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.
It isn’t anywhere that easy. In fact, it reaches into the realm of stupefying complexity.
For example, in the modern world there is an abundance of “auto-immune” diseases, from asthma to arthritis, quite a list. And the current theory is that, to a great extent, these cases of our immune systems attacking our own bodies may lie in the *absence* of the parasites that used to afflict us.
That is, living better without parasites has confused our immune systems, so it assumes it just cannot see the parasites and attacks us as if they were there.
And this may have been the case going way back. While the royalty of ancient Egypt, for example, were known to have suffered from arthritis, most of the common people did not.
***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.***
Absolutely correct, Regulator. They understood that a Creator was the best way to make sense of the universe and our existence. What is going on today is counter-intuitive..... and those of us who hold to that view are routinely marginalized.
Ad Hominems are much easier than dealing with arguments.
Good Yarn.... and Ron Popeil is an alien?..
“All of science is based on an assumption. That there is a natural explanation for everything. This is not testable nor is it knowable.”
Natural explanations are the only thing that are testable.
ahhh, so the munchers went extinct because...,oh well that’s just a detail, and then the immune system evolved to continue killing off it’s host in the little beastie’s place. but all that must confer a reproductive advantage on the host because these auto-immune diseases are positively rampant.
Most of the scientists who made the discoveries that bring a literal reading of Biblical creation into question were quite religious. A large segment of society, scientists included, fail to understand that values and codes of behavior come from beliefs - faith which cannot be derived scientifically. You have to have faith and science has no place in that.
***Natural explanations are the only thing that are testable.***
What you can’t test is that there is a natural explanation for everything. That is simply not knowable and in fact flies in the face (in some instances) of natural law.
A few examples:
1. The Law of the Conservation of Matter states (my own words) that by natural processes, matter can neither be created or destroyed, although it can change form. That begs the question: If it can’t be created or destroyed by natural processes, where did it come from? It must have been ordained from outside of nature (Supernaturally).
2. The Law of Cause and Effect (Causality) says that for every effect there must be a pre-existent cause that is greater than the effect. Since you can’t have an infinite number of causes (in a universe that had a beginning) the first cause must have come from outside of nature (again Supernaturally).
I can give you other examples but I think I’ll just rest on those two.
God of the gaps fallacy.
“where did it come from? It must have been ordained from outside of nature (Supernaturally).”
Maybe a better answer is that we don’t know yet.
Over time people have thought just about everything that wasn’t obvious was supernatural. The lost is almost endless (rain, heat, drought, disease, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, landslides, eclipses, the moon, comets etc, etc). Thanks to the efforts of science we now have reasonable, non-supernatural answers to an enormous percentage of those things. What makes you think we won’t eventually get some answers to the things that remain?
***God of the gaps fallacy.***
Standard response, Fuzz. You’ve made my point. Naturalists (read: evolutionists) who believe only in nature have to ignore the laws of nature to believe what they believe.
If your keys are in the kitchen and you refuse to look there you’re never going to find them.
In other words...... Nothing in the gaps fallacy.
There’s a reason why these Darwinists are so obsessed with proving that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are similar (never mind that they are completely different barmaids).
If they are they can relax, the case was proven 10 years ago.
Astronomy was what did me in, as far as accepting modern evolutionary dogma at face value as being virtually factual, I wasn’t even particularly Christian at the time. Edwin Hubble. He admitted avoiding certain avenues of inquiry and stonewalling certain conclusions, because it would lead to the “horror” of validating certain religious precepts. That’s the case across practically every scientific endeavor now. Rather than “god of the gaps,” it’s now “If it could lead to God, then there’s a gap.”
“Naturalists (read: evolutionists) who believe only in nature have to ignore the laws of nature to believe what they believe.”
It’s what is testable and provable, not what one believes.
***Maybe a better answer is that we dont know yet.***
The complete sentence would be: Maybe a better answer is that we dont know yet but we are only willing to consider one possibility.... that it occurred naturally.
***Over time people have thought just about everything that wasnt obvious was supernatural. The lost is almost endless (rain, heat, drought, disease, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, landslides, eclipses, the moon, comets etc, etc).***
None of those things violate natural law, they are part of nature. The two examples that I gave (and there are others) do.
***Its what is testable and provable, not what one believes.***
I have a very simple point, Fuzz. You BELIEVE that there are natural answers for everything. This is philosophical.. it cannot be tested.
Because naturalism is your philosophical underpinning you are not willing to entertain alternative explanations even though the laws of nature themselves refute that philosophy.
You’re standing on that ground, Fuzz. You have every right to do that, just understand that it is philosophical.
“The complete sentence would be: Maybe a better answer is that we dont know yet but we are only willing to consider one possibility.... that it occurred naturally.”
The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural? What would such an experiment look like, how would the results be demonstrated?
“None of those things violate natural law, they are part of nature. The two examples that I gave (and there are others) do.”
Scientific laws are valid until evidence of sufficient weight is brought to light that requires them to be re-evaluated.
The point I was making is that all of those things were considered at one time to be supernatural. The reason you class them as being part of ‘natural law’ is that science has shown them to be so. So again, what makes you think that the things you consider now to be likely of supernatural origin won’t at some point to also be shown to be part of natural law?
It does however exclude any kind of intelligence or creator from the process.....
I don’t. The big bang and evolution had a Clockmaker and a Plan Designer. God. And the Bible is his guide-book for humans. That thinking does not exclude God. In fact the laws of evolution and physics are so complicated they could never have been developed without a Grand Designer who keeps everything running.
“You BELIEVE that there are natural answers for everything. This is philosophical.. it cannot be tested.”
No. I know that there are no tests for supernatural phenomena. We both agree that natural explanations are the only ones that can be tested. Therefore science can only be tasked with testing natural explanations.
“Because naturalism is your philosophical underpinning you are not willing to entertain alternative explanations even though the laws of nature themselves refute that philosophy.”
It’s not what I personally am willing or able to entertain, but what can be tested and proven to be correct. The supernatural explanations you are willing to accept are philosophical. Not having a scientific testable explanation is not a philosophical argument. It’s merely saying that we don’t know.
And yet share many of the same licensed patents or now-public domain technologies.
Maybe you just need to research the Bible here bub. Covers over 1500 years being compiled in 3 different languages on 3 different continents and yet time and again each and every chapter in it either alludes to our Saviour or names Him directly. How is the message so consistent over 40 scribes and 66 different chapters. Name one other book, Holy or not, that even comes close to all of these facts.
How did it come into being? Why is it the #1 book in the world today? Are the miracles and supernatural events in it just made up stories? If so, then Jesus Christ was nothing but a fictional character and yet the conundrum - how did He affect the lives and historical reporting of so many - a man who held no office, no power, no money, no prestige...
Here’s a simple one to remember Psalm 22 [the 23rd Psalm is the one most often repeated at funerals] - look at it and realize how accurately it describes Jesus sacrifice - written hundreds of years before he was born yet also hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented.
As a physical scientist and creationist who rejected a biology BS -- because I reject Darwinism on scientific grounds, I needed to do no more than scan Tompkins' mind-barf. As a "target", this article totally "missed" me...
Get this through your head: no real scientist ever sets out to "prove" anything.
Scientists seek TRUTH -- even if it reveals their pet beliefs to be wrong -- always. Dogmatists peddle ...DOGMA... no matter what the FACTS are.
ICR are not "researchers"; they are searchers for facts to twist to fit their dogma. Posting their trash here offends true believers in Divine creation.
Quit wasting your ammunition.
***The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural?***
I never suggested that it could be. My point is that science (at the present and in general) is undergirded by a belief that there are natural answers for everything. This is a belief just like my belief in God. It is not knowable and therefore philosophical.
I believe that the evidence, when evaluated with an open mind, points toward a Creator.
Bill Gates once said: “DNA is like a computer program only far, far more complex than any computer program ever invented.”
You would never believe that a computer could program itself (unless it was programmed to program itself) but yet you seem to believe (I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that complex life did just that.
Occam’s Razor would tell you (in my opinion and in this instance) that a Creator is the most logical explanation. Your philosophy throws Him out before the evidence is even evaluated.
In essence, “There is no God, now let’s look at the evidence”. By doing that, you’re going to see what you want to see.
As I said in an earlier post... If the keys are in the kitchen and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find them.
Don’t be afraid to look elsewhere, Natufian.
What ‘laws of evolution’ ?!?!
Name one please. Evolution violates the law of Biogenesis [only life can reproduce life, like kinds beget like kinds, life does not arise on it’s own]. Or how about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? There are many laws science has discovered that they would then have to discard if evolution could ever rise to the level of a law.
And don’t bother with micro-evolution which is just another way of saying natural adaptation. All mutations lead to the extinctions not higher life forms all a proven fact of science.
Evolution does not and never will rise to the level of science.
Thanks for the reply. Am out right now and this phone is not a suitable tool for a considered reply. Will get back to you when i can.
The way your post reads scientists are nearly infallible and are always willing to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth even when it violates their own self-interests or might eliminate their source(s) of funding.
OH PLEASE - give it a rest!
Now get this:
If you have anything valid to say it will be about what ICR wrote and not drop to the level of name-calling.
Also evolution is a tool of the devil - it has caused many who accept it as science to abandon their trust and hope in God’s Word.
For the most part, the parasites didn’t go extinct. But things like wearing shoes and using outhouses instead of just pooping on the ground significantly limited them.
For example, hookworm used to be endemic to the southeast US, but is now so rare that researchers had to go to Africa to get a healthy sample of them. But they were needed because of an association they had with asthma. In this case, severe, life threatening asthma, unresponsive to other medicines.
Their effect only lasts for a few months before people have to be re-inoculated with them, but that is for a few months of not suffering terribly, or even dying.
Another good example was for the horrific Crohn’s disease, that was associated with whipworms. On a hunch, instead of infecting people with human whipworms, which is a serious infection, they gave them pig whipworms, that are similar but can only live in the human body for a week or two.
And some of their test subjects went into lasting remission. Which is not bad for an otherwise “incurable” disease.
But wait, there’s more. Now the research is focused on the gut flora bacteria (typically 300 to 1000 different types), that are both interactive with our immune systems, *and* interactive with other microorganisms and parasites.
And nobody is even trying to figure out how many viruses live within us, and how they relate. Though they guess that at least half of them keep the bacteria under control.