Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Part Two - Convinced by the Evidence! Plus the DNA puts the Chump in Chimp

You were waiting and now you are finally going to view part two!   Since it is a long video I will make this a recommendation to get Ian's newsletters by giving you this video and just one of his several pieces of information sent out to all who sign up.

"If you received this email from a friend (or me), and would like to subscribe yourself, click here
 
 and enter your email address into the "CSMC" subscribe box.  May I also suggest you sign up for the free "In 7 Days" crash course in creation."

Give credit where due and Ian Juby is the author of this project.

Remember the first post in which several former Darwinists found the evidence too compelling to stay with the ruling paradigm of fairy tales and folly.   Part two soldiers on...



"Evolution might speak to the survival of the fittest, but not the ARRIVAL of the fittest!"  Brilliant!   Yep, critical thinking and a questioning mind (these were once valued in science) are no longer treasured by the big dogs of secular naturalistic materialistic science.  They want sycophants and lock-step thinking, which is really not thinking at all!   It is not too late for a Darwinist to see the light and free himself from the shackles of ignorance no matter how many of his colleagues would revile him.   Honesty is far more satisfying than conformity!

Now Ian has a great post on Human versus Chimp DNA so I will end with that!

5) More Chimpand Human DNA stuff

Now that the chimpanzee genome has been unravelled.....wait - you didn't know that it had not been unravelled? Oh - you've probably heard the claims made for over a decade now about how humans and chimps share 98.4% of their DNA huh? Yup, such claims were made with very little of the chimpanzee genome actually decoded!  It's like reading one book, then reading the first page of a completely different book and saying the two books were almost identical.

Unfortunately, that analogy holds true in far more ways than one realizes. Not only did the evolutionists who made this claim have very little of the chimp's "book," to compare to the human "book," they ignored huge portions of the parts of the book that they did have!

So last year the chimpanzee genome was finally decoded and made public - yet strangely the evolutionary community was quiet on many aspects of the genome. Presumably because of all the unexpected contradictions to the evolutionary theory that were being discovered.

First of all, coming back to the "Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 98.4% identical" claim, as I mentioned in a previous newsletter
 
("Meet your relative, the sponge"), we only had an estimate

Can you imagine buying products that use the rules of evolution?
of the length of the chimp DNA - which was around 10-15% longer than the human DNA. We now know it's about 12% (you can download, view and compare the DNA sequences of multiple critters here:  http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/downloads.html
 
).  So how then can the chimpanzee and human DNA be 98.4% identical when one is 12% longer than the other?

The 98.4% figure (or 99%, depending on who you ask, obviously the number doesn't matter because it's ludicrous) was arrived at by ignoring huge portions of each DNA.  You have to dig to find this out and get the evolutionary "researchers" to admit this.  But it gets worse. To understand this, let's do a little crash course on DNA and chromosomes.

Crash course in chromosomes:
Chromosomes
are bundles of DNA.  Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and each chromosome contains unique DNA.  Two of the chromosomes are linked to gender, known as the X and Y chromosomes. Women have two X chromosomes while men have one X and one Y chromosome.  If you were to unwind the DNA in each chromosome, all of it put end to end makes up your genome, or your entire genetic code (DNA).

Male human chromosomes

The DNA is made up of four chemicals which are represented by letters A, G, C, and T.  These four letters in sequence make up the instructions on how to build you.  Sequences of these letters contain specific instructions to do specific things (like making an arm for example), and these sequences are called genes.

So now to compare chimp DNA and human DNA, the evolutionary researchers lay the chromosomes of  the two critters side by each to see how the letter sequences and genes line up.

In short, they don't line up.
 So this is where some rather... *ahem* creative liberties are taken to make the comparisons.  The evolutionary researcher will find the gene that codes for say, the appendix in the human DNA, and they will find the gene that codes for the appendix in the chimp DNA and compare them.  While it should come as no surprise that they're similar, you'll please notice they have just ignored some 99% of the entire DNA to make one comparison.  And all too often that comparison arrives at figures of 98.4% identical - which should come as no surprise to an engineer.


You see, as a robotics engineer, I've had people spontaneously say that they can recognize a robot I built by its design.  This is because what works on one robot, works on another completely different robot.  So I use the same design and parts on different robots.  This is efficient design and has nothing to do with one robot evolving into another!  This is evidence of a common designer.

The fact that two completely different robots have the exact same gripper would be called a homology, or a homologue.  So yes, you will see homologues in life - we creationary thinkers would say it's evidence of a common designer, not a common ancestor. In fact, to use the robot analogy some more before we actually compare the chimp and human DNA, let's say I use the exact same robotic gripper on two robots: One is a land roving robot, the other is a submarine robot.  The land rover has the gripper attached to the end of a robotic arm, but the submarine has it attached to the frame, to grab things to hold the robot in place.

So while both robots have the exact same gripper (evidence of a common designer), the location of the gripper is completely different (which is good evidence that one robot didn't evolve into the other ).

This is, in effect, what we see when we compare the chimp and human genes, and you can look at the comparisons yourself on the ensembl website

 
.


You can get a wonderful tour of what I'm going to talk about here by youtuber Hugenex2000:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey5MuAgLWd8&feature=player_embedded
 


The big chromosome up the middle of the image above is a human Y chromosome.  The chimpanzee Y chromosome, for comparison, is in the upper left. The first problem you'll notice is that the graph actually shows two other chimpanzee chromosomes. Why? Because the gene in the human corresponds to the gene in a chimp on a completely different chromosome!

So not only are the genes different from each other, they are in radically different places - like the robots having a similar gripper in completely different locations.  In fact, take a look at the lines connecting the genes from the chimpanzee Y chromosome (upper left) with the human Y chromosome, and you'll notice that the genes are in completely different locations.

Chimpanzees and humans were supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor, and therefore the genes should be in relatively the same places between the organisms. But they are not even close!  The order is completely switched around.  This is supposed to be "98.4% similiarity."

ORFan genes:
Scouting around in ensembl, in the bottom right hand corner, click on "15 downstream genes."  This will list the first 15 genes in the human and chimpanzees.

You'll notice right off the bat that the first four genes in the human have "no homologues" in the chimpanzee.  In other words, these genes are unique to the human.  These are called Orphan genes, or ORFan (for Open Reading Frame).  Chimps and humans both have hundreds of orphan genes.  The orphan genes have a 0% DNA match between humans and chimpanzees - but you never hear about that when the anticreationists cite the similarities between human and chimp DNA as evidence for evolution, do you?  That's because it doesn't help evolution - in fact, it poses another challenge for evolutionary theory: If evolution works by "descent with modification," HOW did so many unique genes arise in each species?

This is an especially important question when you realize that a lot of these orfan genes are crucial to the organism's survival!


Forget cold fusion - we got chromosome fusion!
Just as bogus as the 98.4% similarity claim, some evolutionists have also claimed that the common ancestor of the chimp and human had 24 chromosomes, and two of the ancestor's chromosomes "fused" together into one chromosome somewhere along our ancestry, which is why humans only have 23 chromosomes.



At the alleged fusion location, it was claimed there were found telomere sequences.  Telomeres are at the very end of the DNA chain in a chromosome, and it's like a marker to show the DNA-reading equipment where the end is, and to protect the DNA from fragmentation at the more vulnerable ends of the DNA.  Telomeres are simply thousands upond thousands of repeats of six of those letters that make up the DNA, like this:

AGACTGACATTAGCCTGAGATCCCGCGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG...

The first telomere sequenece (TTAGGG) is marked in purple, and you can see it repeating in red.  This continues on for usually many thousands of repeats at the end of the DNA.

So, the evolutionary community claimed there was a telomere sequence right smack dab in the middle of the human chromosome 2, right exactly where evolution predicted if the two ape chromosomes (named 2A and 2B) had fused.

This claim was promoted quite a bit by theistic evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller, who brazenly promulgated the claim in spite of the evidence against it.

For example: when did this fusion occur? How did the 24 chromosome sperm fertilize a 23 chromosome egg, or vice versa?  We're talking extinction of the species here, so this is obviously an important question that Miller and the fused chromosome supporters have swept under the rug!  

Anticreationists are frankly quite cocky with this claim, as can be seen by a video posted as a response to a video I have on my channel, a debate between Laurence Tisdall and Jason Wiles, on the Michael Coren show
 
.

The skeptic's video is entitled "How to shut up pesky creationists."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&feature=related&fb_source=message
 



Unfortunately for the skeptic, it doesn't shut me up, in fact, I'll be posting my own video response to his video shortly.  


Chromosomal fusion zombie - dead long ago, but still wanting to eat yer brains...
Evolution and the chromosomal fusion claim are very much like a zombie: Already dead, walking, and wanting to eat your brains.
Enter Dr. Bergman and Dr. Tomkins, zombie slayers extrodinaire.  :)
Their article which came out this fall utterly destroyed the chromosomal fusion claim once and for all. (Journal of Creation, Volume 25, issue 2, fall 2011, "The chromosome 2 fusion model of evolution: re-evaluating the evidence.")

In that article (and a layman's article synopsis
 
by Dr. Tomkins), they lay out all the nails with which they seal the coffin of the chromosomal fusion zombie:

There is no telomere at the alleged fusion site:
-at the alleged fusion site there was only found a sequence which was vaguely akin to a telomere sequence, with lots of differences to regular telomere sequences, and it was too short!

The telomere sequence was in the wrong spot:
-there was, however, a very nice "telomere sequence" found waaaay down the DNA chain - far away from the alleged "fusion site"


Nearly every chromosome had a "fusion site":
-obviously telomere sequences in the middle of a chromosome does not indicate a fusion, because nearly every human chromosome had alleged telomere sequences in the middle of it!  Obviously, there's more going on here than meets the eye.

No corresponding DNA sequences:
-if the human chromosome 2 was the result of 2 ape chromosomes fusing, then there should be sequences on either side of the "fusion site" that match the chimp DNA, right?  This was not the case - the DNA sequences on either side were quite different than the chimp sequence.

There's much more to this subject, but I'm trying to keep this article short and relatively simple. If you want to wade into the technicalities of this fascinating subject, you can look up the references and read until your brain explodes....and the zombie eats your brains....

Some more reading:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That should be enough brain food for the day.   Merry Christmas to all!   Good tidings of great joy rather than hot sales beginning at 6 AM.  

3 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

'"Evolution might speak to the survival of the fittest, but not the ARRIVAL of the fittest!" Brilliant!'

To a creationist, I suppose it is.

As for the copypasta'ed post on genetics ...

[jokerlaugh.wav]

On second thought, to be more in tune with the season ...

[santalaugh.wav]

Juby's knowledge of genetics is every bit as impressive as his knowledge of other subjects. Which is to say, not at all.

Juby quoth: " Sequences of these letters contain specific instructions to do specific things (like making an arm for example), and these sequences are called genes."

Uh, no. There is no gene that tells the developing embryo how to make an arm. Or a leg. Or, indeed, any organ or feature. A gene contains the code for a single protein, enzyme, or other type of polypeptide. Nothing more. It's the interaction of these polypeptides -- thousands upon thousands of them, in a sequence too complex for any single mind to grasp -- that results in the formation of a whole organism.

Juby quoth: "The evolutionary researcher will find the gene that codes for say, the appendix in the human DNA, and they will find the gene that codes for the appendix in the chimp DNA and compare them. While it should come as no surprise that they're similar, you'll please notice they have just ignored some 99% of the entire DNA to make one comparison."

No, they haven't. This sort of gene-to-gene comparison is about the only way you can usefully compare a lot of genes, because gene-switching during meiosis means that genes often move from place to place within the genome. As long as the gene can still do its job, it doesn't matter where it is. The sole exception to this appears to be the genes on the sex chromosomes.

Jon Woolf said...

"How did the 24 chromosome sperm fertilize a 23 chromosome egg, or vice versa? We're talking extinction of the species here, so this is obviously an important question that Miller and the fused chromosome supporters have swept under the rug!"

On the contrary. A great deal of research has gone into figuring out when, how, and why chromosomal fusions (and the counterpart, chromosomal fissions) can occur. It turns out that in some cases, mating and fertilization work fairly well even when the chromosome counts don't match, although the resulting offspring can have problems. In other cases, it turns out that certain kinds of chromosomal anomalies can be environmentally induced, with the result that many individuals within a population can carry the same anomaly. These individuals, of course, would be 100% reproductively compatible.

"Nearly every chromosome had a "fusion site":
-obviously telomere sequences in the middle of a chromosome does not indicate a fusion, because nearly every human chromosome had alleged telomere sequences in the middle of it! "

[laughing again] So dedicated, so serious ... so clueless! It never occurs to creationists that by pointing out the existence of other 'ghost telomeres,' they strengthen the evolutionary case rather than weakening it. After all, no one ever said that the fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q into human chromosome 2 was the only such fusion that has ever occurred in human genetic history. Chromosomal fusions are rare events, but they do occur, and every one would leave evidence in the form of inactive telomeres and centromeres.

"if the human chromosome 2 was the result of 2 ape chromosomes fusing, then there should be sequences on either side of the "fusion site" that match the chimp DNA, right? This was not the case - the DNA sequences on either side were quite different than the chimp sequence."

Several Web searches fail to find any reputable source that agrees with this claim, and several that quite explicitly disagree. They, unlike Messrs Bergman and Tompkins, have illustrations and data to back them up.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

WomanHonorThyself said...

good tidings to u too my faithful friend!!!!