetic novelty and DNA etc, so that modern day Humans are infact a hybrid, 50% human and the rest extraterrestrial humanoid. They claim that there are so many differances between chimps and man, that no evolution has occured regarding to human beings, though the authors accept common ancestry for everything on earth, just not humans.

    Some of the fascinating discoveries revealed in this book:

    * There’s evidence that starmen deliberately hid any “Missing Link” human fossils in order to keep mankind from knowing it was a colony!

    * There is a reason to believe that the starmen were the “Angels” of the Bible, carrying on a “Divine” mission to bring human life to Earth!

    Max H. Flindt was the first to scientifically document from biological evidence the possibility that mankind may be a hybrid from a prehistoric union of terrestrial humanoids and starmen.

    Firstly, there is a lack of explanation for man’s greater intelligence arising out of strict evolution.

    Here are some of the other major questions dealt with in this book.

    1). Why humans has almost no body hair? Man possesses relatively no body hair, nothing compared to the thick pelts of gorillas, chimps, and monkeys. This is not the result of wearing apparel, for aboriginal tribes such as the Australian Bushmen, who have existed for geological eras, wear virtually no clothing and yet are as hairless as modern Man. Evolution has no answer!

    2). Why can humans only speak words?

    4).Why is the human female, unlike all anthropoids as well as other animals, “in heat” uninterruptedly?

    5). Why can humans alone smile?

    6).Why does only our species of naked ape have no diastemata (spaces between teeth)?

    7).And why does Man display 312 distinctive physical traits that set him apart from his so-called primate cousins?

    8). And one of the most puzzling questions of all: Why do human beings alone, apart from all the other animals, have religion?

    Darwinists are stumped!
19. 19

    bornagain77August 31, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Nick, you have nothing but severely distorted evidence, dogmatism, and insult to make your case (not to mention a pompous attitude covering your ignorance, in the place of genuine wisdom that would come from a humble attitude in the face of such unparalleled complexity of information processing in life!). The unique ORFan genes in the human genome, despite your ‘know it all’ denial of the evidence, are in fact genuine. In fact the paper I cited on ORFans, not only reveals that they are unique but the paper is also a crystal clear example of the dogmatic, evidence distorting, type of science that neo-Darwinists practice;

    This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 ‘ORFan’ genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, and that very well may directly code for proteins, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science!

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true.

    This following site has a brief discussion on the biased methodology of the preceding study:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358505

    If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because they were not found in other supposedly related species, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins:

    A survey of orphan enzyme activities
    Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles.
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244

    Dr. Howard Ochman – Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona
    Excerpt of Proposal: Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358868

    In fact it turns out that the authors of the ‘kick the ORFans out in the street’ paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358547

    Moreover the ‘anomaly’ of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:

    Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

    As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these ‘new’ ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as ‘old’ genes for maintaining life:

    Age doesn’t matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones – December 2010
    Excerpt: “A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. “New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142523.htm

    New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. – December 2010
    Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....2.abstract

    I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome:

    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).”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm
20. 20

    JosephAugust 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    1- I know some very hairy people

    2- I swear my daughter’s dog talks- speaks words. And I know some birds do

    3- ?

    4- You haven’t met my wife

    5- My daughter was brushing a goat- it was smiling- the expression changed when she stopped

    6- What?

    7- Divergence?

    8- We alone have money
21. 21

    rhampton7August 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    By that definition then the Dog/Wolf/Fox is not a single kind but four, if not more. So you see the problem? Reproductive Isolation contradicts the Creationist prediction.
22. 22

    bornagain77August 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    Furthermore Nick, I point out once again to you that neo-Darwinism is falsified by recent advances in science:

    Neo-Darwinian evolution purports to explain all the wondrously amazing complexity of life on earth by reference solely to chance and necessity processes acting on energy and matter (i.e. purely material processes). In fact neo-Darwinian evolution makes the grand materialistic claim that the staggering levels of unmatched complex functional information we find in life, and even the ‘essence of life’ itself, simply ‘emerged’ from purely material processes. And even though this basic scientific point, of the ability of purely material processes to generate even trivial levels of complex functional information, has spectacularly failed to be established, we now have a much greater proof, than this stunning failure for validation, that ‘put the lie’ to the grand claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. This proof comes from the fact that it is now shown from quantum mechanics that ‘information’ is its own unique ‘physical’ entity. A physical
    entity that is shown to be completely independent of any energy-matter space-time constraints, i.e. it does not ‘emerge’ from a material basis. Moreover this ‘transcendent information’ is shown to be dominant of energy-matter in that this ‘information’ is shown to be the entity that is in fact constraining the energy-matter processes of the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    notes:

    Falsification of neo-Darwinism;

    First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism).

    Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality:

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)

    And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale!

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – July 2010
    Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1

    Quantum Information confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research;

    DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011
    Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104014.htm

    Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
    Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
    http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

    i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself
    not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!
    ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)!

    ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally;

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever.

    “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook

    =================

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007

    =========================
23. 23

    bornagain77August 31, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    and To dovetail the falsification of neo-Darwinism, by non-local quantum information, into Dembski and Marks’s work on Conservation of Information, I present this evidence;,,,

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information
    William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    http://evoinfo.org/publication.....ation-law/

    ,,,Encoded classical information, such as what we find in computer programs, and yes as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ quantum information by the following method:,,,

    This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it;

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    ,,,And here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is ‘conserved’;,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html
24. 24

    bornagain77August 31, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Expansion of cited paper:

    A survey of orphan enzyme activities
    Abstract

    Background
    Using computational database searches, we have demonstrated previously that no gene sequences could be found for at least 36% of enzyme activities that have been assigned an Enzyme Commission number. Here we present a follow-up literature-based survey involving a statistically significant sample of such “orphan” activities. The survey was intended to determine whether sequences for these enzyme activities are truly unknown, or whether these sequences are absent from the public sequence databases but can be found in the literature.

    Results
    We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these enzyme activities play biologically important roles.

    Conclusion
    This survey points toward significant scientific cost of having such a large fraction of characterized enzyme activities disconnected from sequence data. It also suggests that a larger effort, beginning with a comprehensive survey of all putative orphan activities, would resolve nearly 300 artifactual orphans and reconnect a wealth of enzyme research with modern genomics. For these reasons, we propose that a systematic effort to identify the cognate genes of orphan enzymes be undertaken.
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244

    As well here is a corrected link to the page discussing the severe bias of methodology practiced by the neo-Darwinists in the cited ORFan paper:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com...../#comments
25. 25

    bornagain77August 31, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    Better link:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358547
26. 26

    bornagain77September 1, 2011 at 4:19 am

    Corrected link:

    Dr. Howard Ochman – Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona
    Excerpt of Proposal: The aims of this proposal are to investigate this enigmatic class of genes by elucidating the source and functions of “ORFans”, i.e., sequences within a genome that encode proteins having no homology (and often no structural similarity) to proteins in any other genome. Moreover, the uniqueness of ORFan genes prohibits use of any of homology-based methods that have traditionally been employed to establish gene function.,,, Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358868