Mythography And Darwiinism

[Phaedrus 0]

You can't have it both ways and there are ample reason why:

 

‘Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption, and the whole theory and meaning of the Pauline system is vain.’ (Wells, H.G., Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought)

 

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to Christian Orthodoxy. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the special creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whale and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation. Darwinism knows no bounds, it is actively seeking inroads to Christian conviction.

 

The New Testament traces back to Adam and no further. Examples of how original sin is tied to justification are numerous, this is just one of many:

 

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.†Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)

 

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that

 

'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19).

 

Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). The Apostle Peter writing on the subject of false teachers mentions Paul:

 

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

A Brief History of a Fraud:

 

My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law. Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things. For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes

 

Piltdown England was the site of a mass grave during the during the great plague of AD 1348-49. Among the finds at the site were fossil bones of elephant, mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver, and deer. Piltdown is 20 miles west of Hastings in a tiny hamlet in east Sussex. In a gravel pit used for the repair of roads, Charles Dawson 'discovered' Piltdown Man. It was a fully human cranium with the jaw of an orangutan that convinced mainstream science that Piltdown was a transitional from ape to man. The fossils were discovered between 1908 and 1915 and it was not until 1953, 38-45 years later that Piltdown Man was discovered to be a fraud. (paraphrased from, Bones of Contention, Lebenow, 2004).

 

 

The painstaking process of critical peer review and the demand for direct observation and demonstrative proof are supposed to avoid discrepancies in scientific reporting. In the case of Piltdown Man we are looking at a fraud that perpetuated itself in the corridors of academia for nearly half a century. Neither our political systems, sacred theologies, meticulous histories or critical inquires into natural history are immune to our own willful self deception. The Piltdown scandal is a warning to all who would know our history, you are more easily mislead then you would like to believe.

 

"The evidence was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that because Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong. Museums prominently displayed casts of Piltdown as scientific fact. Ales Hrdlicka, a leading anthropologist here at the Smithsonian, was one of the few scientists to question whether the jaw and cranium went together. But even here in our museum there was an exhibit on display: "Evolution of the Bony Chin" -- from chimpanzee through Piltdown Man to modern humans! " (Please provide link)

 

It fit the hypothesis of many scientists so no one really looked that critically at it, with an occasional exception. The attitude of many evolutionists I encounter is that all of the evidence is pointing toward common ancestry of man and chimpanzee. As an amateur science buff (some would say rank amateur) I am curious how the evidence is put together to confirm or falsify the various aspects of evolutionary theory. On the other hand as a Creationist the Scriptures are sacred history so I ask you to take a little journey with me. Human evolution as it relates to the transition from apes to human beings cover some 5 to 7 million years.

 

The DNA Fraud

 

For years geneticists have been claiming that we are 98% identical to apes in our DNA.

 

Time Cover Story: What Makes us Different? Not very much, when you look at our DNA. But those few tiny changes made all the difference in the world.

 

They claim we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, but they know that this is not true. Why would they lie? Because the mutation rate for hominids does not account for the divergence between chimpanzees and humans. Nature Magazine did the exact same thing when announcing the Chimpanzee Genome. They claimed that in our DNA we are 98% the same as chimpanzees, but they know this is not true. Type 'chimpanzee genome' into you google search engine and you will find this at the top:

 

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. .

Nature Web Focus: The chimpanzee genome

 

The study they are announcing clearly indicates that the two geneome diverge by at least 100,000,000 more base pairs than Time or Nature are telling you.

 

Don't believe me? Do the math:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies 63, 64, 65, 66, 67. (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature Sept 2005)

 

That includes 5 previous studies that puts divergence at close to 5% but they still say it's 98% and no one calls them on it. Did you ever notice that there are no chimpanzee ancestors represented in the fossil record going back at least 25 million years? Want to know why, every time a chimpanzee ancestor is dug up in Africa it automatically becomes one of our ancestors.

 

I mean seriously, I could go on and on. The ERVs are supposed to be so close that it's a smoking gun but the largest and most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee genome are not present in the human genome. Chromosomal rearrangements would have had to happen on a massive scale leaving both genome riddled with genetic flip flops all over the place. The Taung fossil, thought for half a century to be a chimpanzee is now the Piltdown of our age. It's a chimpanzee size skull being passed off as one of our ancestors and the list goes on.

 

There is a reason that people lie, it's because the truth does not work for them. Christians who are getting taken in by this myth should be more discerning about what they mix with their Christian convictions. So what do you say we do the math, actually look at the evidence and consider who is telling the truth about human history.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

[AFJ 33]

You can't have it both ways and there are ample reason why:

 

‘Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption, and the whole theory and meaning of the Pauline system is vain.’ (Wells, H.G., Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought)

 

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to Christian Orthodoxy. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the special creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whale and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation. Darwinism knows no bounds, it is actively seeking inroads to Christian conviction.

 

The New Testament traces back to Adam and no further. Examples of how original sin is tied to justification are numerous, this is just one of many:

 

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.†Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)

 

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that

 

'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19).

 

Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). The Apostle Peter writing on the subject of false teachers mentions Paul:

 

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

A Brief History of a Fraud:

 

My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law. Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things. For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes

 

Piltdown England was the site of a mass grave during the during the great plague of AD 1348-49. Among the finds at the site were fossil bones of elephant, mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver, and deer. Piltdown is 20 miles west of Hastings in a tiny hamlet in east Sussex. In a gravel pit used for the repair of roads, Charles Dawson 'discovered' Piltdown Man. It was a fully human cranium with the jaw of an orangutan that convinced mainstream science that Piltdown was a transitional from ape to man. The fossils were discovered between 1908 and 1915 and it was not until 1953, 38-45 years later that Piltdown Man was discovered to be a fraud. (paraphrased from, Bones of Contention, Lebenow, 2004).

The painstaking process of critical peer review and the demand for direct observation and demonstrative proof are supposed to avoid discrepancies in scientific reporting. In the case of Piltdown Man we are looking at a fraud that perpetuated itself in the corridors of academia for nearly half a century. Neither our political systems, sacred theologies, meticulous histories or critical inquires into natural history are immune to our own willful self deception. The Piltdown scandal is a warning to all who would know our history, you are more easily mislead then you would like to believe.

 

"The evidence was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that because Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong. Museums prominently displayed casts of Piltdown as scientific fact. Ales Hrdlicka, a leading anthropologist here at the Smithsonian, was one of the few scientists to question whether the jaw and cranium went together. But even here in our museum there was an exhibit on display: "Evolution of the Bony Chin" -- from chimpanzee through Piltdown Man to modern humans! " (Please provide link)

 

It fit the hypothesis of many scientists so no one really looked that critically at it, with an occasional exception. The attitude of many evolutionists I encounter is that all of the evidence is pointing toward common ancestry of man and chimpanzee. As an amateur science buff (some would say rank amateur) I am curious how the evidence is put together to confirm or falsify the various aspects of evolutionary theory. On the other hand as a Creationist the Scriptures are sacred history so I ask you to take a little journey with me. Human evolution as it relates to the transition from apes to human beings cover some 5 to 7 million years.

 

The DNA Fraud

 

For years geneticists have been claiming that we are 98% identical to apes in our DNA.

 

Time Cover Story: What Makes us Different? Not very much, when you look at our DNA. But those few tiny changes made all the difference in the world.

 

They claim we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, but they know that this is not true. Why would they lie? Because the mutation rate for hominids does not account for the divergence between chimpanzees and humans. Nature Magazine did the exact same thing when announcing the Chimpanzee Genome. They claimed that in our DNA we are 98% the same as chimpanzees, but they know this is not true. Type 'chimpanzee genome' into you google search engine and you will find this at the top:

 

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. .

Nature Web Focus: The chimpanzee genome

 

The study they are announcing clearly indicates that the two geneome diverge by at least 100,000,000 more base pairs than Time or Nature are telling you.

 

Don't believe me? Do the math:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies 63, 64, 65, 66, 67.  (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature Sept 2005)

 

That includes 5 previous studies that puts divergence at close to 5% but they still say it's 98% and no one calls them on it. Did you ever notice that there are no chimpanzee ancestors represented in the fossil record going back at least 25 million years? Want to know why, every time a chimpanzee ancestor is dug up in Africa it automatically becomes one of our ancestors.

 

I mean seriously, I could go on and on. The ERVs are supposed to be so close that it's a smoking gun but the largest and most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee genome are not present in the human genome. Chromosomal rearrangements would have had to happen on a massive scale leaving both genome riddled with genetic flip flops all over the place. The Taung fossil, thought for half a century to be a chimpanzee is now the Piltdown of our age. It's a chimpanzee size skull being passed off as one of our ancestors and the list goes on.

 

There is a reason that people lie, it's because the truth does not work for them. Christians who are getting taken in by this myth should be more discerning about what they mix with their Christian convictions. So what do you say we do the math, actually look at the evidence and consider who is telling the truth about human history.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

72161[/snapback]

According to Dr David Dewit, there are... " ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. " http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...genome-sequence He cites Nature in his article.

 

The "indels" (Nature..."and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb...")reported in your quote refer to deletions and insertions. Dewitt reports that these are half and half. 45 Mb is absent from the human that are present in the chimp and visa versa.

 

So there are a total of 125 Mb of divergence. 35 Mb in single nuecleotide changes, and 90Mb in insertions and deletions.

 

Of course, keep in mind, we are not told what impact these differences have on expression. An indel can completely change expression and or the regulation of a gene. At any rate 125,000,000 fixed mutation events in what--10,000,000 years is 12.5 single mutation events (assuming single nucleotide) a year. With this kind of mutation rate, we would have 12,500 fixed mutations (assuming single nucleotide changes) as a species in the last thousand years. What kind of selective pressures were effective enough to drive and fix this kind of mutation rate? Especially in light of bacterial studies that have shown that fixed traits are the biggest problem in selection--because of revertant traits.

[AFJ 33]

The OP is rather legthy, and you might have problems getting a response (people like soundbite posts lol), but the content is good. Your comment, "The Piltdown scandal is a warning to all who would know our history, you are more easily mislead then you would like to believe...." is true, and shows the nature of man. Entire, respected institutions (e.g. education, science) went along with this hoax for many years. Think of how an entire country (Germany) went along with Hitler in extermination of the Jews, yet now stand in historical condemnation. Bandwagoning is a human characteristic, it is always more easy to go with the majority, and the majority has their established reasons for doing, or believing what they do. So it's a very seductive influence.

 

You also showed how old mantras die hard in evolution. Publicicized figures have to be gradually changed, so that Joe Average can gradually change his thinking--after all, it's Joe Average that goes to work everyday, pays his taxes, votes, and sends his kids to public education. The media is the greatest tool to change this. What is not told to Joe Average is that the 98% figure was given in a time when the chimp genome had not yet been completely mapped.

 

But the point of the OP is that history has been rewritten by fallible humanity, whether educated or not. And even the educated make horrible errors on even hard evidence. How much more can they make errors in their assumptions. In Africa, they have a proverb that the white man looks wide, but not deep. In other words, first world countries ("white man"--they say this because most of the past missionaries/colonialists/ were white), come to Africa with all their tehnology

and education. They have alot of knowledge (width), but they don't always have alot of wisdom (depth).

[Phaedrus 0]

According to Dr David Dewit, there are...  " ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. " http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...genome-sequence He cites Nature in his article.

 

The "indels" (Nature..."and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb...")reported in your quote refer to deletions and insertions.  Dewitt reports that these are half and half.  45 Mb is absent from the human that are present in the chimp and visa versa.

 

So there are a total of 125 Mb of divergence.  35 Mb in single nuecleotide changes, and 90Mb in insertions and deletions. 

 

Of course, keep in mind, we are not told what impact these differences have on expression.  An indel can completely change expression and or the regulation of a gene.  At any rate 125,000,000 fixed mutation events in what--10,000,000 years is 12.5 single mutation events (assuming single nucleotide) a year. With this kind of mutation rate, we would have 12,500 fixed mutations (assuming single nucleotide changes) as a species in the last thousand years.  What kind of selective pressures were effective enough to drive and fix this kind of mutation rate?  Especially in light of bacterial studies that have shown that fixed traits are the biggest problem in selection--because of revertant traits.

72166[/snapback]

Boiling it down to the actual divergence is a little tedious but the actual numbers are consistent.

 

Single-nucleotide substitutions = 1.23%

Insertion and deletion (indel) ~1.5% in each species

 

Initial sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005

 

That means the two genomes are no more then 96% the same.

 

Now if you are interested in coming up with a mutation rate to indicate what would have had to happen. The basic facts are pretty easy to nail down:

 

5 million years since the last common ancestor.

35 million SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) 35 million base pairs (mbp)

5 million indels (insertions or deletions) 90 mbp

 

"On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies [five studies referenced]" (Nature, 2005)

 

At a glance this is 7 single base substitutions and 1 indel averaging 7 base pairs, every years since the split for 5 million years. A generation is about 20 years so in order to break it down even more you have:

 

100 SNP and 20 Indels every generation (not individuals but the entire population) for five million years. Nothing like this happens in nature, the scenario is ridiculous. I don't believe for a second that they don't know how high the mutation rate would have to be, as a matter of fact I have seen something pretty close.

 

Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans

 

table 3

 

What is interesting about this paper is that they think the mutation rate is high at 1.33%. What is the it when the known divergence goes up to 5%?

 

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Genetics, 2000)

 

I have seen the Time article, the Nature Web Focus article and an article in Scientific American plainly state that we are 98% the same in our DNA. The only reason I can think of for saying this is to ignore the indels. Mind you, this doesn't include the inversions that would have had to flip flop all over the place:

 

Our analysis yielded a total of 651 putative sites of chimpanzee deletion (n = 293), insertions (n = 184), and rearrangements consistent with local inversions between the two genomes (n = 174). Genome Research 2005

 

I could provide a very long list that includes a lot of divergence that main stream science is simply not owning up to. If the evidence is so conclusive then why can't they honestly admit to the differences and produce a model for the mutation rate that would have been required.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

 

P.S. The quote from the Smithsonian article on the Piltdown scandal appears to have been removed. They redid the site but the quote is from the Smithsonian site even though it is no longer on there.

[performedge 0]

Boiling it down to the actual divergence is a little tedious but the actual numbers are consistent.

 

Single-nucleotide substitutions = 1.23%

Insertion and deletion (indel) ~1.5% in each species

 

Initial sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005

 

That means the two genomes are no more then 96% the same.

 

Now if you are interested in coming up with a mutation rate to indicate what would have had to happen. The basic facts are pretty easy to nail down:

 

5 million years since the last common ancestor.

35 million SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) 35 million base pairs (mbp)

5 million indels (insertions or deletions) 90 mbp

 

"On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies [five studies referenced]" (Nature, 2005)

 

At a glance this is 7 single base substitutions and 1 indel averaging 7 base pairs, every years since the split for 5 million years. A generation is about 20 years so in order to break it down even more you have:

 

100 SNP and 20 Indels every generation (not individuals but the entire population) for five million years. Nothing like this happens in nature, the scenario is ridiculous. I don't believe for a second that they don't know  how high the mutation rate would have to be, as a matter of fact I have seen something pretty close.

 

Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans

 

table 3

 

What is interesting about this paper is that they think the mutation rate is high at 1.33%. What is the it when the known divergence goes up to 5%?

 

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Genetics, 2000)

 

I have seen the Time article, the Nature Web Focus article and an article in Scientific American plainly state that we are 98% the same in our DNA. The only reason I can think of for saying this is to ignore the indels. Mind you, this doesn't include the inversions that would have had to flip flop all over the place:

 

Our analysis yielded a total of 651 putative sites of chimpanzee deletion (n = 293), insertions (n = 184), and rearrangements consistent with local inversions between the two genomes (n = 174). Genome Research 2005

 

I could provide a very long list that includes a lot of divergence that main stream science is simply not owning up to. If the evidence is so conclusive then why can't they honestly admit to the differences and produce a model for the mutation rate that would have been required.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

 

P.S. The quote from the Smithsonian article on the Piltdown scandal appears to have been removed. They redid the site but the quote is from the Smithsonian site even though it is no longer on there.

72173[/snapback]

Mark,

 

What you are saying is pretty much all documented in Dr. John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. I would highly recommend reading it if you haven't. Sanford is a population geneticist and the creator of Mendell's Accountant. He has some upcoming papers being published that show that synergistic epistasis cannot solve their problems when the genetics don't add up. In my opinion Mendel's accountant clearly falsifies neo-Darwinian evolution.

 

http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/jo...nford/#more-136

[Fred Williams 0]

Mark,

 

What you are saying is pretty much all documented in Dr. John Sanford's book  Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.  I would highly recommend reading it if you haven't.  Sanford is a population geneticist and the creator of Mendell's Accountant. He has some upcoming papers being published that show that synergistic epistasis cannot solve their problems when the genetics don't add up.  In my opinion Mendel's accountant clearly falsifies neo-Darwinian evolution.

 

http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/jo...nford/#more-136

72191[/snapback]

You can get the program here. I agree with Performedge, Sanford's book is a must-have if you are even remotely interested in genetics. IMO an even greater mmust-have book is from the co-author of the above program, Walter Remine's 'Biotic Message'. Most of the authors of this program, including Sanford, have quoted from Remine's ground-breaking work.

 

Fred

[jason777 1]

According to Y chromosome, we are ~30% dissimilar.

 

 

Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1

 

As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.

Link

[Phaedrus 0]

Wow, I posted to start a discussion and got a homework assignment. It looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks you guys, this is the sort of thing that keeps me coming back to Creationism discussions.

 

I don't know how long it will take but I'll be back when I get a handle on the source material you guys have exposed me to. Many thanks.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

 

BTW, I've seen the Y Chromosome comparisons before and while they are staggering, they are not the biggest obstacle to Darwinian evolution. Brain related genes are my rocking horse and I have yet to see a beneficial effect from a mutation in these highly conserved genes.