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 ...
ping!
lol, and here i thought i was more closely related to a sea banana
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana
I screwed up on the title. Could someone change it to the proper title? Thank you—GGG
Title:
Skippy surprises scientists
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
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.
We even have to choose between the biblical equivalent of the blue pill or the red pill :o)
Thank you :o)
Funny how that keeps happening over and over.
I thought you were talking about “Skippy” Algore.
In that were the case, the similarity between skippy and humans would be surprising indeed!
From the USA Today article on the web:
"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?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].
Is there no limit to the obfuscation and misrepresentation that we can expect from creation "science?"
“evolutionists in making any fact, predicted or not, fit their materialistic worldview.”
Just like the global warming proponents. It’s like lockstep.
The deconstruction has begun. My cousin the ‘roo is distant; not a kissing (yech!) cousin.
I always knew peanut butter was too complex to have formed naturally!
Hadn't thought of it that way, but amen!
MM (in TX)
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!
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.
“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”?
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.”
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
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?
No wonder I feel so hoppy!
Hoppy New year Everyone
==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
Good point! The similarities are uncanny.
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.
Who needs details when the goal is to promote ignorance?
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?
Just hop along now....
What’s your point?
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)
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.
Be specific. What is your argument, and what is your evidence for the same?
> 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.
“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
Funny how the article you keep citing still mentions that 150 million years ago is the point of divergence.
Thanks for the ping!
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?
“This, of course, makes men very anxious.”
SCIENCE SPEAKS. Either agree, or turn in your microwave oven.
==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.
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.
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?
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.