Skip to comments.New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
Posted on 08/05/2010 1:51:06 PM PDT by lasereye
click here to read article
Thanks for the information. I will check it out.
I had a similar thought about the vehicle analogy. It is also like looking at peas to figure out where corn or trees came from. It strikes me as just a stupid diversion.
The Y chromosome, because it passes through males, because it doesn't undergo meiotic recombination, changes more rapidly than other genetic regions. This has been known for ages among those who actually know and understand biology.
Our gene sequence (the DNA that specifies the code for a protein) are still 98% the same.
Over our entire genome there is some 4-6% difference, depending upon how they want to ‘score’ it.
The Y chromosome is the ‘odd man out’: pun intended.
And to those of you who dismiss “chance” and think it is some synonym for ‘not under God's control’ I suggest you read Prov 16:33.
The dice are thrown, but the LORD determines every outcome
If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
If dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
Okay. I wasn't the one who said we evolved from chimps.
Tell me please. What did we evolve from? And did it take a long time, or did it happen within a few years? I'm just askin', you know, 'cause I'm just a slow hayseed type. But if you use small words I might understand.
Because some sort of intelligence was involved?
The creation of a new form from an existing one does not necessitate the elimination of the older form.
The question itself is based upon a flawed premise based upon a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no natural tendency for a chimpanzee to become more like a human, or for things to get unambiguously improved over time. Yet this is a very seductive misconception.
No “intelligence” decided to call rolled tobacco a cigarette in America and a fag in England, or make them sound like a bunch of prissy wankers.
I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.
(But if you can't find it, it was because intelligence was involved.)
Actually, the “cigarette” was a French/Italian version, and came before “fag.” (small cigar?)
I suggest you have a look at the Oxford English Dictionary and try to concentrate on why it's not a "dictionary" in the sense that people now most use that word. Anyone who doesn't think intelligence is involved in the development of human language just isn't payin' attention.
If a lake fills in, why are there still lakes?
If a hill errodes, why are there still hills?
If hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, why is there still oxygen?
A typical quote from Origin of Species:
I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe...That the geologic record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit.
You'll find a number of similar quotes at the link.
"Darwin's early scientific experience was primarily as a geologist, and much of what he had to say about the nature of the fossil record (summarized in the passage quoted above) was an accurate and insightful early contribution to our understanding of the vagaries of deposition and the preservation of fossils. But his Chapter 9 (first edition) on the imperfections of the geological record is one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and the facts of the fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp.27-28.)
It would have been something like a chimp.
Are you trying to claim that any Y chromosome differences can be accommodated in an ape-human evolution scenario? Why did one researcher characterize the result as “astounding”? Maybe you ought to let him know about it.
If you want to start using the Bible, you cannot believe in evolution without doing violence to Genesis.
The vast majority of Christian faiths have no problem with the acceptance of evolution. The violence you are doing is to our faith, the intellect, and the reality that God created.
Evolution is the inevitable consequence of imperfect replication and selective pressure and time. The observed rate of evolution is not only sufficient to explain the divergence in DNA between humans and apes, there is much more than enough, as selection eliminates many variations.
The rate of Y chromosome evolution is much higher than the rest of the genome, and if most creationists knew any actual science, they would know that - but usually they don't.
The more educated someone is the less likely they are to be a creationist. Especially if they are educated in science. Creationists sources are aware of this and play to their audience.
“The absence of homologous recombination between the X and the Y chromosome leads to gradual degeneration of various Y chromosome genes on an evolutionary timescale. The absence of recombination, however, also favors the accumulation of transposable elements on the Y chromosome during its evolution, as seen with both Drosophila and mammalian Y chromosomes. Alongside these processes, the acquisition and amplification of autosomal male benefit genes occur.”
Darwin studied trans-mutations in various animal species under certain enviromental conditions and then Hypothesised that on a longer time scale that animals and (possibly humans) would eventually mutate into a completely other species. That why its still called the “THEORY” of evolution.