Epigenetic Study Produces 'Backwards' Human-Ape Tree (article)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | Aug. 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

[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.

References

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.

[Maelstorm]

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.

[DManA]

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

[Marko413]

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.

[BrandtMichaels]

“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
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[DManA]

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

[Springfield Reformer]

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.

[Reddy]

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.

[DManA]

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.

[Resolute Conservative]

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

[reed13k]

save for later

[BrandtMichaels]

OR

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.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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.

[BroJoeK]

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:

"A and B are two different loci.
In the upper figure they fit to the [expected] species tree.
The DNA that is present in today's gorillas diverged earlier from the DNA that is present in today's humans and chimps.
Thus both loci should be more similar between human and chimp than between gorilla and chimp or gorilla and human.
In the lower graph, locus A has a more recent common ancestor in human and gorilla compared to the chimp sequence.
Whereas chimp and gorilla have a more recent common ancestor for locus B.
Here the gene trees are incongruent to the species tree."

Translation: more research needed.

But, overall, DNA sequence differences between

• humans and chimps is: circa 1%,
• between humans and gorillas: 1.5% and
• between humans and Orangutans: 3%.

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