Picture that terrifies creationists?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 5, 2014

Culture, Genetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the leadup to the Nye–Ham debate, over at Mother Jones, Chris Mooney tells us, “This Picture Has Creationists Terrified: And no wonder: It’s the most powerful evidence for evolution that you can imagine.”

Naturally, I thought they had discovered a man actually morphing into a fly.

It turns out, Mooney provides only primate gene sequences showing similar chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Which mainly shows what genetics doesn’t do.

That is, if someone wants us to know that a (frequently claimed) 98% similarity between the guy fixing a computer and the chimp throwing poop proves something, I’d say it sure does. It proves that genes are only a tiny part of the story of inheritance. Seems we got a long ways to go to understand that.

I sometimes wonder why appreciation of that fact isn’t a sort of sanity test. You should see the comments over at MJ.

Next question?

Oh, and by the way, if that’s really the most powerful evidence for (Darwinian) evolution, things are way worse over in Darwintown than we thought. We thought their hat had way more rabbits.

– O’Leary for News

PS: In fairness, some people dispute the high figures. See also: Genomics scientist Jeffrey Tompkins takes issue with BioLogos’ we are 98% chimpanzee claim

Also: Epigenetic differences between humans and chimps (vs. 98% similarity claims)

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

To Axiomatic and tjguy (3&18) and myself since I forgot all about it... I am rereading Chris Stringer's 'The Origin of our Species'. On page 192 he explains the 2%. It appears that people from Europe, Asia and New Guinea have a genome that is slightly closer to the Neanderthal genome than the genome of African individuals is to the Neanderthal genome. The most likely explanation? Interbreeding. The amount is estimated at around 2%.Seqenenre_{February 9, 2014
February
02
Feb
9
09
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes,, it is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness/Chaos), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternity of time’ at black holes can rightly be described as ‘eternities of decay and/or eternities of destruction’.
Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of a ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion! It is also interesting to note that Gravity, despite intense effort, refuses to be unified with Quantum Mechanics:
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to. If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html
In light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation
Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and special relativity, i.e. QED, with Gravity, I consider the preceding nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:
John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385
Supplemental notes:
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video) Lyric “Death has lost and Love has won!” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX
bornagain77_{February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

As to what should truly terrify Darwinists,,, I posted on this earlier this week but think it bears worth repeating, since in regards to terror, Darwinists seem to have their priorities severely misplaced:
Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Hell - A Warning! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476/ Why Hell is so Horrible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hd_so3wPw8
Two Very Different Eternities Revealed To Us By Physics: Well, to borrow Tipler’s term (but not his ideas), in so far as the “Physics of Immortality” are concerned, I’ve found black holes to lend strong support for the Theistic contention of eternal life after death. In Theism, particularly Christian Theism, it is held that there are two ultimate destinies for our eternal souls. Heaven or Hell! And in physics we find two very different ‘eternities’ just as Theism has held for millenia. One eternity in physics is found ‘if’ a hypothetical observer were to accelerate to the speed of light. In this scenario time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for the hypothetical observer. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005
Some may think that time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light is pure science fiction, but, as incredible as it sounds, Einstein’s infamous thought experiment has many lines of evidence now supporting it.
Velocity time dilation tests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_time_dilation_tests “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
This following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film (of note: light travels approximately 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):
Amazing — light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! – video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video you can briefly see the time dilation effect of relativity caught on film!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise it would simply be ‘frozen in time’. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Moreover, we have ‘observational’ evidence that corroborates what our physics is telling us in that people who have had deep Judeo-Christian Near Death Experiences (NDEs) report both ‘eternity’ and traveling through the tunnel to a higher dimension:
‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ - Kimberly Clark Sharp – NDE Experiencer “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://vimeo.com/79072924
Moreover, as with special relativity, in General Relativity we find that temporal time slows down the further down in a gravitational well a person is:
Gravitational time dilation tests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Gravitational_time_dilation_tests
As well, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any ‘hypothetical’ observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. This is because the accelerative force of gravity at black holes is so intense that not even light can escape its grip:
Space-Time of a Black hole – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
bornagain77_{February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Anyone else who read the title of this article think, "Disprove Creationism with this one weird trick!"?drc466_{February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Why that picture should terrify evolutionists- Blind watchmaker evolution cannot explain chromosomes. The best it can do is say "Look at that. Now let's find some ad hoc naturalistic narrative."Joe_{February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

“We found that the mtDNA sites where Neandertals differed from modern man tended to be at mutational hotspots—sites where many modern humans also differ. In addition, at the sites where Neandertals differed from each other, one of them would match the modern human.” - Dr David DeWitt This link is in agreement: "The majority of the Neandertal divergences overlap with those of the humans (Fig. 3), reflecting the fact that Neandertals fall inside the variation of present-day humans." (A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome, May 2010, sciencemag) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome by R. Green, D. Reich, S. Paabo et al. (Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328 no. 5979 pp. 710-722, DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021): Neanderthal Myth and Orwellian Double-Think - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - 2012 Excerpt: Modern humans and Neanderthals are essentially genetically identical. Neanderthals are unequivocally fully human based on a number of actual genetic studies using ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains. The DNA data fully confirms the numerous anatomical studies performed on a wide variety of skeletal remains found in diverse geographical regions across Europe and the Middle East. The anatomical data not only shows that Neanderthals had fully human bone structure, but larger brains and more robust features. In fact, to the uncritical observer, they appear superior to modern humans. http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3455fa8d785a887abd8316c1505a8b8c-33.php Human Variability Can Be Rapid - December 19, 2011 Excerpt: In a new paper in Current Biology (Volume 21, Issue 24, R1002-R1009, 20 December 2011), Lalueza-Fox and Gilbert said: 'Analyses of Neanderthal and Denisovan nuclear and mitochondrial genomes have revealed surprising insights into these archaic humans as well as our own species. The genomes provide a preliminary catalogue of derived amino acids that are specific to all extant modern humans, thus offering insights into the functional differences between the three lineages. In addition, the genomes provide evidence of gene flow between the three lineages after anatomically modern humans left Africa, drastically changing our view of human evolution.' Instead of “surprising insights,” they should have said “falsifications,” because none of that was believed by paleoanthropologists a decade ago. That’s why it “drastically changed” their view. They differentiated “archaic humans” from “our own species,” but then pointed to “evidence of gene flow” between all three groups. You can’t get gene flow without sex. If members of these groups produced children, they are all the same species according to the biological species concept (i.e., species are populations able to produce fertile offspring). http://crev.info/content/111219-human_variability_can_be_rapid Researchers decode complete genome of extinct humans (Denisovans) from a fossil finger bone - February 2012 Excerpt: The big news, of course, is that there probably wasn’t a separate Neandertal or Denisovan “species” just a different group of humans.,,, The genetic difference between Neandertals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans. https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/researchers-decode-complete-genome-of-extinct-humans-denisovans-from-a-fossil-finger-bone/ Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: “Our expectation was that it would be a very early Neanderthal,” Dr. Meyer said. But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the (80,000 year old) ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar. “Everybody had a hard time believing it at first,” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down.” The extra research confirmed that the DNA belonged on the Denisovan branch of the human family tree. The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.,,, “Now we have to rethink the whole story.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?ref=science&_r=1& A Relative from the Tianyuan Cave: Humans Living 40,000 Years Ago Likely Related to Many Present-Day Asians and Native Americans - Jan. 21, 2013 Excerpt: Ancient DNA has revealed that humans living some 40,000 years ago in the area near Beijing were likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans.,,, Humans with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago.,,, In addition, the Tianyuan individual did not carry a larger proportion of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA than present-day people in the region. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130121161802.htm So What's the Deal with the Neanderthal, Their Demise? - 2012 Excerpt: There is an emerging segment in academia which is getting more vociferous about the prospect of neither the intellectual nor behavioral capacity of the Neanderthal being significantly different or inferior to that of their 'anatomically modern' human contemporaries. http://exploring-africa.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/so-whats-deal-with-neanderthal-their.html Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? - February 2011 Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-brains-smarter.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
bornagain77_{February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

To 3&18, (from wikipedia, Neanderthal Genome Project. I am not an expert) "According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[5] (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 98% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)"Seqenenre_{February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

wd400 claims:
In other words, if you were to randomly take wa section of your DNA and compare it to the corresponding sequence from a chimps then about 98% of the bases would be the same.
That claim is false:
Groundbreaking Genetic Discoveries Challenge Ape to Human Evolutionary Theory – June 17, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Tomkins further emphasized that evolutionists greatly exaggerate the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and often ignore areas of DNA where major differences do exist. “It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”,,, http://christiannews.net/2013/06/17/groundbreaking-genetic-discoveries-challenge-ape-to-human-evolutionary-theory/ Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. http://www.reasons.org/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2 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/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html 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.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/
etc.. etc..bornagain77_{February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Color me unterrified. Let's assume for the moment that humans had common ancestry with chimpanzees, ignoring all the lousy science. How would that affect my faith? The answer is "not in the least." In Genesis, God is portrayed as forming things out of other things. In fact, it would surprise me if God didn't have a "genetic library" including genetic backup systems such as demonstrated in Galapagos finches. Also, I think homologous structures are excellent: theme and variation designed for broad adaptation to extreme and changing conditions! What a great designer! I used to wonder about Genesis, where it says that among animals, God's first creations were birds and fish. Birds? Aren't birds supposed to be much more highly evolved? Well yes, unless of course, God thought of dinosaurs as large birds . . . And humans were created on the same day as other land animals, similar but with the exception that God apparently equipped us for a unique role and a unique niche on the planet: ecology and planetary curation. Nice! :-) -QQuerius_{February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

People without recent African ancestory have ~2% neanderthal DNA in the same way you have 50% of your mother's DNA. Not in the same way we all have DNA that has ~98% identity to that of a chimp. In other words, if you were to randomly take wa section of your DNA and compare it to the corresponding sequence from a chimps then about 98% of the bases would be the same. On the other hand, if you don't have recent African ancestory then 2% of your DNA descends from neanderthals.wd400_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

@ 3 Axiomatic "I honestly don’t know the answer to this…why do people say we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, but I also hear we only share 2% with Neanderthals? Something doesn’t seem right." Wow! Excellent Question! Never thought about that! Maybe we're missing something, but it doesn't seem to add up.tjguy_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Here are a few more notes about the ‘artistic license’, (imagination instead of hard evidence), being the only ‘real’ support for evolution:
Paleoanthropology Dr. Pilbeam also wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology : “I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, “theory” – heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates “data”. ….Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted” via conservapedia My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism Excerpt: —”We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, “When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” via evolution news The Truth About Human Origins: Excerpt: “It is practically impossible to determine which “family tree” (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard’s wife) has proposed still another.,,” http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 DeWitt’s digital manipulation of skull 1470 – August 13, 2012 Excerpt: The skull as presented in the news websites has some significant issues that suggests that the facial reconstruction is seriously off. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dewitts-reconstruction-of-skull-1470/ “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” - Henry Gee (Editor of Nature), In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life
An Evolutionist claimed
"They survived without our type of consciousness/intellect just as well as we did until recently when their habitat started to disappear. This proves that our consciousness is not needed for survival. Coming down out of the trees with an upright posture means a slower moving organism which needs more planning and thinking to stay alive. That may have selected for more brain power,"
To which I asked him: So being made ‘in the image of God’ emerged when some supposed ape ancestor to humans lost its habitat??? And since you said this ‘proves’ your point, may I be so bold as to ask you what proof you actually have that a change in environment will drive evolutionary change?
Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed – David Klinghoffer – February 21, 2013 Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old. A team of researchers led by USC’s Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place (“Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y.”). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/another_difficu069411.html Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on – February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions— Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/donald-prothero-in-evolution-stasis-was-the-general-pattern-gradualism-was-rare-and-that-is-still-the-consensus-40-years-later/
(the Evolutionist) then offered this Theistic caveat,,,
"but why then did we leave the trees? I fully believe our evolution was guided."
To which I responded: Well, that is just so sentimental of you to give God a little room right there at the end because you can’t seem to imagine a job for natural selection to do (never mind that natural selection can’t explain trees or monkeys (or proteins) in the first place)! I’m sure He is mighty pleased that you did not completely forget him in your just so story.,,, But may I offer word of advice from the wise wordsmith of old England?
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” William Shakespeare – Hamlet
Supplemental notes;
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nature-wouldnt-have-done-it-that-way/#comment-485929 Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. – 2008 Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531 The Hard Impossible Problem of Consciousness – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FglKcWBKEu8 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910 “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.” - Kurt Gödel
Verse, Quote, and Music:
Psalm 16:11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. “The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like “love” make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never.” - Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience testimony Good To Be Alive – Jason Gray http://myktis.com/songs/good-to-be-alive/
bornagain77_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Skull “Rewrites” Story of Human Evolution — Again – Casey Luskin – October 22, 2013 Excerpt: “There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013 Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm
In fact, the ‘march to modern man’ drawing as depicted in popular imagination (and as is 'still' depicted in grade school textbooks), has been known to wrong for over 60 years:
Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research – Feb. 6, 2013 Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike. ,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_fragmented_062101.html “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), “most hominid fossils, even though they serve as basis of endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of of jaws and scraps of skulls” Stephen Jay Gould The Fragmented Field of Paleoanthropology – July 2012 Excerpt: “alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public” Earnest A. Hooton – physical anthropologist – Harvard University http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_fragmented_062101.html Paleoanthropology Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.” http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology “National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow.” “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evolution-skull-1470-it-turns-out-has-a-multiple-personality-disorder/
One can see that ‘artistic license’ for human evolution being played out on the following site.
10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013 http://listverse.com/2013/03/18/10-transitional-ancestors-of-human-evolution/
Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists’ reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions have no clue whatsoever as to what the colors of the eyes, of these supposed transitional fossils, actually were.
Evolution of human eye as a device for communication – Hiromi Kobayashi – Kyoto University, Japan Excerpt: The uniqueness of human eye morphology among primates illustrates the remarkable difference between human and other primates in the ability to communicate using gaze signals. http://www.saga-jp.org/coe_abst/kobayashi.htm
bornagain77_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Moreover, it is seriously questioned whether or not ‘form’ is even reducible to the reductive materialism of neo-Darwinism:
Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012 Excerpt: The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
As well, the genetic evidence for the hypothesized ape to human transition is now known to not be nearly as conducive to Darwinian speculations as was/is erroneously believed in popular imagination:
Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/
Moreover, just as with the genetic evidence, the anatomy between chimps and humans is far different than most people imagine it to be:
Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163 The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009 Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html Mona Lisa smile: The morphological enigma of human and great ape evolution – 2006 Excerpt: The quality and scope of published documentation and verification of morphological features suggests there is very little in morphology to support a unique common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.b.20107/abstract A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
Nor does the fossil record reveal a gradual transition between apes and humans, as Darwinists would prefer people to imagine:
Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say? – Casey Luskin – July 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, far from supplying “a nice clean example” of “gradualistic evolutionary change,” the record reveals a dramatic discontinuity between ape-like and human-like fossils. Human-like fossils appear abruptly in the record, without clear evolutionary precursors, making the case for human evolution based on fossils highly speculative. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/human_origins_a_1061771.html Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
bornagain77_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

I use to think the evidence for humans evolving from some chimp-like ancestor was a whole lot stronger than it has turned out to be. But, as with the misleading fusion evidence, through the years, no thanks to Darwinists, I have found it to be pathetically weak: Evolutionists claim that:
"We broke off from apes and chimps, six-ten million years ago."
How do they know this? What is their specific evidence? We can’t even get a bacteria to evolve into a different type of bacteria! Much less an animal into a different type of animal!
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” - Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146 Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html
Nor do we have evidence that a fruit fly can evolve into anything but another fruit fly:
‘No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution’ – Jonathan Wells Darwin’s Theory – Fruit Flies and Morphology – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010 Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf
Nor does empirical evidence coupled with mathematics support that such a transition is even possible from apes to humans by Darwinian mechanisms in the first place:
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012 Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be ‘neutral’). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (greater than 100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said – July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/
In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that radical plasticity of body plans, as is required by Darwinism, is even possible:
Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html “Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade.” Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) Phenotypic Plasticity – Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA
bornagain77_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

JGuy, I doubt that Ken Miller even read the Tomkins paper.Joe_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

I blogged about this back in July 2012- 5 months before the end of the world: Even before the release of "Science and Human Origins" there has been an uproar over human chromosome 2, the alleged fusion of two other chromosomes (still found in other primates) and sharing a common ancestor with chimps. According to evos this was supposed to be a chromosomal fusion that occurred in some gamete and then got passed along- a random event. However if we look at it from a design perspective the randomness disappears. Why? Chromosome/ DNA packaging and chromosome territories. Ya see gene expression and regulation depend on both the packaging and the location of the chromosomes within the nucleus, ie chromosome territories. And if you have two different/ separate chromosomes then they can be packaged differently and ferried around separately also, meaning they can be separated and placed in different territories. So perhaps with humans it is required that the information never be separated. And the easiest way to accomplish that was by splicing the two together. Snip off the excess and splice.* The research would be to determine where HC2 resides in certain tissues and cells and during development and then compare with the two primate chromosomes for the same tissues/ cells and stages of development. So HC2 is explained as a design feature, for humans. It not only helps with reproductive isolation but it also allows for a different gene expression and regulation pattern necessary for the different requirements of humans. * it could also be that the two chimp chromosomes were the result of splitting HC2 into two separate chromosomesJoe_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Perhaps Darwinists, when they are through 'terrifying creationists', can actually do some real science and provide some actual proof that Darwinian processes can create a single functional gene?
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 "Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene— is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" ~ Michael Denton The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes - January 2013 Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/24/gbe.evt009.full.pdf+html "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics (and inquisition style persecution of anyone who does no toe the neo-Darwinian line) Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY
bornagain77_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

terrified between yawns! :) Here is a good summary of why the chromosome 2 argument does not wash - 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/spring-it-on-em-and-watch-the-fur-fly/#comment-431951 More notes: It's Cherry Picking Season - July 24, 2012 Excerpt (Guy walks into a bar and thinks he is a chimp): I try to outline all the functions of telomeric repeats, but my friend tells me that I am getting off the subject. He wants to me to focus on the ITSs, the tracks of the hexamer TTAGGG that reside within chromosome arms or around the centromere, not at the ends. I tell him that I was just coming to that topic. The story, you see, is that in the lineage leading up (or down, I forget which) to chimps and humans, a fusion of chromosome ends occurred -- two telomeres became stuck together, the DNA was stitched together, and now we find the remnants of this event on the inside of chromosomes. And to be fair, I concede at this point that the 2q13 ITS site shared by chimps and humans can be considered a synapomorphy, a five-dollar cladistic term meaning a genetic marker that the two species share. As this is said, it is apparent that the countenance of my acquaintance lightens a bit only to darken a second later. For I follow up by saying that of all the known ITSs, and there are many in the genomes of chimps and humans, as well as mice and rats and cows..., the 2q13 ITS is the only one that can be associated with an evolutionary breakpoint or fusion. The other ITSs, I hasten to add, do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates (Farré M, Ponsà M, Bosch M. 2009, "Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates," Cytogenetic and Genome Research 124(2): 128-131.). In brief, to hone in on the 2q13 ITS as being typical of what we see in the human and chimp genomes seems almost like cherry-picking data. Most are not DNA scars in the way they have been portrayed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/its_cherry_pick_1062491.html Chromosome 2: The Best Evidence for Evolution? - Dr. Fazale Rana - June 2010 Excerpt: For human chromosome 2 to arise, it would have required either telomere-telomere fusion (a virtual impossibility), or fusion of an intact chromosome at its telomere with a sticky end generated when another chromosome fractured near its telomere. This type of fusion can happen, but it is a rare occurrence. The event would have had to occur in one of the gametes (sperm and egg cells), changing the number of chromosomes. When the chromosome number in the sperm doesn’t match that of the egg , fertilization almost always results in either: (1) a nonviable zygote/embryo; (2) a viable offspring that suffers from a diseased state; or (3) a viable but infertile offspring. Again, it is possible, but extremely rare for the resulting offspring to be viable and fertile. Finally, once the fusion took place between chimp chromosomes 2A and 2B, there would have had to have been what evolutionary biologists call a selective sweep. This event occurs when a mutation imparts such a large advantage that it rapidly sweeps through the population, becoming fixed, and reducing the genetic variability of the group. To summarize, in order for human chromosome 2 to arise from the fusion of two chromosomes, a succession of several highly improbable events would have had to have taken place. Thus, the evolutionary account of the history of human beings seems untenable. http://www.reasons.org/articles/chromosome-2-the-best-evidence-for-evolution PaV, has a excellent rebuttal of evolutionist (Zimmer) claim that Chromosome 2 proved human evolution: Let me quote Zimmer, as he quotes a 1997 paper of Carol Greider: The mice were healthy enough to grow up and have babies. But from one generation to the next, their telomeres got shorter until they disappeared. After just four generations, the mice suffered an explosion of chromosome fusion. Their dangling DNA then began to get chewed away, damaging their genes until they became sterile. You Darwinists are blinded by your materialist bias. In his effort to defend himself against the charge that we can't know for sure that human chromosome two was formed by fusion, Zimmer cites an experiment in which mice "suffered an explosion of chromosome fusion." And what was the outcome? Their DNA was so damaged they became sterile. And how do Darwinists claim that humans were formed? By chromosomal fusion. Now, can I ask some simple questions: Did the mice become rats? No. Did they become hens? No. Did they become monkeys? No. They became STERILE. But, somehow, in the minds of great thinkers such as evolutionary biologists, THIS is the explanation of why humans are no longer apes. Fantastic! I'm impressed. So, instead of noticing that this article debunks his theory, desperate to salvage his hypothesis, Zimmer writes: This experiment and other studies indicate that defective telomeres with few repeats are vulnerable to chromosome fusion. So it would be no surprise to find that a fusion between two chromosome had a low number of repeating bits of DNA. Do you guys ever try and think things through? Zimmer's argument is completely demolished. And he's the one who demolished it!! http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/carl-zimmer-doubles-down-on-chromosome.html?showComment=1343084381951#c3035322116668853045 Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - October 16, 2013 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked - Jeffrey P. Tomkins - Oct. 26, 2013 http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.phpbornagain77_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 7 Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look into it more and maybe forward it to AIG or wherever Tomkins is working. Off topic: In the process of just now researching that, I typed in google, "Tomkins 1,300 bases away from the gene". Your comment was already indexed by Google!... Wow, that was fast!JGuy_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 4
How evolutionism explains the alleged human chromosome 2 fusion: “It just happened and somehow became fixed.”
I think that is a good point of interest. If it wasn't fused (or appearing to be fused as claimed), wouldn't it be better for the evolutionists position/claim of chimp human ancestry if the number of chromosomes between humans and chimps were identical? Methinksso... in fact, with more evaluation, this might be evidence in alignment with ReMine's Biotic Message theory.JGuy_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

JGuy@3- According to Ken Miller that paper is wrong and the gene is 1300 base pairs away- at least that is what Ken sez at the link "most powerful evidence"- but he just sez itJoe_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Related: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome "Summary Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."JGuy_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

How evolutionism explains the alleged human chromosome 2 fusion: "It just happened and somehow became fixed."Joe_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 2 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusionJGuy_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

I honestly don't know the answer to this...why do people say we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, but I also hear we only share 2% with Neanderthals? Something doesn't seem right.axiomatic_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

This is too funny as the alleged fusion occurred in the human lineage and had nothing to do with humans becoming more human, Also the alleged fusion has nothing to do with natural selection nor drift. And it is easily explained by design.Joe_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

O'Leary:
That is, if someone wants us to know that a (frequently claimed) 98% similarity between the guy fixing a computer and the chimp throwing poop proves something, I’d say it sure does. It proves that genes are only a tiny part of the story of inheritance. Seems we got a long ways to go to understand that.
Exactly.Eric Anderson_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply