Skip to comments.Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)
Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Their figure 4 still shows that humans and chimps diverged more recently than gorillas and humans or gorillas and chimps.
Your “logical impossibility” is the reality that Biologists must deal with. Humans and chimps are more closely related in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
You have yet to find a source that doesn’t end up concluding the exact same thing, as Figure 4 from your latest source shows.
That's the current evolutionary dogma. However, more and more Evo scientists are using the data to draw alternative evolutionary scenarios which show humans diverging from gorillas, and still others that have humans diverging further up with the common ancestor of both chimps and gorillas, with chimps not even being included in the same branch with humans. In other words, human evolution is a subjective mess that is getting worse by the day. And the reason is obvious...life resists evolutionary explanations because God created all life approx. 6,000 years ago, with each creature reproducing after its own kind, just as it is described in the Bible.
Please provide a source for your contention. So far every source you have cited in an attempt to muddy the water has concluded that humans and chimps diverged more recently than any other two primate species; as Figure 4 does.
Can you not see that it, like the earlier paper you sourced, has “T1” (time one) as the branching of chimp and human, and has “T2” (time two) as a greater amount of time showing the branching off of the gorilla group.
You want to find one that branches off humans BEFORE the branching off of chimps and gorillas. One EXACTLY like the one shown, but with “human” and “gorilla” interposed.
Are you smart enough to understand that or should I explain it to you again?
The figure clearly shows that humans and chimps are closer and diverged more recently than either did from gorilla. This is both what the figure shows and what the authors conclude.
You need one that goes like this.....
\** \ ***/
Showing Gorillas and Chimps as more recently diverged from the other than either is from a human. So far you have yet to find a source for such a graph, because the data does not support it.
\** \ ***/
Are you blind? Take a look at the dashed Tree in A and Tree C. Just admit it, your supposedly water-tight case is leaking like a sieve (just like the rest of the HMS Beagle):
Are you blind? Tree C has humans and gorillas together and the chimps as the odd man out. Only the dotted green line has humans as the odd man out.
If you look at their Figure 5 you will see the proportion of red, green and blue for the sequences they tested. Red is the color that you see, with a bit of green and blue.
Red = (H*C)G, Green = H(C*G), Blue = (H*G)C
If you look at their Table 2 you will find that 76.58% of the sequence supported humans and chimps being closest (red), only 11.46% supported chimps and gorillas being closest (green), and 11.39% supported humans and gorillas being closest (blue).
Also this places 98% of the DNA they tested supporting tree’s that put chimps humans and gorillas all closer to each other than any is to an orangutan or a monkey.
Clearly your ‘similar body plan = similar DNA” is what is not just sinking but sunk. It never did hold water.
Do you really not see what is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by blind evolution?!?!
In the case of the dotted genetic tree in A, chimps and apes diverged from each other, whereas humans diverged from the common ancestor of all three. In Tree C, apes and humans should be closer to each other. Thus, the Evos cannot make up their mind who came from who, which means your open-and-shut case supposedly establishing a clear lineage from the great apes to humans is about as supportable as the cheerios man with no cheerios.
This was a specific study of genes for elucidation of genetic lineages. Genes are more similar between species, that is why they are not generally used to construct phylogenetic trees and ERV’s or pseudogenes are.
The phylogenetic tree they drew was the RED one, the one that agrees with both the genetic and ERV data, the one supported by over 75% of the sequences they tested. The one that appears SEVERAL TIMES IN THIS THREAD, posted by both myself AND you.
That grouping again, for the painfully obtuse, is ((H*C)G)O; human and chimps, gorillas, then orangutans. A human and a gorilla are much more similar to each other than either is to an orangutan and that is supported by 98% of the genetic data. So much for your ‘similar body = similar DNA’ explanation.
==You keep saying look at that 11%! and ignore the 75%.
I’m saying your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics can’t make up their minds what comes from what, a classic example of Evo confusion. Otherwise, why all the alternative genetic trees?
==Genes are more similar between species, that is why they are not generally used to construct phylogenetic trees and ERVs or pseudogenes are.
First you say ERVs and pseudogenes are open-and-shut cases demonstrating common descent. I went down both those roads with you not knowing anything about either, but proceeding on faith, only to find out that not only did your best evidence not demonstrate common descent, but, praise God almighty, both point to God as the common designer. The same holds true with what you call ultraconserved sequences, hot-shock proeteins, etc, etc...you name it, everything you have pointed to testifies to God’s special creation!
Your revisionist history lacks credibility and truth.
Your “logical impossibility” of chimps being closer to humans than to a gorilla (or to an orangutan) is the reality that biologists must deal with.
Your ignorance and selective quotations are the only ragged battle-worn shield you can attempt to use to defend yourself against the truth.
The truth is that EVERY tree you or I have posted has shown chimps and humans as more similar. Every study you or I have posted has concluded that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla or orangutan.
==It testifies to God’s creation through natural selection of genetic variation.
It testifies to man’s vain attempt to explain creation without the Creator. The Bible is quite clear, God created all life forms fully formed and fully functional on days five and six of creation week.
As for the rest, I’m tired of beating a dead horse. If you can’t see that your claim that humans and chimps diverged from each other is now in doubt, I must once again conclude that you have been blinded by your incessant need to give mindless materialism the credit for God’s wondrous creation.
Do you also maintain, based upon your ‘similar body plan = similar DNA’ explanation that it is similarly a “logical impossibility” for humans and gorillas to be more similar to each other than either is to an orangutan?
Is it a “logical impossibility” for a husky to be more similar in DNA to a dachshund than it is to a wolf?
Is it a “logical impossibility” for New world and Old world vultures to be less similar in DNA than to cranes or eagles?