Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
There's a big difference between what you consider a decent living and what I consider a decent living, karl.

It took years of saving to get to the point where I could afford to do it.

At least you earned an honest living, I presume, instead of teaching evo in our public schools.

BTW; I'm posting as jcrawford, not karl, in case you didn't notice.

A keen sense of observation is the key to success in science.

The ability to distinguish between fantasy, reality and illusion is also a necessary prerequisite.

 

[The Galatian]

Well, I know you as karl, so that's what I'll use.

Anyway, it sure is good to see such absolute resolution to avoid reality. Carry on, karl.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Well, I know you as karl, so that's what I'll use.

Anyway, it sure is good to see such absolute resolution to avoid reality. Carry on, karl.

Ok, Karl.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Jc's posts are homonoid humbug, ad homini attacks, genetic junk, merely assertions based on opposition to evo, assertions that merely reinforce previous assumptions against evo, without any decent factual content, and all motivated by his desire for money.

There. I've argued as well as Jc. Anybody convinced by this argument?

Oh - arguments should be based on some kind of reason and factual content? OK lets see Jc rise to that level if he can!

 

[UTEOTW]

Thanks for posting the chromosomes. I was working towards that one.

 

[El_Guero]

I am amazed at the chromosome slide ... Thanks for posting the chromosomes.

But, show where the pairs match? The count I did showed a similarity of about 90%.

 

[RTG]

Wow,does this prove apes and man might have a creater in common?

 

[The Galatian]

It shows that they have a common ancestor.

 

[RTG]

So in your estimation Galatian how soon till our modern chimp becomes some thing other than a modern chimp.Millions or Billions?

 

[The Galatian]

So in your estimation Galatian how soon till our modern chimp becomes some thing other than a modern chimp.Millions or Billions?

It's already happened. They are now two species. Chimps and bonobos are two separate species. I think it's unlikely that they will speciate further, since they are likely to be extinct in a century or so.

 

[El_Guero]

"It shows that they have a common ancestor"

Actually, this does not show that we have a common ancestor ...

It does show that you interpret the information to mean that you are part chimpanzee ...

I know ... I know ... "we don't look that much alike, but our genes are 98% the same "...

God said that His wisdom confounds the wise ... He also said that He created us ...

Genesis has never been disproven ... and it has stood for over 3,000 years ... I think that it is wiser to take the Word of the God that WAS there over the words of men that only WISH they were there ...

 

[UTEOTW]

"Actually, this does not show that we have a common ancestor ... "

Read back through the full thread. The best explanation when you look att he evidence in totality is that we share a common ancestor with the other apes. What other explanation would you give?

"It does show that you interpret the information to mean that you are part chimpanzee ... "

Nope, you have misinterpreted.

We share an ancestor with chimps.

" know ... I know ... "we don't look that much alike, but our genes are 98% the same "... "

Actually you look more like a chimp than you seem to appreciate. But as far as genetics go, it is much more than just how similar the genes are. It is the very specific patterns in which the genes are similar over a variety of species.

Read back through the whole thread. You will see that humans are shown to be related to apes in the same pattern whether you are looking at the fossil record, pseudogenes, retroviral inserts, or coding DNA. You always get the exact same phylogeneic tree. The odds against that happening without common descent would have to be astounding. Do you have a better explanation?

 

[El_Guero]

First,

The fossil record has been very spotty, and it has several missing links.
The DNA record ... shows that God used the same structures when He created species. Just as He did when He created: yellow, gray, green, and clear diamonds ...

Second the theory that Moses set forward is the ONLY theory that has lasted more than 50 years ... (I know ... I know, you want me to consider each NEW modern theory as a single evolving theory [but, that would not be scientific method ]... so when we compare these theories to God's Word that has not changed in roughly 2000 years ... THEY do NOT fair too good)

Third, I read the entire thread BEFORE I wrote ... Just as I READ the entire BIBLE ... before writing about the GENESIS of the universe.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Originally posted by UTEOTW

Read back through the full thread. The best explanation when you look at the evidence in totality is that we share a common ancestor with the other apes. What other explanation would you give?

Well, the other explanation that has been given to you several times already, that they share a common creator, not a common ancestor.

Your information is rather selective and one sided. There is a wide variety of opinions regarding the DNA similarities of people and apes and what that means. I would suggest you research the information available at answers in Genesis

http://www.answersingenesis.org

and at the Institute for Creation Research

http://www.icr.org

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Here is some other information and some other opinions:

According to the Washington Times (May 20, 2003) the DNA of people and chimps is 99.4% the same. This is based on a Wayne State University study and the paper quotes Dr. Morris Goodman. Yet in a September 2002 story in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that only 95% of human DNA may be the same as the chimps. Why do opinions vary so much?

According to an article in New Scientist, March 15, 2003 p. 26, Professor Roy Britten, of the California Institute of Technology, US, said that most studies did not take into account large sections of DNA which are not found on the genome of both man and chimp." and "Contrary to what you might think, large differences in DNA, not small ones, separate apes and monkeys from both humans and each other" – New Scientist, March 15, 2003 p. 26.

Here is an interesting quote by Robert May, in New Scientist magazine (July 1, 2000) on page 5 he stated, "We share half our genes with the banana." One can only guess (with a fertile imagination) what the common ancestor between people and bananas looked like! In addition, there are fish that have 40% the same DNA as people, but hopefully no evolutionist would claim that the fish are 40% human – or people are half bananas.

Certainly we would expect that DNA of chimps and people would be similar because both drink the same water, eat the same food and breathe the same air. This necessitates a wide variety of protein (e.g. enzymes) being the same or at least similar. Creation scientists would say instead of people sharing a common ancestry with fish, bananas and chimpanzees we have a common all-wise, all-powerful Designer who uses the same materials to make different living things.

For the full article go to

http://www.icr.org/headlines/humanchimpanzeedna.html

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Homology is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'Beetle' car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
Taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/dna.asp

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Here is some more from ICR:

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don't quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I don't usually post this way with multiple posts without waiting for a response but that seemed to be UTEOTW's method so I continued to use it.
Here is one more good quote.

According to the icr story by Frank Sherwin found at

http://www.icr.org/headlines/humanchimpanzeedna.html

Most secular scientific news stories regarding human/chimp DNA leave the public with the subtle idea that if one were to change the "recipe" of a chimp by just .6% - you'd get a person. This is quite false of course, because genomes are not recipes.

God has created people with approximately 3 billion base pairs (or "letters") of DNA in all of our 75 trillion cells – excluding mature red blood cells which are without a nucleus. Let's say for the moment that there is a two percent difference between people and chimps. This two percent translates into a 60 million base pair difference (or twenty, 500-page books of unique genetic information!). Keep in mind all of the approximately 60 million mutations that supposedly produced man from the chimpanzee lineage would either have to be beneficial, or at least neutral. If you would like to know how devastating just a single point mutation can be, study sickle-cell anemia (there's only a single amino acid difference – valine instead of glutamate).

Just how long would it take to make these 60 million mutations?

 

[El_Guero]

NCT

Your posts read a little closer to what is probably true ... it seems to be difficult for some of our colleagues to post information clearly ...

Being from a math & engineering background, I do not mind scientific jargon. But, there seems to be confusing data, at times.

And when I can manually tabulate a difference in a dna example of greater than 5% ... don't tell me to re-read the thread so that it becomes clearer ...

In Christ,

Wayne

 

[UTEOTW]

"Just how long would it take to make these 60 million mutations? "

Well let's start at the bottom.

I read somewhere that there are an average of about 6 new mutations in each individual.

There are currently 6 billion people on earth. Times six that gives us 36 billion new mutations or 600 times as many as you need. In one generation. Of course very few of those will become fixed.

So let's do this a different way. Let's say that it is about 6 million years back to our last common ancestor with the other apes. I think 100000 individuals is a good estimate of the long term human population. Maybe too lowm but that makes it conservative.

Let's also be conservative and say 20 years per generation.

6,000,000 / 20 = 300,000 generations.

300,000 * 6 * 100,000 = 180,000,000,000 mutations.

180,000,000,000 / 60,000,000 = 3000

So it could be done in 6 million years if only 1 in 3000 mutations became fixed into the population.

Not such long odds, huh?