Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skippy surprises scientists
CMI ^ | Carl Wieland

Posted on 01/19/2009 1:04:36 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Skippy surprises scientists

by Carl Wieland

20 January 2009

Feeling jumpy? It may not be from what you think. Researchers at Australia’s government-backed Centre of Excellence for Kangaroo Genomics have mapped the genetic code of these marsupials, and were surprised at the amazing similarity to that of humans...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ape; awkwarddiscovery; creation; evolution; genomics; humans; intelligentdesign; jennygraves; kangaroo; man; stevejones

1 posted on 01/19/2009 1:04:40 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

ping!


2 posted on 01/19/2009 1:06:07 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

lol, and here i thought i was more closely related to a sea banana

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana


3 posted on 01/19/2009 1:14:19 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This discovery, as with so many awkward discoveries (i.e. awkward for evolution) previously, will no doubt end up displaying the ingenuity of evolutionists in making any fact, predicted or not, fit their materialistic worldview.
4 posted on 01/19/2009 1:15:12 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

I screwed up on the title. Could someone change it to the proper title? Thank you—GGG

Title:

Skippy surprises scientists


5 posted on 01/19/2009 1:15:29 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I get so excited thinking about the day when we will be able to understand the staggering complexity of what God has done, able to see a million intricacies that we cannot now imagine.

In the beginning was the Word...

I believe one of the layers of meaning of “Word” in this context will be that of information. An unimaginable amount of information that all works perfectly together, a “matrix” of reality.

MM


6 posted on 01/19/2009 1:16:48 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I wonder what the degree of similarity will be. For some reason they left this little detail out. Perhaps they need time to confer with their colleagues and hammer out how the ToE predicted this all along.


7 posted on 01/19/2009 1:19:16 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

We even have to choose between the biblical equivalent of the blue pill or the red pill :o)


8 posted on 01/19/2009 1:21:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thank you :o)


9 posted on 01/19/2009 1:21:57 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Funny how that keeps happening over and over.


10 posted on 01/19/2009 1:23:39 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I thought you were talking about “Skippy” Algore.


11 posted on 01/19/2009 1:28:03 PM PST by wxgesr (I want to be the first person to surf on another planet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wxgesr

In that were the case, the similarity between skippy and humans would be surprising indeed!


12 posted on 01/19/2009 1:29:42 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
As usual Carl Wieland misrepresents science in pursuit of his own religious agenda. How can you trust a guy with his abysmal track record?

From the USA Today article on the web:

And they've found the Aussie icon has more in common with humans than scientists had thought. The kangaroo last shared a common ancestor with humans 150 million years ago.

"We've been surprised at how similar the genomes are," said Jenny Graves, director of the government-backed research effort. "Great chunks of the genome are virtually identical." ...

The scientists also discovered 14 previously unknown genes in the kangaroo and suspect the same ones are also in humans, Graves said.

Scientists have already untangled the DNA of around two dozen mammals, including mice and chimps, which are closer to humans on the evolutionary timeline. But Graves said it's the kangaroo's distance from people that make its genetic map helpful in understanding how humans evolved.

By lining up the genomes of different species, scientists can spot genes they never knew existed and figure out what DNA features have stayed the same or changed over time. Elements that have remained the same are usually important, Graves said [emphasis added].

"Great chunks of the genome are virtually identical..." eh? What Carl leaves out is that this is generally the case! And he leaves out the statements that quantify the actual distance--separation 150 million years ago. That's not exactly a first cousin, now is it?

Is there no limit to the obfuscation and misrepresentation that we can expect from creation "science?"

13 posted on 01/19/2009 1:30:41 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

“evolutionists in making any fact, predicted or not, fit their materialistic worldview.”

Just like the global warming proponents. It’s like lockstep.


14 posted on 01/19/2009 1:33:50 PM PST by Marie2 (Hunkered down until something better comes along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The deconstruction has begun. My cousin the ‘roo is distant; not a kissing (yech!) cousin.


15 posted on 01/19/2009 1:41:19 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I always knew peanut butter was too complex to have formed naturally!


16 posted on 01/19/2009 1:53:58 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
We even have to choose between the biblical equivalent of the blue pill or the red pill :o)

Hadn't thought of it that way, but amen!

MM (in TX)

17 posted on 01/19/2009 1:56:45 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Captain obvious may be in order here.

Two eyes
Two ears
Same internal organs in roughly the same place
Same number of limbs
Fur
Live birth
Nursing young

There are a whole lot of similarities between kangaroos and humans. Why wouldn’t much of the DNA be similar?

Duh!


18 posted on 01/19/2009 2:00:07 PM PST by Poser (Sexual Chunky Monkey and willing to fight for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For those who wish to get in touch with their “inner kangaroo” large belly packs are available on the internet at quite reasonable prices for quite unreasonable people.

That humans have kangaroos as ancestors is demonstrated by the popularity of Pogo sticks and high jump sporting events.
However, true jumping ability was never developed as early “man-garoos” tended to jump off really high places and those that survived developed the strong legs seen in ambulance chasing lawyers.


19 posted on 01/19/2009 2:02:05 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“Scientists have already untangled the DNA of around two dozen mammals, including mice and chimps, which are closer to humans on the evolutionary timeline.”

So to question: Are we mice or men? the answer is, “both”?


20 posted on 01/19/2009 2:14:04 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Here’s one of Jenny Grave’s (the lead researcher in the article) other notable findings:

“There are two models for the Y chromosome,” she said. “The model we were all brought up with was the Y as a macho little thing because if you have a Y you’re male and that’s it. But it turns out that’s only because the Y chromosome has the SRY gene on it. The other theory is that the Y is a selfish sort of entity and it grabs genes from other parts of the genome that are handy in males.

“But our work on comparative mapping says that the Y is merely a wimp, a relic of the X chromosome. It started off being identical to the X but over millions of years it has been losing genes and there are hardly any left. This, of course, makes men very anxious.”


21 posted on 01/19/2009 2:20:27 PM PST by cacoethes_resipisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Creationist misunderstanding doesn’t surprise.

“The first thing I want to do is show you what’s being done in sequencing genomes, and how the sequenced animals are related to each other. Genomes of a number of different placental mammal species have been sequenced, including the human genome, which has been sequenced to a very great depth (ie multiple times). We also have the sequences for chimps, mice, rats, dogs, cats, and even the elephants are now lined up for sequencing. But these animals are actually all rather closely related. They shared a common ancestor only 100 million years ago, and that isn’t enough time for the genome to have changed sufficiently for us to get the maximal information out of it. If we go to the other extreme and look at animals very distantly related – that is birds, frogs and even fish – they share a common ancestor with mammals 300 or 400 million years ago and that’s too far because now the sequence is so different it’s actually hard to line up.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if there were some animals in the middle? Well, that’s exactly where Australian animals are. Marsupials and monotremes last shared a common ancestor with humans about 200 million years ago, so they’re exactly in the right spot to give us maximal information that we need to make these comparisons...”
Jenny Graves, Ph.D.
3 May 2006
http://www.science.org.au/sats2006/graves.htm


22 posted on 01/19/2009 2:24:31 PM PST by cacoethes_resipisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If Skippy surprises them, just wait 'til they try Jif! Much better, IMNSHO!
23 posted on 01/19/2009 2:32:58 PM PST by TrueKnightGalahad (When you're racing...it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poser; metmom; GodGunsGuts; valkyry1; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; Ethan Clive Osgoode

Fur? LOL

And a chicken embryo looks an awful lot like the human embryo in the early stages too.

and a pig

and a monkey

and...

so why IS it again we’re automatically to believe we share a common ancestor with all of them again?

You know, as opposed to an intelligent creator just using similar DNA in His design in ALL these examples?


24 posted on 01/19/2009 3:33:11 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No wonder I feel so hoppy!


25 posted on 01/19/2009 3:41:56 PM PST by LurkedLongEnough (Music washes away the dust of every day life. ---Art Blakey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Hoppy New year Everyone


26 posted on 01/19/2009 4:03:18 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==As usual Carl Wieland misrepresents science in pursuit of his own religious agenda

Is that why Graves et all were so surprised?:

“There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order.

“Which really surprised us, we thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not, there’s great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome.’’

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24669539-29277,00.html

Could it be that our Creator used modular/interchangeable designs like human designers often do (we are made in God’s image after all)? Could that be why these genetic sequences are so “conserved” between species? Just a thought.

All the best—GGG


27 posted on 01/19/2009 5:38:14 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Marie2; valkyry1

Good point! The similarities are uncanny.


28 posted on 01/19/2009 5:39:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Poser
According to the Evos, we supposedly diverged from kangaroos 150 million years ago. Given a mutation rate of 10-4 to 10 -6 per base pair per generation, the genes should have been largely scrambled by now. That is why the Evos were so surprised.
29 posted on 01/19/2009 5:50:36 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cacoethes_resipisco

The reason why the Aussie Evos were so surprised is because there expectation was refuted by reality. Obviously there is something very wrong about the theory that is informing their expectations.


30 posted on 01/19/2009 5:56:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I wonder what the degree of similarity will be. For some reason they left this little detail out.

Who needs details when the goal is to promote ignorance?

31 posted on 01/19/2009 5:58:32 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
According to the Evos, we supposedly diverged from kangaroos 150 million years ago. Given a mutation rate of 10-4 to 10 -6 per base pair per generation, the genes should have been largely scrambled by now.

At the risk of a bad pun, that's quite a LEAP on your part.
32 posted on 01/19/2009 5:59:54 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What’s funny about today’s silly piece you’ve posted is that even if we disregard your article’s artful dodging of what the original findings actually said - which would certainly make me take down the OP as a clear lie - but the bigger picture of what Australian marsupials mean for the creation myth.

Do creationists ask why God put all these highly unique and highly adapted marsupials down in Australia? Do they ask why marsupials are so successful there but only moderately so in the Americas and not at all elsewhere? Do they know what island biogeography means and that the Creator must have been a huge fan of it?


33 posted on 01/19/2009 6:04:32 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Just hop along now....


34 posted on 01/19/2009 6:20:45 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

What’s your point?


35 posted on 01/19/2009 6:23:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"What Carl leaves out is that this is generally the case!"

Funny how that's the same thing that you're always leaving out when you're pushing monkey genetics. - Are you and Carl related? (outside of your uncles monkey)

36 posted on 01/19/2009 6:25:45 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Among other things, that worldwide marsupial distribution presents a massive problem for creationists. Either that, or you all accept that the Creator has once again placed things on this earth in such a way as to provide more evidence for evolution as a means to trick the faithless heathens.


37 posted on 01/19/2009 6:26:13 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Be specific. What is your argument, and what is your evidence for the same?


38 posted on 01/19/2009 6:28:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

> The reason why the Aussie Evos were so surprised is
> because there expectation was refuted by reality.

Reading the good doctor’s actual words, instead of her words cherry picked and misinterpreted, would definitely give you a different view.

The basic toolkit of a milk bearing tetrapod with fur is there, but the idea that the kangaroo is “more like” or “as much like” humans as chimps are is ludicrous. In fact, they’re more dissimilar than any placental mammals, such as mice.


39 posted on 01/19/2009 6:58:58 PM PST by cacoethes_resipisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cacoethes_resipisco

“There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order.

“Which really surprised us, we thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not, there’s great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome.’’

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24669539-29277,00.html


40 posted on 01/19/2009 7:14:20 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Funny how the article you keep citing still mentions that 150 million years ago is the point of divergence.


41 posted on 01/19/2009 8:22:05 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Thanks for the ping!


42 posted on 01/19/2009 8:54:03 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Funny how the article you keep citing still mentions that 150 million years ago is the point of divergence.

While the chimp diverged more like 5-7 million years ago.

But you would never know that from reading Carl Wieland's article, would you?

43 posted on 01/19/2009 9:25:16 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cacoethes_resipisco

“This, of course, makes men very anxious.”

SCIENCE SPEAKS. Either agree, or turn in your microwave oven.


44 posted on 01/20/2009 7:48:07 AM PST by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

==Funny how the article you keep citing still mentions that 150 million years ago is the point of divergence.

That’s the Evo interpretation of the evidence. And that’s why the Australian evos were so surprised, because the theory informing their expectations turned out so utterly wrong. The fact that they still cling to the 150 million year divergence is an article of faith, not science.


45 posted on 01/20/2009 7:59:05 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The fact that they still cling to the 150 million year divergence is an article of faith, not science.

If it were faith they would keep the evidence to themselves. The point is that the new evidence hasn't changed their estimate for the divergence time.

The trickery here is the creationists taking non-scientific statements made for the purpose of writing an article for a non-scientific audience, and jumping to scientific conclusions from them. I don't think Jesus would approve of the willful promotion of ignorance about God's creation.

46 posted on 01/20/2009 9:00:09 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
“”Great chunks of the genome are virtually identical...”

OK, so DNA is like alphabet put together by an intelligence -- just like Freepers writing a post. Sometimes elements in posts from the same author begin to sound alike as ideas are repeated.

An artist often repeats themes that they have mastered so that their paintings have the same look.

Could it be that the reason that we share similarities with apes and other ancient creatures is that we have the same Designer who used a good idea (binocular vision, a pelvis, grasping hands) more than once?

47 posted on 10/03/2009 7:07:40 PM PDT by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson