Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)

Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

[allmendream]

You keep saying “look at that 11%!” and ignore the 75%.

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.

[GodGunsGuts]

==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 ERV’s 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!

[allmendream]

It testifies to God's creation through natural selection of genetic variation.

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.

[GodGunsGuts]

==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.

[allmendream]

It must be tiring to constantly source material that contradicts you and post phylogenetic trees that clearly show what you claimed was a “logical impossibility” as each tree you posted clearly shows the grouping of humans and chimps as more recent than the branching off of gorillas.

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?