Skip to comments.Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising
Posted on 06/25/2014 8:10:58 AM PDT by fishtank
Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A popular evolutionary belief is that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor 2 to 6 million years ago. Apparently, evolutionists still aren't too sure of their own theory: now they've more than doubled that timeline.
Scientists just published a study describing chimp DNA mutation rates and compared a number of cherry-picked genomic regions to humanand this research doubled their evolutionary timeline.1 However, the selective data did not account for the vast chasm of documented genome differences that were not included in the analyses.
Heritable mutations are the rare changes that occur in DNA during the process of making egg cells in females and sperm in males, known as the germ line. Scientists believe that by determining the rate of mutations in the germ line, they can predict when evolutionary events occurred in the past. In this recent study, they sequenced the germ line genomes of nine different chimpanzees in a three-generation pedigree (family).
The researchers then compared selected DNA segments between chimpanzee and human that were highly similar, omitting the many non-similar regions. They state, "In the intersection of the autosomal genome accessible in this study and regions where human and chimpanzee genomes can be aligned with high confidence, the rate is slightly lower (0.45 × 10−9 bp−1 year−1) and the level of divergence is 1.2%...implying an average time to the most common ancestor of 13 million years [page 1274, emphasis added]."1 There are basically two notable points from this summary statement that I will address.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
Venn, O. et al. 2014. Strong male bias drives germline mutation in chimpanzees. Science. 344 (6189):1272-1275.
Ebersberger, I. et al. 2002. Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics. 70 (6): 1490-1497.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.
Choi, C. Q. 2014. Human & Chimp Genes May Have Diverged Twice As Long Ago As We Thought. Huffington Post. Posted on huffingtonpost.com June 13, 2014, accessed June 17, 2014.
Matthew 23:24. ESV.
*Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.
A BMW and a Yugo are similar but totally unrelated..
If evolutionists can’t find the missing link they will manufacture one.
Let me guess, you are really a Liberal pretending to be a Christian to try and make them look bad
Wow i am giving you the award for the possibly most stupidest post of the day?,year?
All sodomites are Darwinist,bestiality advocators?
Got a link to anything you posted as fact,nah i thought not,see you at the creationist museum...
As a rule of thumb, evolutionary development is often dependent on parasites. The more parasites, the faster the adaptation to them. This also applies to pathogens.
” It’s a good explanation of why almost all Darwinists are sodomites or bestiality advocators,”
‘See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish;’
Human Beings are actually a result of gene splicing experiments by alien visitors to this planet, using segments taken from chimpanzees (or possibly other great apes) and swine.
In fact, many body parts from swine are entirely compatible when used as a transplant in human beings.
Just like parts could be taken off a BMW and adapted to a Yugo.
You’ve got a point about the link you posted ....
Evolutionists are obsessed with:
(1) the “humanzee” you mentioned,
(2) the gorilla-pig hybrid theory,
(3) The failed idea of life on Mars and other planets.
They are convinced that ‘evolution’ would produce life anywhere and everywhere, but they haven’t thought long enough about Fermi’s Paradox, which should tell tell them that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of life.
My third cousin is part chimp - he’s a good guy.
The "humanzee" post would be sad if it weren't so funny....Lots of humor here today.........
The difference between science and creative research is science is continually studying, expanding its information base and forming ideas and theories which are tested and retested based on new evidence.
Creative Research starts from a basis of assumptions which it holds as immutable and accepts or rejects information on the basis of whether or it supports its predetermined assumptions.
Exactly, abiogenesis takes a lot more faith than the belief of a Creator does. The abiogenesis idea that life originated from mud or from geothermal vents is something with absolutely no empirical evidence, but you can always trust the God-mockers to believe in extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
We’ve never seen hybrids between baramins yet, but evolution has had about 160 years to do so. I’d say they have an interest in keeping the answer ambiguous, myself.
this is a good one. we’re tooling along as one happy species and some parasites pair up with a few of us, while the other parasites decide to infect the rest of us (excluding the other ones of course) and voila: they evolve us into two different species.
oh well, we all taste a little different to the little buggers don’t we?
“Creative Research starts from a basis of assumptions which it holds as immutable and accepts or rejects information on the basis of whether or it supports its predetermined assumptions”.
Yep just like global cooling or global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it this week..
If the figures don’t add up well let’s change them till they do.
Its “Snap Your Finger Time” again.............
***Creative Research starts from a basis of assumptions which it holds as immutable and accepts or rejects information on the basis of whether or it supports its predetermined assumptions.***
All of science is based on an assumption. That there is a natural explanation for everything. This is not testable nor is it knowable.
It does however exclude any kind of intelligence or creator from the process..... so by making this assumption they remove God and therefore can live a life accountable to no one (they think).
That's a fairly recent development. Very few of the great scientific minds going back through the centuries excluded a deity up until the 20th century. Didn't seem to have hampered them.