Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?

ACTS & FACTS ^ | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

[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.[1] 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.[2] 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...

[CottShop]

GGG as well, it should be noted that ERV’s play central roles in development, which STRONGLY indicate there is a form of comunication going on between cells IF an ERV is being utilized for this development, and WOULD become fixed in BOTH species IF they were necessary- and again STRONGLY indicating common design- As well, communication is specifically enabled by viruses in Bacteria- again, indicating a DESIGNED purpose, and NOT some random occurence with a by guess by gosh outcome as claimed by Macroevolutionists

In order for ERVs to becoem fixed, MANY individuals would NEED to be infected in the same locations, otherwise, it couldn’t possibly be passed along from generation to generation if only one individual were infected- which again STRONGLY indicates DESIGN, and not some random happenstance, happy go lucky occurence, and IF this is hte case for one species, it would only be more than reasonable to conclude that another similarly designed species would experience the same thing- with insertion points in similar hot spots since viruses prefer certain insertion locations. It is hten no suprprise at all that two similarly designed species woudl experience similar ERVs.

We’ve discussed these issues time and time again here on FR, but the same assumptions keep coming up from macroevolutionists despite the distinct possibility that common desing is a stronger explanation than is some random macroevolutionary event-

[Caramelgal]

You simply don't understand the subject, do you?

I understand the subject. Do you?

Einstein's proof showed that the difference between each coordinate system was purely philosophical. He didn't ascribe to any particular system because he considered philosophical questions irreconcilable. (most honest secular scientists take that view)

Again. I ask you to show proof, any proof at all to back up your opinion. Show me proof that Einstein subscribed to heliocentrism.

“Why should we take so much interest in the observer in his rotating room? Simply because we, on our earth, are to a certain extent in the same position. Since the time of Copernicus we have known that the earth rotates on its axis and moves around the sun. Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance of science. But let us leave this question for the time being and accept Copernicus' point of view. If our rotating observer could not confirm the laws of mechanics, w^- on our earth, should also be unable to do so. But the rotation of the earth is comparatively slow, so that the effect is not very distinct. Nevertheless, there are many experiments which show a small deviation from the mechanical laws, and their consistency can be regarded as proof of the rotation of the earth.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. The Evolution of Physics, p. 161-162

“Physics again intervenes and changes our commonsense point of view. The c.s. connected with the sun resembles an inertial system more than that connected with the earth. The physical laws should be applied to Copernicus' c.s. rather than to Ptolemy's. The greatness of Copernicus' discovery can be appreciated only from the physical point of view. It illustrates the great advantage of using a c.s. connected rigidly with the sun for describing the motion of planets.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. The Evolution of Physics, p. 223

[GourmetDan]

"For your geocentric model to be accurate, or just as accurate and valid as a heliocentric model, perhaps you also count yourself among those who think the Moon landing was staged on a Hollywood set and that Neil Armstrong and all the NASA scientists and astronauts are out and out liars and party to some vast conspiracy?"

Do you seriously believe that NASA used a heliocentric model to send men to the moon?

What utter stupidity!

[Caramelgal]

Me: “You at first denied any knowledge that heliocentric s/b “geocentric” creationists posted on these threads. Now you acknowledge them but now claim that it doesn’t really matter to you.”

You: “I do? Where?”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2291546/posts?page=360#360

I've never been personally acquainted with a geocentrist, creationist or not.

Does what someone else accuses an anonymous internet poster of count? Not really.

Creationists are regularly accused of all kinds of ridiculous things by evos. I'm not taking the word of one anonymous internet poster on the beliefs of another anonymous internet posted and then say that I know a geocentist.

Me: “You should be embarrassed by the heliocentric s/b “geocentric” creationists.”

You: “Why?”

Me: “That you defend them or refuse to refute them tells me that you really care nothing about science.”

You: “What? Don't you believe that the earth revolves around the sun?”

I see that I made an unfortunate typo/error. I’m certainly not a geocentric. I know that that the Earth is not the center of our solar system or the center of the Universe. However there are posters here who believe this. And yet you defend them and or say that it doesn’t matter to you.

/roll eyes..... Indeed.

[Caramelgal]

Again. I ask you to show proof, any proof at all to back up your opinion. Show me proof that Einstein subscribed to heliocentrism.

Re: correction: geocentrism

[GourmetDan]

"Nevertheless, there are many experiments which show a small deviation from the mechanical laws, and their consistency can be regarded as proof of the rotation of the earth.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. The Evolution of Physics, p. 161-162"

Unfortunately for this position, Thirring and Born proved it wrong.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[editor-surveyor]

Dan, they’ll never give up.

They claim to advocate for science, but they turn on it in a moment when it fails to assist them in their attack on God and his word. ( which really is all of the time)

[editor-surveyor]

Do you realize that you have proven yourself insane?

I answered your request twice, but since I answered it factually, rather than playing your bizzare strawgirl game, you repeat! (look up the “definition of insanity,” to see yourself)

[allmendream]

Another geocentrist weighs in?

ANY KIND of geocentrist.

When I ask if someone is a Communist it is immaterial to me if they are a “stalinist” or a “trotskyite”.

I don't care what flavor of nut.

[editor-surveyor]

"Do you seriously believe that NASA used a heliocentric model to send men to the moon?
What utter stupidity!"

Caramel is not exactly an engineer, nor a physicist!

She is unable to recognize that the small differences between solar gravitation between Earth and the moon, considering that it is 93 million miles away, versus 270 thou to the moon, thus the fluctuation is less than .001% of the margin of error in their calcs, is not even worthy of regard.

Perhaps I should be correcting for solar gravity when I take shots on street monuments? (well, if Caramel says so...)

[ElectricStrawberry]

If it’s an equal scientific theory that the sun revolves around the Earth, how does the Earth hold the sun in its orbit through simple attractive forces when the sun has a mass 332,000+ times that of the Earth.

[CottShop]

In another forum discussing this issue awhile back, someone brought up a great point about ‘similarities, and why they do NOT automatically mean common descent (as claimed by macroevolutionists who constantly argue that homology must mean common descent)

Comparing a car to a jet, there are probably several commonly shared points of failures between hte two models, stress points common to hte two designs, but one wouldn’t argue that the car is evolved fro mthe jet, or vise versa, simply because the two shared common failure points, but one could and very well SHOULD argue for common design by pointing out the similarities. As well, what macroevolutionists IGNORe is the FACT that while htere are some similarities, there are myriads of biological differences for which any amount of itme simply could NOT produce/evolve between our two species kinds.

As well, it must also be a very reasonable conlusion to make that flaws shared between two objects such as a car and a jet MIGHT very well have those flaws DESIGNED in for a purpose- such as crumple zones meant ot protect the passengers, break away joints again meant ot protect etc etc etc. The two objects, have a number of simlarities outside of the flaws as well, but again, pointing to such similarities, and suggesting hte one evolved or descended from the other is rediculous- they are clearly designed, and have infact, common design elements in both objects. One may also find many similarities between jets and lawnmowers, similar flaws, similar vulnerabilities, but again, they do NOT infer common descent, but rather common design. I realize some people are desperate to prove that they are descended from simple chimps, but it’s a stretch of the imagination to point ot scant few similarities, while ignoring hte vast biological differences, and claim that those DESIGNED similarities point ot common descent.

As someone pointed out, man and mice share ERV insertion locatiosn as well, so apparently we must hterefore be descended from both chimps and mice at hte same time? http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/725.abstract

IF two similarly designed species had similarly designed information, and viruses engaged a specie’s biological ability to communicate informaiton, in htis case, an insertion of foreign information, in similar manners, and these viruses had PREFERRED insertion points, or hot spots as you said, then it is only reasonable to conclude that there would indeed be similarities between the ERVs seen in BOTH species. The viruses enact communication, and trigger information, which inturn engages a response in both species which are similarly designed, and of course the reaction and subsequent results will be similar in both species- resultign in ERVs having been inserted in two similar locations. As well, as noted, given hte myriad of viruses and mutaitons bombarding all species, it is NO surprise then to find a number of similar insertion points affected by similar viruses that affect similarly designed species, which in turn becoem fixed in BOTH species at hte same time.

DNA repairs itself with amazing accuracy, and given hte fact that the information to do so MUST be present in any species BEFORE the species supposedly macroevolved, Macroevos have yet to explain how such information arose i nthe first place- and as stated, since two species have a common design, and since hte informaiton is similar in the two species, it would be only reasonable to expect the reactions woudl be similar in reponse ot hte communicaiton activation resulting from invasions- A Wise Creator would have seen to it that invasions, while mostly detrimental, would ALSO be utilized in positive ways by similarly designed creatures as hte species adapted to environmental stresses.

As well, Chemical responses, DESIGNED to activate in similar manners when encountering environmental stresses, in similarly designed species, STRONGLY goes to show that species specific informaiton, with all it’s boundaries and parameters, can still be similar between species kind, but NOT go towards proving common descent- especially given hte FACT that there are myriad dissimilarities between hte species, information that is species specific, and which is NOT shared by hte two species, for which macroevolution has no explanation for- the differences in information are so vast, so varied, that it’s simply silly for macroevolutionsits to continually keep pointign to scant few similarities and claiming common descent.

As pointed out about hte jet and car, two objects or species can show a number of similarities, but be perfectly uniquely designed seperate species or objects, and it woudl be silly to keep insisting that the scant few similarities point to common descent when so much evidence exists to show the vast dissimilarities, and the OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED unique structures of hte two wholly different species or objects.

[GourmetDan]

"If it’s an equal scientific theory that the sun revolves around the Earth, how does the Earth hold the sun in its orbit through simple attractive forces when the sun has a mass 332,000+ times that of the Earth."

You didn't include my quote in your comment because I never said that geocentrism was an 'equal scientific theory'. That is you misrepresenting the discussion. metmom predicted this when she said, "Evos are famous for twisting definitions and cramming people into boxes of evos own making in an effort to discredit them."

I clearly said that both theories were philosophical according to Ellis and was explaining that the poster could not claim the geokineticism was 'scientific' without equally accepting that geocentrism was equally 'scientific'. Note that this all turns on the poster's incorrect use of the term 'scientific' wrt to the geokinetic model. Please read Ellis' quote below again.

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

[CottShop]

The following is a very strong argument showing that information MUST be present FIRST, and that viruses simply engage that info which is similarly designed in two species, and it also shows that ERVs work on hot spot insertion points which are similar in both species, and hwich DO have function and IS controlled by species specific info which may be similar between two species- or several species as you'll see in the following article. The argument that similarities in insertion points between two species indicates common descent is far from the truth of hte matter- and amounts to nothign more than a religious assumption that defies, once again, the scientific evidence to the contrary- but alas- the religious dogma of Darwinism must be preserved at all cost- even at hte cost of sound science it appears!

"It was assumed that Referring to a type of virus that contains RNA as its genetic material. The RNA of the virus is translated into DNA, which inserts itself into an infected cell's own DNAretroviral The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences in human Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA represented leftover Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes from infection of Viruses that contains RNA as their genetic material. The RNA of these viruses are translated into DNA, which inserts itself into an infected cell's own DNA.retroviruses. However, a new study demonstrates that these The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences actually block the infection of human cells with certain Viruses that contains RNA as their genetic material. The RNA of these viruses are translated into DNA, which inserts itself into an infected cell's own DNA.retroviruses (70). So, now these The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences seem to posses a vital function.

Is there any "junk"?

The first systematic analysis of a significant portion of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome was published in June, 2007 (see below). The analysis attempted to determine the function of entire regions of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA. The results showed that, although only a small amount of the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome codes for An organic compound made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.protein, most of the rest is still transcribed into Ribonucleic acid: a chemical that directs the manufacture of proteins and sometimes codes for the genetic material within certain organisms.RNA, which functions in ways not described before. As more is learned about the structure of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome, it is apparent that most (if not all) of the DNA that does not carry the information necessary to code for a protein.non-coding regions of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA are required for the proper functioning of the Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA.

Rich Deem

Other studies have demonstrated the remarkable similarity of The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence homology in the A cell surface marker characteristic of a special class of lymphocytes, found in the blood and lymphoid tissues, that produce cytokines or interact with other immune cells to facilitate immune responsiveness.T-cell receptor Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes of mice and humans.

Scientists compared the Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence of nearly 100 1,000 pairs of nucleotides on opposite complementary DNA or RNA strands that are connected via hydrogen bonds.kilobases of contiguous Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA in the C delta to C alpha region of the alpha/delta A cell surface marker characteristic of a special class of lymphocytes, found in the blood and lymphoid tissues, that produce cytokines or interact with other immune cells to facilitate immune responsiveness.

T-cell receptor Multiple places on a chromosome where specific genes or genetic markers are located, a kind of address for the gene.loci (TCRAC/TCRDC) of mice and human beings. This analysis, the largest genomic The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence comparison so far, identified a very high level of organizational and DNA that does not carry the information necessary to code for a protein.non-coding The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence similarity (approximately 71%). The authors conclude, "This observation begins to question the notion that much of the Relating to one of the threadlike 'packages' of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomal DNA that does not carry the information necessary to code for a protein.non-coding The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is junk (7).

More definitive studies have shown that DNA that does not carry the information necessary to code for a protein.non-coding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA provides structure to Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA so that it can perform many functions which would be impossible without some form of structure. One of the readily apparent differences between prokaryotic and Referring to living organisms that are characterized by a membrane-bound nucleus in which the DNA is housed.eukaryotic Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA is that Referring to living organisms that are characterized by a membrane-bound nucleus in which the DNA is housed.eukaryotic Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA is organized into Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes, which is further organized into The complex of DNA and protein that makes up chromosomes.chromatin code. This kind of structure does not "just happen" for Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA - it requires specific design.

Well over 700 studies (over 100 in the last year) have demonstrated the role of DNA that does not carry the information necessary to code for a protein.non-coding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA as enhancers for The process by which the DNA sequence of a gene is copied by RNA polymerase to produce a complementary nucleotide messenger RNA strand.transcription of proximal Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes.

Recent completion of All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome sequencing for many diverse vertebrates has revealed long The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences (at least 200 bp) of DNA that does not carry the information necessary to code for a protein.non-coding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA that are identical or nearly identical. Between humans and mice, 481 of these The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences are 100% identical (71). Between humans and dogs, the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences are 99% identical.

Even between humans and chickens, the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences are 95% identical. These The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences are found on all humans Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes except 21 and Y. The probability is less than one chance in 1022 of finding even one such The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence in 2.9 billion Two nucleotides on opposite complementary DNA or RNA strands that are connected via hydrogen bonds.bases under a simple model of neutral evolution with independent Replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.substitutions at each site.

Among numerous human individuals, there is almost no The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence variation (only 6 out of over 100,000 Two nucleotides on opposite complementary DNA or RNA strands that are connected via hydrogen bonds.bases). The highly unlikely existence of these identical The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences indicate that they must absolutely required for survival, since the natural A permanent structural alteration in DNA, consisting of either a substitution, insertion or deletion of nucleotide bases.mutation rate in humans would have been expected to produce at least 20 times more variation than what is observed. [LINK]

[GodGunsGuts]

Excellent stuff!!! Do you have links???

Are you reading this, Allmendream?

[allmendream]

Unreadable garbage that also doesn't address the issue of why we see this pattern of “young” and “old” looking ERV’s depending upon how widely shared they are within or among species.

Once again the so called explanation fails to actually address the data.

[GodGunsGuts]

You might be referring to the nested hierarchy debate Allmendream and I had a while back. And if you would be so kind as to copy these gems to Allmendream, it would be most appreciated. He has finally related and stated his own position on ERVs and common descent...as such, we can now proceed to refute it :o)

PS Be sure to copy AMD from now on...I would hate for him to miss your replies!

[allmendream]

Might be? You mean you are unsure GGG? Maybe because you still don’t understand the data and are unsure if this even addresses it.

It doesn’t.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Evolution deals with what will happen when I subject a population to selective pressure NOW.

Well seeing how we have never witnessed inanimate matter become a simple cell, or a simple cell turn into a more complex cell, or a more complex cell turn into a multicellular organism, or a multicellular organism turn into another kind of multicellular organism, perhaps you should just concede the debate right here and now. Or did you mean that scientists observe how selective pressure causes organisms to change from within the boundaries of their various kinds, assume that said changes are caused by random mutation plus survival, and then extrapolate the same ad infinitum without any present day confirmation whatsoever?

==Why would some ERV’s be unique to only some human populations? Do those ERV’s perform a function in only those human populations do you suppose?

Yes, think of the transposable elements of a genome like an environmentally sensitive Rubik’s Cube. Under certain environmental conditions all the colors match up on all sides, but when the environmental conditions change, certain squares begin to take on the color of a different side, and it is necessary for the frontloaded program that controls the genome to get all those colors to match again. Thus, it would be necessary to borrow bits and pieces from the changing colors of various sides of the Rubik’s Cube and move them to different sides to once again sync the Rubik’s Cube with it environment (this would easily fool your evo co-religionists into believing that the recombined ERVs were evidence of recent infections, or, conversely that they are evidence of ancient infection sequences that have since degraded). In the same way, the frontloaded organizing program of the cells borrows from the extensive repertoire of ERVs (and other repetative transposable elements, or RTE for short) that are capable of being mixed and matched with the existing ERV/RTE setup, and move them around until the organism is able to reestablish equilibrium with its environment. And lest you think there is no empirical support for the analogy above, there is...refs available upon request :o)

==We can see the incorporation of new ERV’s into a genome when reproductive cells are infected with RNA virus; do these newly incorporated ERV’s serve a function as soon as they enter the new genome? At what point and by what criteria would you say they became “functional”?

Actually, from what I have read, this is extremely rare. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is common? Having said that, there is a growing body of indirect evidence that a soma to germ cell feedback loop exists that crosses the so-called Weisman Barrier. And wouldn’t you know it, the proposed mechanism for the final step (crossing the Weisman Barrier) are the transposable ERVs! Under this scenario, it make far more sense that successful adaptive strategies are developed in the soma/body cells, and then communicated via ERVs and possibly other transposable elements to the germ cells.

==And if you say ERV’s serve to increase genetic diversity in order to help “adapt” a population to changing environments; is this an example of de-evolution or degradation of the genome? Is becoming more adapted to your environment de-evolution?

We must distinguish between different types of mutations. I have always maintained that random mutations will result in genetic degeneration. However, directed, controlled mutations are a totally different ball game. We see directed mutation in bacteria, we see it in our immune systems, and we most certainly see a similar principle at work with respect to numerous epigenetic changes.