Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Epigenetic Study Produces 'Backwards' Human-Ape Tree (article)
Institute for Creation Research ^ | Aug. 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Posted on 08/16/2013 8:06:52 AM PDT by fishtank

Epigenetic Study Produces 'Backwards' Human-Ape Tree by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

A recently published study in the epigenetic modification of DNA regions similar among humans and three different apes not only provided a completely mixed up picture of evolution, but one that was entirely backwards.1

Epigenetic modifications are chemical tags that are added along chromosomes in specific patterns that control how genes are expressed. At present, 12 different types of gene regulating modifications (i.e., chemical tagging) to histone proteins that package the DNA molecule are well-documented in the human genome.2 In addition to the modification of histones, the DNA molecule itself can be tagged by methyl groups on the cytosine nucleotide bases. Thus, the combinatorial epigenetic code is exceedingly complex, but key to understanding how the genome works.

While the DNA code is closely similar in all cells throughout the human body, the epigenetic code and its patterns vary depending on cell and tissue type.2 Because these epigenetic patterns control how genes are expressed in the cell, evolutionists have been interested in comparing the patterns between humans and apes to check for commonalities and dissimilarities. Interestingly, a comparative epigenetic study just published by evolutionary scientists completely contradicts the standard, inferred evolutionary tree for human-ape evolution.

In this study, researchers examined the DNA methylation patterns in the blood cells of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.1 They focused on the areas of chromosomes 21 and 22 that are highly similar among all four human and ape genomes. The regions between the chromosomes that were too dissimilar (>98.8 percent identical) were not compared. Another recent study has shown that overall, chimp chromosomes 21 and 22 are on average 76.2 and 77.9 percent similar, respectively, in their actual DNA sequence compared to human.3 Thus, there are areas on these chromosomes that are very similar and other regions that are not. Comparative epigenetics, like many other types of evolutionary DNA studies, can only be done on the areas between chromosomes that are highly similar.

In the study, 16 different regions were identified that exhibited strong DNA methylation pattern differences between humans and chimps. These regions were then chosen for further comparison with gorillas and orangutans. The regions were also highly different between humans and the other apes, but not in the levels and patterns one might anticipate based on evolutionary predictions.

When the researchers used the DNA methylation data from the 16 different regions to form an evolutionary tree, it was completely backwards compared to the commonly believed order of evolution for apes that supposedly led up to humans. (See Figure below.) Orangutans, who supposedly are the least evolved among apes compared to humans, actually had more DNA methylation patterns similar to humans than chimps or gorillas. And if that was not enough, gorillas were the next closest in similarity to humans with chimps falling out last! According to evolutionary predictions, chimps should have been most similar to humans, then gorillas, and lastly orangutans.

Major differences between human and chimp epigenetic profiles have been noted before.4 But these study results are particularly interesting because they utterly defy all predictions in the evolutionary paradigm—literally turning it on its head and showing that it is a fallible model of human origins.

These results continue to verify the biblical account of creation wherein all forms of life—including humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans—were each created after their kind, uniquely and independently.


Fukuda, et al. 2013. Regional DNA methylation differences between humans and chimpanzees are associated with genetic changes, transcriptional divergence and disease genes. Journal of Human Genetics. 58 (7): 446–454. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (1): 63–69.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different. Acts & Facts. 42 (1): 11-12.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted August 16, 2013.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; epigenetic; evolution

Image from online ICR article.

1 posted on 08/16/2013 8:06:52 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

My tree: God —> Adam —> Noah —> me.

2 posted on 08/16/2013 8:10:18 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

LOL...just wait till they say that humans are working their way up to being monkeys. That will explain many of our politicians and entertainers.

3 posted on 08/16/2013 8:11:56 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

So you don’t need to study or think about the natural world ever again. But don’t criticize people who do.

4 posted on 08/16/2013 8:13:29 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“Orangutans, who supposedly are the least evolved among apes compared to humans.......”
All animals at the same point in time have evolved equally, a point missed by many creationists.

5 posted on 08/16/2013 8:14:53 AM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

6 posted on 08/16/2013 8:15:01 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
DemocRAT tree: cousin —> cousin —> sibling —> raving lunatic
7 posted on 08/16/2013 8:15:07 AM PDT by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Think about it, regardless of which way is true (I am being devil’s advocate here) back in the days when people believed God is the architect of life we had people in charge of this country will morals and leadership skills, we did not kill babies, we had a prosperous economic engine based on free market and hard work, and we had lot less free loaders.

Then along came the “theory” we came from animals and thus the teaching began that as animals we cannot help but act like them. So now we have rampant single family children, queers out on the open, race riots and ethnic cleansing as never seen before, corruption at every level of our government, child predation unchecked, 48% of our citizens on welfare of some sort, our industrial might slowly being off shored, new generations of entitlement mentality kids, and the list goes on...

All argumenst aside we were better off when we believed we were of His image and no that of Koko the cigarette smoking chimp. Evolution has done just as much to kill our society as any other vehicle.

8 posted on 08/16/2013 8:22:01 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Also, in the 100 years since Darwin we have modern medicine, surging life spans, cures that would have been considered miracles 20 years ago, and unprecedented wealth.

9 posted on 08/16/2013 8:24:35 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Where does Helen Thomas fit into all this?

10 posted on 08/16/2013 8:24:39 AM PDT by dragonblustar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I think after chimp comes democrat.

11 posted on 08/16/2013 8:25:51 AM PDT by RedMDer (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I’m not surprised. The whole assertion of the overly simplistic evolutionary pedigree of man from ape is mostly fantasy and wishful thinking. Protein expression caused by epigenetic factors is very different in humans and apes not to mention apes have MORE chromosomes than humans which appears due to chromosome fusion. Genes work a lot like a programmers toolkit. Maybe that’s because of a common programmer? ;-)

12 posted on 08/16/2013 8:26:39 AM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not be long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

Not just missed by creationists but also many evolutionary scientists.

13 posted on 08/16/2013 8:28:25 AM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not be long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Are you saying evolution caused all this? That is a very large stretch. I guess evolution got us to the moon? Split the atom?

Hogwash? I will give evolution credit for the junk science of global warming.

14 posted on 08/16/2013 8:29:46 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

You’re the one connecting the dots fancifully, not me.

15 posted on 08/16/2013 8:31:33 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Real Scientists (not frauds like Darwin) who believed in God. Darwin did NOT invent science.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulPascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

16 posted on 08/16/2013 8:31:39 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The idea that God took 16 billion years (from our space/time perspective) to create everything we see, and that we are so magnificently made that we can understand the processes by which He created it, doesn’t diminish God. It MAGNIFIES God.

The idea that He snapped His fingers and it all sprang into being fully formed (except for the bits Satan sprinkled in to deceive us), that diminishes God.

17 posted on 08/16/2013 8:41:18 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Mmmm evolution, act like animals:

18 posted on 08/16/2013 8:47:34 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Connecting the dots fancifully.

19 posted on 08/16/2013 8:51:29 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

My tree: God —> Adam —> Eve + Adam —> Noah —> me.

20 posted on 08/16/2013 8:55:44 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Very little of that needed Darwin. Darwinism did not usher in the modern world nor is Darwinism a prerequisite for biomedical advancement. Not that Darwin’s contribution was necessarily a bad thing but many of the derivative ideas have been horrific and dehumanizing at least as much so as any of the allegations made against organized religion as a source of social angst. Personally I think what is most important to take away from Darwinism is how very different and unique human beings are in comparison to their alleged ancestors. Not only do we have less chromosomes but we accomplish things that an Ape could never dream of. We can resist base drives and be trained and self train ourselves in vastly complicated abstract processes.

My primary argument with atheist evolutionary types is that they often sell fantastical fictions and tell stories that make our religious books look tame ascribing anthropomorphic purpose to ‘evolutionary’ processes where no such purpose should exist. There is no good or bad in a strict evolutionary world there is only what is and what is survived and reproduced sometimes by accident sometimes by advantageous traits.

The most amusing thing though is how evolutionary dysfunctional the ‘modern’ world is. The ‘smartest’ and ‘brightest’ at least by current human standards are reproducing at rates far below those who are not as ‘bright’. Luckily simply going to highly rated liberal academic institutions isn’t a perquisite for intelligence but a person who claims to be intelligent but chooses not to reproduce is essentially committing a form of evolutionary suicide but since evolution in its purist form has no moral or ethical qualms and essentially what “is” can be nothing else but what is “right” in the great indifferent wild yonder of the universe because “right” becomes meaningless or merely a tool to conscript the strong in the service of the weak.

21 posted on 08/16/2013 8:59:55 AM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not be long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

People who voluntarily, willfully, end their line are fools.

22 posted on 08/16/2013 9:01:27 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

That’s something I could never understand in school. How is it that if there really is this progression of fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans that all these prior species just suddenly stopped evolving? Shouldn’t some small lizard have sprouted wings in the last 10,000 years?

Not saying this as a creationist, I spent my first 18 years as an atheist and it puzzled me then.

23 posted on 08/16/2013 9:37:57 AM PDT by Marko413
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“Connecting the dots fancifully.”

Things that make me go hhhhmmmm...

6 days to create the Earth and Universe magnifies God far beyond anything man can conceive. We are not equals with God so who are you kidding about who is being magnified.

There are plenty of past and present scientists who don’t put any faith whatsoever in evolution. To trust it while poo pooing creation shows just how little you have studied both sides of this argument. Course you seem to prefer this self-deception allowing you to have a god in the image of your choosing rather than the God of the Bible who does not lie nor sin. There is more evidence for creation if you are willing to study the other side of this argument.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

24 posted on 08/16/2013 9:39:23 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

6 literal days or 16 billion years. Who is it who is reducing God to an image a human can manage?

25 posted on 08/16/2013 10:44:30 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DManA; BrandtMichaels

No one on either side of the “in house” debate between Christians on this issue discounts the eternity of God as awesome beyond imagination. But time is just time. If you have a lot of it, does that give God more credit? Less. Neutral? I say neutral. What young earth creationists are unwilling to do is put God in a box either way. If God wanted to intervene creatively at any ratio of time to effect, He is not limited by anything but His own desire to create.

Therefore, His own statements on the matter must be given greater deference than any system of thought which would either limit him or render him unnecessary to the process. He could create over 16 trillion gazillion years if He so chose. Or he could create in units of time so small we cannot even imagine them. The point is, He *chose* to create over a six day period, and that appears to be, not because of any limitation on Him, but for our benefit, for us to have a pattern of worship that was suitable for *our* limitations.

So the burden of proof has to be, if God inspired Scripture, and the inspired writer used the ordinary term for day, then that must be what God meant to say, and what He meant for us to understand, unless some justification, not from the hobbled and half blind notions of human science, but from the text itself, would warrant a more abstract meaning for the term. And in other places such justification may be found. But not here.

26 posted on 08/16/2013 11:05:18 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Answers in Genesis believes that the debasement of civilization increased with the attack on the origins of mankind as found in Genesis. IOW, if you are able to convince the population that God did not make man in His image in six literal days, then it’s easy to convince everyone that killing an unborn baby is fine, homosexual marriage is ok and giving control of your life to the government is what’s best for you.

27 posted on 08/16/2013 11:11:51 AM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

The evidence of His creation says 16 billion years (from our perspective). He doesn’t lie in either His Word or his Creation. So if there seems to be a contradiction then either we are misreading the clues in nature OR we are misinterpreting His Word.

28 posted on 08/16/2013 11:17:40 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Reddy

Exactly. If you devalue man as a child God then man is no different than chimps.

29 posted on 08/16/2013 11:22:32 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reed13

save for later

30 posted on 08/16/2013 11:42:42 AM PDT by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DManA


the small part of evidence some focus upon is simply mis-interpreted. Afterall if 13.7 or 16 billion years elapsed time were correct there would not be over 100 other natural clocks contradicting said pet theory.

Science is no longer science when it attempts to recreate history.

So sad that we are so annoyed when the PTB spike stories and avoid disclosing all facts and contradictory ideas b/c it does not support their hidden agenda yet fall for other lies time and time again. Here we have the internet helping expose lie after lie but simply can not believe that fabrications and hidden agendas have always been the practice of mankind.

31 posted on 08/16/2013 11:52:47 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
All animals at the same point in time have evolved equally, a point missed by many creationists.

It's also a point missed by many evolutionists, who told us that Tasmanians and Africans are less evolved than Europeans.

32 posted on 08/17/2013 12:46:37 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; DManA; VanShuyten; Resolute Conservative; Maelstorm; Marko413
posted by fishtank:

That gene-tree is highly confusing and essentially meaningless.
Here is an actual representation of the expected gene & species tree of great apes:

This gene/species-tree is "expected" because the fossil evidence is not robust enough to necessarily confirm it.
DNA analysis produces a mixed picture -- with some evidence confirming the above, others... not so much:

Translation: more research needed.

But, overall, DNA sequence differences between

So contrary data -- apparently suggesting humans more closely related to Orangs or Gorillas -- might, in fact, suggest something quite different.

33 posted on 09/08/2013 2:01:03 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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