Originally posted by twhiteheadIn the fall of 2005, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers reported the draft sequence of the chimpanzee genome. At the time, some researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin Was Right and Chimp Gene Map Proves It.”
DNA replication is not perfect. There are a certain number of mistakes made for each generation of humans. When mistakes occur in important parts, then genetic diseases may result and due to natural selection the mistakes get weeded out. However there are large parts of DNA for which single mistakes have no detrimental effects and so mistakes accumulate o ...[text shortened]... found. Will a pattern be found that is expected if we are related, or will no pattern be found?
So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers found 96 percent genetic similarity and a difference between us of 4 percent. This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percent difference that evolutionists have claimed for years! Even so, no matter what the actual percent difference turned out to be, whether 2, 4, or 10 percent, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right to support their worldview.
Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23 percent of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents about 35 million differences! But that is only the beginning. There are 40–45 million bases present in humans that are missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added to or lost from the original sequence. This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million total separate mutation events that would separate the two species in the evolutionary view.
40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only 300,000 generations. This is an average of 133 mutations locked into the genome every generation. Locking in such a staggering number of mutations in a relatively small number of generations is a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.”
Roughly 10 percent of genes examined showed significant differences in expression levels between chimpanzees and humans. Scientists comparing the number of genes in gene families have revealed significant differences between humans and chimpanzees. Humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Such differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between humans and chimpanzees, irrespective of the individual DNA base pairs.
Importantly, not all of the data support chimp-human common ancestry as nicely as evolutionists typically suggest. In particular, when scientists made a careful comparison between human, chimpanzee, and gorilla genomes, they found a significant number of genetic markers where humans matched gorillas more closely than chimpanzees! Indeed, at 18–29 percent of the genetic markers, either humans and gorillas or chimpanzees and gorillas had a closer match to each other than chimpanzees and humans.
These results are certainly not what one would expect according to standard evolutionary theory. Chimpanzees and humans are supposed to share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either have with the gorilla. Trying to account for the unexpected distribution of common markers that would otherwise conflict with evolutionary predictions, the authors of this study made the bizarre suggestion: Perhaps chimpanzees and humans split off from a common ancestor, but later descendants of each reproduced to form chimp-human hybrids. Such an “explanation” appears to be an attempt to rescue the concept of chimp-human common ancestry rather than to provide the data to confirm this hypothesis.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/what-about-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessI get it Hess.
But then, does that mean that you don't trust genetics can determine how closely related two humans are?
Then if we took the genes from an ape, and genes from a man, and did the test, we would know whether or not the two are related?
That seems odd to me. Seems as though we would have to get the genes from millions of apes, and millions of men before we found a match! No?
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by JS357I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I'm not joking, but I'm also not stating my opinion. I'm just stating an opinion I have seen on line, such as at
wwwevolution.com/Documents/Spiritual_Warfare/Satan_deceives_many.htm
My point is that the "defense" of creationism against evidence-based arguments is bulletproof, since any "evidence" against it can called a Satanic deception. Debating it is ultimately pointless.
How is the defense of creationism bulletproof against evidence-based arguments?
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou may find them, but how would you know that those patterns would mean "common ancestry"?
Well obviously we all have DNA. What I am talking about is patterns that directly point to common ancestry. Pattern that we would not expect to find if we were not related.
Do you think we will find them or not?
How do you know those patterns wouldn't also show up in the DNA of fish or worms or any other creature?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jun 15
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwThe defense is,"Satan is trying to deceive us by making it look as though the earth is old and we came about by a godless evolutionary process." That's bulletproof because it is a 'science stopper' as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga puts it. It's outside the reach of science.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
How is the defense of creationism bulletproof against evidence-based arguments?
I'm surprised that this point of mine is such a bother. It's very Biblical.
http://www.endtime.com/endtime-magazine-articles/evolution-a-world-deception/
and many other sites.
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by JS357Yes, Satan has deceived the whole world one way or another.
The defense is,"Satan is trying to deceive us by making it look as though the earth is old and we came about by a godless evolutionary process." That's bulletproof because it is a 'science stopper' as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga puts it. It's outside the reach of science.
I'm surprised that this point of mine is such a bother. It's very Biblical. ...[text shortened]... /www.endtime.com/endtime-magazine-articles/evolution-a-world-deception/
and many other sites.
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by josephwI am not saying (at this stage of the thread) that the pattern would definitively prove common ancestry. I am merely saying that there is a very specific pattern we would expect to find if we are related and would not expect to find if we are not related. You do not need to understand the details to answer the question. Can you give a straight answer?
You may find them, but how would you know that those patterns would mean "common ancestry"?
How do you know those patterns wouldn't also show up in the DNA of fish or worms or any other creature?
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by JS357Not a bother JS. I'm just trying to reconcile what you said with what you mean.
The defense is,"Satan is trying to deceive us by making it look as though the earth is old and we came about by a godless evolutionary process." That's bulletproof because it is a 'science stopper' as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga puts it. It's outside the reach of science.
I'm surprised that this point of mine is such a bother. It's very Biblical. ...[text shortened]... /www.endtime.com/endtime-magazine-articles/evolution-a-world-deception/
and many other sites.
How is Satan making it look as though the earth is old? In what way is he doing that? Are you suggesting that Satan has control over material manifestation, or is it by the blinding of the mind?
Just want to be clear is all. I haven't viewed the link yet. Maybe I don't necessarily need to since I am aware of the devices of the devil first hand. Formidable foe, but a defeated one nonetheless.
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt's silly to think the devil is interest in stealing butter. Satan wants souls.
Please provide scriptual basis on why the devil would steal the butter from your fridge.
Stealing is the devils work. The devil is behind the scenes...and that's all I'm going to say about it at this point. 😉
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm not so sure I'd be that loose defining Satan's methods. Satan isn't omnipotent. He is limited in specific ways to the scope and breadth of his influence.
Yes, Satan has deceived the whole world one way or another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VFuHj9_Tgw
Man gets plenty of credit for his own choices and actions.
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by josephwHis point is not about specifics. What he is saying is that as long as you can blame anything on the devil, you will never be convinced of something you don't want to, no mater how much evidence is presented to you because you can always say the devil is responsible for the evidence.
How is Satan making it look as though the earth is old? In what way is he doing that? Are you suggesting that Satan has control over material manifestation, or is it by the blinding of the mind?