Skip to comments.Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies. The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry. This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
BS Whenever I paraphrase Dawkins, I do so to people who already know the original quote, and exactly what he meant by it. If you don’t like it, you are free to follow me around and fill in the details that everyone already knows if that makes you feel better.
B.S., M.S., Ph.D.?
They still clint to the drawings of Haeckel's of embryos even though the writers know those drawings were deceptive, intentionally so, now thoroughly discredited.
Embryologists now know that the folds of the developing embryo are not 'gills',....they are folds. Put your chin on your sternum and feel your neck....there are folds (that is meant to be an illustration). The ridges of skin are simply ridges of skin, in the developing embryo, with multipotential cellularity. Even the 'gills' in the developing fish embryos are not gills, at that stage of ontogeny. But they developed a catchy phrase...."Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and they keep repeating what is a lie.
Now comes the chimp/man genome comparisons. They say 98-99% of their genes are shared, but we know that there is selective 'disposal' of any portion of the chromosome which is not seeminly in common is not part of the comparison. If you assume, as neo-darwinians do, that we are products of our genes, then you're saying that the dramatic differences in us and chimpanzees are due to 2% of our genetic makeup. It does seem clear from the literature that that 2% have very little to do with our or the chimps phenotype. So the neo-darwinist has a little problem there.
Archaeopteryx has been discredited as the precursor of modern birds. It is, according to Larry Martin, Ph.D., of University of Kansas. He stateed unequivocally in 1985 the Archaeopteryx is a member of an extinct group of birds. So, Archeopteryx turned out not to validate as a transitional fossil and, in accordance with Darwins own test, fails to verify Darwins theory. Even the ardent evolutionist, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy agree with Dr.Martin, saying We are not even authorized to consider the exceptinal case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. Byi link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptilia and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.
Yet, in most high school biology books, there is old archaeopteryx still deceiving children unaware.
Now, here we revisit the chimp/human canard....designed to deceive...to constantly resurrect a failed theory. There seems to be really no need for these repeated deceptions, other than to validate a worldview in which an army of neodarwinsts have staked their professional careers upon, and which has been measured in the balance for about 150 years and come up wanting. The narrative which has been constructed for their validation is made of shifting sand, and the sad part of it is, they know it. Their faith in what is willful self-deceit remains a vessel at sea becoming more and more etherial. And, as they grasp for Darwins apparition for comfort, as they see design, their high priests, such as Dawkins and Crick, have to remind them that they may see what 'appears' to be designed, as they measure what scientific materialism can never account for, they ask us to give our children over to abject failure build on sofistry. That is too much to ask.
I used to be one such person. I hold a BS in Biology and Chemistry, an MS in Bilogy, writing my thesis in "Vertebrate Pleistocene Fossils of McFaddin Beach, Texas", and a medical degree and board certification in General Surgery. With all of that education, the most important thing I was taught, was to think for myself. My breaking point came when I read George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist and comparative vertebrate anatomist at Harvard say, "Place a chimpanzee in front of an IBM typewriter, and given enough time, he will reproduce the entire works of Shakespear, word for word." When I pondered that type of faith I could no longer believe Dr.Simpson, a man whom I had reverred. In the words of Dr.Norman Geisler, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".
Evolution is based on faith. There's simply no evidence that we share a common ancestror with apes. There are similarities, but it takes a gargantuan leap of faith to come to such conclusions.
Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and tweaks the reactions conditions just right do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Nor do a large number of other evolutionists.
Pretty simple if you ignore scripture I guess.
The only people wasting space on here are the closet liberals.
No, I believe in the Scriptures but I don’t accept some Luddite interpretation of a passage verbatim without using the brain God gave me.
Who are you kidding? I am positive that I can count on one hand the number of people on this site who have read The Blind Watchmaker
The problem is that your paraphrasing is misleading, much like the people who you claim pick and choose what part of the Holy Scripture they chose believe.
Isnt there an old saying about a pot and kettle?
Spoken like a true liberal. Can't hope to win the debate, so just shut it down.
When did this happen? I didn't see the theory of evolution become the law of evolution.
“Im not going to waste time finding what you can easily find yourself. Go to Creation.Com, click on answers, scroll down to Galileo, and it you will find that it is all there in black and white.”
—I went through every link there, and they gave no examples... no names, no quotes, nothing. The links were just parroting the claim that Galileo’s opponents were primarily from the “scientific establishment”. Yet I can find statement after statement after statement coming from the Vatican and theologians saying that Galileo is guilty of heresy for believing in heliocentricity which is contrary to Holy Scripture.
“There are NO TRANSITIONALS from one kind to another...but there should be...”
—There should be what exactly? As I said, I can’t fathom - even hypothetically - better examples than what we already have. What would be an “unambiguous transitional” from apes to man? Every time I ask this question of someone making this claim, I can never get an answer. If NOTHING, even hypothetically, could suffice, then it should hardly be surprising that after 150 years of looking that we haven’t found anything that suffices.
No, he was pretending gubmint schools and universities don’t indoctrinate.
Well, you have to admit that they are not news ...
Perhaps...but you could be wrong. I read it 20+ years ago and still have a copy.
If I posted daily multiple posts from my website, it would be called spamming.
The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. The is an often repeated misconception.
Here a quote from Darwin on that very subject.
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
Sounds like you almost believe in evolution. At least, what you are saying is identical to the ID theory which upholds the belief in evolution.
Obama...Chrissy-Fit Matthews, algore...the real question is is there a liberal that believes in creationism?
I see allmendream failed to point out most conservatives don't buy into his cult. Color me shocked.
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.