No more love for Lucy? (33 years of evolutionary propoganda up in smoke)

Journal of Creation ^ | Ryan Jaroncyk

[GodGunsGuts]

No more love for Lucy?

Ryan Jaroncyk

For over the last 30 years, the supposedly 3 . 2 Ma old Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as ‘Lucy’ has been boldly proclaimed as the ancestor of all humanity in magazines, television shows, books, newspapers and museums. However, Tel Aviv University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy’s role as mankind’s ape ancestor.1 Based on a comparative analysis of jaw bones in living and extinct primates, researchers concluded that Lucy and members of her kind should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’ In other words, Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. Lucy’s demise falsifies 33 years of evolutionary hyperbole and propaganda...

[Cedric]

No brain?

I didn’t say that (other than me or otherwise).

[Little Ray]

Lamarck believed in “the inheritance of acquired characteristics” i.e. if you cut off a mouse’s tail, its offspring would have shorter or missing tails. Utter garbage.

On the plus, side, Lysenko pursued this belief and crippled Soviet genetic research and agriculture for decades.

[Norman Bates]

Extremely well put.

Well since I am the focus of that comment I can speak with certainty on that: Not really.

[Norman Bates]

Yes, but are those quote attributions inaccurate?

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, neandertal's are starting to appear more and more human all the time--GGG

First Draft of the Neandertal Genome Sequence Released

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*

The highly anticipated initial draft assembly of the Neandertal genome was announced at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the United States and at a European press conference.¹ This genomic milestone involves approximately 3 billion bases of ancient human (Neandertal) DNA sequenced so far, which is the same amount of DNA contained in one set of human chromosomes or a single genome coverage. This is a major event in the booming scientific field referred to as “paleogenomics,” a discipline that studies ancient DNA and is providing exciting new evidence in support of the recent creation model.

The Neandertal DNA was obtained from bone fragments using advanced isolation techniques developed specifically to remove contamination and alleviate DNA damage associated with ancient DNA. In addition, “next generation” sequencing technology involving new chemistry and instrumentation was used to rapidly produce considerably more DNA sequence data per laboratory run than previous technologies.

The effort to produce an initial 3 billion bases of DNA for the Neandertal genome was led by Dr. Svaante Paabo of the Institute for Anthropology at the Max Planck Research Institute in Germany. It should be noted that future Neandertal sequencing promises to increase the accuracy of the overall DNA sequence, as well as fill in gaps found in the current “rough draft” sequence. All of the DNA sequence will be placed in the public domain (web-based databases) for researchers around the world to freely query, download, and analyze. In fact, researchers at ICR will be using the Neandertal DNA sequence in a variety of research projects investigating the role of the human genome in the creation model.

Evolutionists consider modern humans and Neandertals to be two distinct human species that separated from each other 35,000 to 800,000 years ago. However, within the recent creation perspective, Neandertals and modern humans are not really separate “species,” but represent different human gene pools in time and location.

Consistent with this idea, the genomes are proving to be quite similar. In fact, preliminary findings over the past couple of years support this interpretation, as a variety of genes have been characterized in the Neandertal genome with high similarity to modern human genes. These genes are associated with such traits as pale skin and red hair, type O blood, and high levels of linguistic and mental ability.^{2, 3, 4} Since evolutionary scientists considered these gene variants to be strictly associated with modern humans, it comes as no surprise that the evidence will once again force “re-explanations.”

The Neandertals essentially represented a unique ethnic group that is now gone due to the same factors that affect modern human populations—factors such as migration, mutation, and interbreeding. Neandertals represent a variant genome from within the created human kind. We predict that future analysis of Neandertal DNA sequence data will add confirmation to creation, but consternation to other origins models.

References

1. Pennisi, E. 2009. Neandertal Genomics: Tales of a Prehistoric Human Genome. Science. 323 (5916): 866-871.
2. Culotta, E. 2007. Ancient DNA Reveals Neandertals With Red Hair, Fair Complexions. Science. 318 (5850): 546-547.
3. Lalueza-Fox, C. et al. 2008. Genetic characterization of the ABO blood group in Neandertals. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 8: 342.
4. Krause, J. et al. 2007. The Derived FOXP2 Variant of Modern Humans Was Shared with Neandertals. Current Biology. 17 (21): 1908-1912.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate.

Article posted on March 4, 2009.

This article was originally published March, 2009. "First Draft of the Neandertal Genome Sequence Released", Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/first-draft-neandertal-genome-sequence-released (accessed March 11, 2009).

Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.

[Moonman62]

Based on a comparative analysis of jaw bones in living and extinct primates, researchers concluded that Lucy and members of her kind should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’

Does this mean that creationists now trust scientists?

[xcamel]

Pretty much what I said without wasting all the bandwith.

[atlaw]

Somebody who discredits Lamarck is a discredit to discrediting.

Wait a minute. You agree with Lamarckian evolution?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Does this mean that creationists now trust scientists?

Creation scientists are scientists. They are merely pointing out that the Evo scientists are finally admitting what Creation scientists predicted long ago...namely, Lucy is NOT related to humans.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Your assuming that an individual with a meaningful mutation is going to mate successfully with a "mongrel," be passed on intact genetically to their first offspring, have that offspring continue to pass on intact genetically when mating still among at least some "mongrels" (depending on social mores), and that this mutation will then become dominant eventually all the while millions of fellow mongrels without the mutation are mutiplying happily about them? Uh huh.

If the mutation confers a reproductive advantage, it will become dominant.

How come Europeans have white skin and Africans have black skin? Did God pull off a second creation, or did a mutation for white skin (advantageous in colder Europe) spread among a population in an area where it was beneficial?

[Cedric]

Due to Obamanomics, I'm a little short on cash right now.

So, if it would be alright with you, I'd like to hold off on buying a “modern science journal” for, oh let's say, a year or so.

That way the publishers of next year's “modern science journal” will have the requisite time to retract what they print in today's “modern science journal”.

[Cedric]

Since 999 out of every 1,000 mutations are harmful (most fatal) how does that work out mathematically?

[Finny]

Talk about confused. You confuse "theory" with "hypothesis." In science, in music, in mathematics, a theory is "a systematic statment of principles involved." The use of the word "theory" as you use it, as mere hypothesis, is according to my Webster's dictionary, the "popular" use of the word "theory."

Unless I'm hugely mistaken, evolutionary theory (not hypothtsis, but theory) is used daily by biologists, medical researchers, horticulturalists, etc., to develop everything from vaccines to disease-resistant plants.

Here's another way in which you are sadly and dangerously confused. You think that the "moral of the story" with regard to Darwinism, or "survival of the fittest," is that the more mean, ruthless, and merciless the being, the more likely it is to survive. Hence your objection to it on religious grounds beyond the fact that it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible.

In truth, the "moral" of Darwinism is the very same moral that our holy Christian bible, the very same moral of Judeo-Christianity, has proven solid over the past 4,000 years: ADAPT OR PERISH. Those civilizations that have adapted to God's law have survived and helped all of humanity to survive; those civilizations that have failed to adapt to God's law, PERISH. God's law tells us that mercy, ruth (the opposite of ruthlessness), embracing the Ten Commandments, perpetually resisting envy, sloth, pride, anger, avarice, gluttony, and lust, is how humankind can survive; those societies that fail to adapt to those laws of God, PERISH.

Darwinism's "adapt or perish" lesson is a physical manifestation on God's earth of God's spiritual truths. It's a dog-eat-dog in the natural world; the key is to adapt or perish, and as species adapt to changing physical environments brought on mostly by climate change over the past 4.5 billion years, they survived. It is equally dog-eat-dog in our spiritual world. As humans, we either adapt our ways to God's laws or perish. The miracle of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic is that it shows us how to survive, spiritally and materially, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

You pride-filled goons who relish indulging in vengeance -- in God's name, no less!!! -- against scientists are the tools of a well-disguised Satan, and that Satan goes by the name "Creationism."

[SeaHawkFan]

FWIW, she's being displayed in Seattle and I saw her last week. Most of the presentation consists of Ethiopian religious history and artifacts, but she's the climax display. For me, it was a moving experience.

The exhibit has been a huge financial disaster. Attendance is very, very low. Apparently, not many people have been moved to see it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

They are merely pointing out that the Evo scientists are finally admitting what Creation scientists predicted long ago...namely, Lucy is NOT related to humans.

Except scientists are saying no such thing. They are saying Lucy was our great, great (x millions) aunt, not our great, great (x millions) grandmother. But still clearly related.

[Cedric]

Your cohorts’ terms, not mine.

Thou doth obfuscate mightily!

[Moonman62]

Real scientists are saying:

Lucy should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’

That's still evolution. The debate is over. Welcome to the truth. God must be overjoyed that you'll no longer be promoting ignorance.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Since 999 out of every 1,000 mutations are harmful (most fatal) how does that work out mathematically?

If the mutation is harmful, the individual who has it dies, so that mutation goes nowhere. If the mutation is helpful, the individual who has it lives longer and reproduces more than the individual who doesn't have it, so the few helpful mutations spread through the population quickly.

[varmintman]

However, you fail to cite any current genomic work that completely tossed out the conclusions of the work(s) you so passionately quote.

Bullshit. Your're just making this stuff up as you go along.

[xcamel]

Looks to me like I hit the nail right on the head.. BTW, Einstein, did you read post #125