Genesis 1: 26 Commentary

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..

PART 1- POST 32
PART 2- POST 33
PART 3- POST 34
PART 4- POST 35

i had to read and discuss these in my “evolutionary biology class.” like i said; your evolutionary ideas are now being proved false. everything has to be re-evaluated.

so i am sorry if this bothers you charles; i told you and robert; i would post these .

and by the way; I THINK FOR MYSELF.

and it seems you can’t make up your mind.

so which is it; post my findings and lessons i have learned; or write like i have been; which is posting my thoughts, my studies, and my beliefs.

seems you always have something for me.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 19:26 pm

Angel, you need to start thinking for yourself. Just posting long articles from demented unbelievers is not going to help you one bit. The more one-sided you get in your reading selection the less likely it is for you to see the truth.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 13:43 pm

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..

PART 1- POST 32
PART 2- POST 33
PART 3- POST 34
PART 4- POST 35

ENJOY… READING… I DID…

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:28 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 4:

HUMAN-CHIMP SIMILARITIES: COMMON ANCESTRY OR FLAWED RESEARCH?
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. 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. 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.

Genomics and the DNA Revolution

One of the main problems with a comparative evolutionary analysis between human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often omitted from the scope of the analysis. Another problem is that only similar DNA sequences are selected for analysis. As a result, estimates of similarity become biased towards the high side. An inflated level of overall DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimps is then reported to the general public, which obviously supports the case for human evolution. Since most people are not equipped to investigate the details of DNA analysis, the data remains unchallenged.

The supposed fact that human DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA is actually misleading.

The availability of the chimp genome sequence in 2005 has provided a more realistic comparison. It should be noted that the chimp genome was sequenced to a much less stringent level than the human genome, and when completed it initially consisted of a large set of small un-oriented and random fragments. To assemble these DNA fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.

At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between chimp and human has not been done and certainly should be. Despite this fact, several studies have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86 percent were obtained. Once again, keep in mind that these regions were hand-picked because they already showed similarity at some level. The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA–from an evolutionary perspective–appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?

Analyzing the Source of Similarity

So how exactly did scientists come up with the highly-touted 98 to 99 percent similarity estimates?

First, they used only human and chimp DNA sequence fragments that already exhibited a high level of similarity. Sections that didn’t line up were tossed out of the mix. Next, they only used the protein coding portions of genes for their comparison. Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions,” which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similarity estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop markedly and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared.

A gene is typically represented as a portion of a chromosome. As indicated, there is considerably more non-coding sequence ahead of the gene, within it (”introns”), and behind it. The 98 to 99 percent sequence similarity estimates are often derived from the small pieces of coding sequence (”exons”). Other non-coding sequences, including the introns and sequences flanking the gene region, are often omitted in a “gene for gene” comparative analysis. The critical importance of the non-coding sequences in the function of the genome was not well understood until recently, but this does not excuse the bias of the “98 to 99 percent similarity” claim.

Another important factor concerns the potential for variants of the same protein to have different functions that can perform different tasks in different tissues. There is now no doubt that gene or protein sequence similarities, in and of themselves, are not as significant as other functional and regulatory information in the cell. Unfortunately, evolutionary assumptions drove a biased approach of simple sequence comparisons, providing few answers as to why humans and chimps are obviously so different.

Interestingly, current research is confirming that most of what makes humans biologically unique when compared to chimps and other animals is how genes are controlled and regulated in the genome. Several studies within the past few years are demonstrating clear differences in individual gene and gene network expression patterns between humans and chimps in regard to a wide number of traits. Of course, the largest differences are observed in regard to brain function, dexterity, speech, and other traits with strong cognitive components. To make the genetic landscape even more complicated, a number of recent studies are also confirming that close to 93 percent of the genome is transcriptionally active (functional). Not so long ago, scientists thought that only 3 to 5 percent of the genome that contained the protein coding regions was functional; the rest was considered “junk DNA.”

Conclusion

So what is an appropriate response to the assertion that a 99 percent similarity exists between human and chimp DNA, and thus proves common ancestry?

One can simply say that the whole genomes have never really been compared, only hand-selected regions already known to be similar have been examined, and the data is heavily biased. In fact, due to limitations in DNA sequencing technology, researchers do not even have the complete genomic sequence for human or chimp at present. In the sequence that they do have, much more analysis needs to be done.

Here are a number of key points that counter the evolutionary claims of close human-chimp similarity:

(1.) The chimp genome is 10 to 12 percent larger than the human genome and is not in a near-finished state like the human genome; it is considered a rough draft.

(2.) When large regions of the two genomes are compared, critical sequence dissimilarities become evident.

(3.) Extremely large blocks of dissimilarity exist on a number of key chromosomes, including marked structural differences between the entire male (Y) chromosomes.

(4.) Distinct differences in gene function and regulation are now known to be a more significant factor in determining differences in traits between organisms than the gene sequence alone. Research in this area has clearly demonstrated that this is the case with humans and apes, where marked dissimilarities in expression patterns are evident.

It is clear that the only way to obtain extreme DNA-based similarity between man and chimpanzee is to use comparative analyses that are heavily skewed by an evolutionary bias where one picks and chooses what data or what part of the genome to use. At present, the DNA sequence differences between these genomes clearly indicate a much lower level than 98 to 99 percent. In fact, one evolutionary study suggests it may be as low as 86 percent or less. In addition, the complex functional aspects of genes and their regulatory networks differ markedly between humans and chimps and play a more important role than DNA sequence by itself.

The DNA data, both structural and functional, clearly supports the concept of humans and chimps created as distinct separate kinds. Not only are humans and chimps genetically distinct, but only man has the innate capacity and obligation to worship his Creator.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:23 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 3:

EVOLUTION’S BEST ARGUMENT HAS BECOME ITS WORST NIGHTMARE:
BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. *

How Functional Transposons Refute “Junk DNA” and Human Evolution

Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution.

Genome Expansion through Transposon Activity

Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome.

Scientists have observed transposons copying and splicing rapidly, which contradicts evolution’s traditional scenario of slow and gradual change. Rapid transposon activity appears to be controlled by specific cellular programs and thus is not a product of mutation plus selection, nor is it part of evolution as it has been described.

In a short time–corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations–transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons.

These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists believed them to be random sequences, conveniently useful for evolutionary processes to tinker with and develop into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be quite useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it could actually kill the host.

Transposons in Chimps–Leftovers from the Evolutionary Past?

Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical transposons that are found on similar-looking chromosomes. How did they get there? Evolutionists have insisted that “ancient retroviruses slipped bits of their DNA into the primate genome millions of years ago.” Though often asserted as fact, it is only speculation that today’s transposons came from yesterday’s viruses.

Some transposons supposedly entered chimps and humans by a viral infection when both were part of one ancestral species. Later, humans and chimpanzees “diverged” from that primate ancestor. Thus, the same transposon sequence in both species is used as evidence that humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. And if humans transmutated from some earlier primate, then big-picture evolution is true. This has been one of evolution’s best arguments.

Transposons are also thought to have provided “junk DNA” for ages of mutations to have organized into new features, forming today’s diverse living forms. But science has shown that these long, repeated transposon sequences are useful on their own and even necessary. The arguments that transposons demonstrate common ancestry between chimps and humans, and that they provide scrap material for evolutionary progression, only have merit if transposons are largely useless.

Some scientists, open to the possibility that transposons were purposefully created and therefore functional, predicted at least a decade ago that important functions for transposons would be discovered. When nobody knew if these repetitive sequences had a useful genetic role, evolutionary biologists assumed that they did not, since they don’t code for proteins. However, new genomic technologies have revealed more about what transposons actually do.

Transposons with Functions

The last decade has provided a growing list of examples of transposon functions, including the 2006 discovery of one that regulates a nerve cell development gene common to all mammals and even the “living fossil” coelacanth. Transposons that regulate the expression rates of plant gene products have also been found.

Transposons in a single-cell ciliate were determined in 2009 to be critical to the tiny organism’s development. The study’s authors wrote, “These transposons might not merely be parasitic invaders that reduce host fitness or have little phenotypic effect but instead mutualists directly contributing a useful function for the organism, such as genomic DNA processing.” They found that these transposons “spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow.” So, if transposons have functions in these organisms, could they also play important roles in chimps or humans?

Publishing in Nature Genetics, an international team of researchers led by geneticist Geoff Faulkner found that in mammal tissue between 6 and 30 percent of RNA transcripts come from retrotransposons, not genes. Retrotransposons are a class of transposon.

RNA transcripts begin as single-strand copies of small sections of a DNA sequence. Some transcripts specify the information to make a protein, but most RNA transcripts help regulate the speed and amounts of important cellular processes and products. Also, information inside transposons provides alternate places for the transcription machinery to latch onto and begin transcribing the DNA. With transcription beginning at these various start sites and proceeding forward and backward on both strands of DNA, the necessary varieties of RNA are generated.

Faulkner stated in a University of Queensland press release, “Our results showed that retrotransposons that can no longer move around the genome may still be expressed in a broad range of cells, and thereby regulate the expression of nearby genes.” Transposon-derived transcripts are very important for cells.

Parasitic DNA sequences from some ancient virus should yield useless junk, not important information-carrying material. The idea that transposons came from viral infections but somehow later learned uses within their new hosts has been baptized into evolution with the name “exaptation.” But this conclusion is speculative, unobserved, and irrational. Without proper gene regulation provided by transposons that are already intact and fully integrated into the genome, the organism may die.

By analogy, copies of a computer virus on a hard drive do not improve software or performance, but rather harm it. Useful software comes only by planning and effort. Science has shown that transposons are useful biological software. But this means that they did not come from viruses, despite contradictory popular press. Instead, they appear to have come from a pre-designed system of integrated genetic elements that mobilize under strict regulation, and which in turn regulate other systems.

The Entire Genome Is Information-Rich

The reason why both chimpanzees and men have such similar-looking transposons in similar chromosomes could be because the sequences were programmed to serve similar biological functions. Or, they could have followed similar biologically significant patterns when they were being copied and inserted, for reasons that are no longer discernible.

Since transposons did not come from ancient viruses, but are instead essential parts of genomes, they can no longer be used to support the belief that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor. And this means that one of evolution’s best arguments has failed, just like the debunked parade of prior “best” arguments.

The demotion of transposons as an evolutionary “proof” is reminiscent of the old, discredited “vestigial organ” argument. One hundred-eighty organs in the human body had been cited as useless leftovers from an evolutionary past, but each has been found to have an important function, including the appendix and tonsils. Now that these vast expanses of genetic material are known to be information-rich, the concept of “junk DNA” has to be junked. And with no spare genetic material for it to mutate, what mechanism is left that broad-scale evolution could have used to produce the variety of life observed today?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how evolution could tinker with transposons without disrupting their precise coordination, which is vital to life forms. But it is easier now to see that the original people–like the first chimpanzees, plants, and even single-cell life forms –were expertly fashioned, through and through, by a brilliant Engineer.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:14 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 2:

DNA STUDY CONTRADICTS HUMAN/CHIMP COMMON ANCESTRY
BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species’ DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.

Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than “98.5% identical,” a commonly quoted statistic. Yet humans don’t look or act 98.5 percent identical to chimps. Thus, something other than genes must be involved, and this has been overlooked in evolutionists’ efforts to establish chimp-human ancestry. In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology [similarity] frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded “indels,” which are areas with zero sequence homology.

“Indels” refer to insertions (in-) and deletions (-del) of genetic material, but they are simply DNA sequence differences.

Publishing in the open access journal Mobile DNA, the research team led by McDonald tested the hypothesis that the “substantial INDEL variation that exists between humans and chimpanzees may contribute significantly to the regulatory differences between the species.” McDonald said in a Georgia Tech press release:

Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.

The team’s analysis of indels confirmed exactly what Bible-believing biologists have been saying for years. The indels and other variously named non-gene DNA are not “junk DNA,” and they are critical to the formation of each living creature. Biblical geneticist Jeff Tomkins wrote in 2009:

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions [including indels],” which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes.

The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different! It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do the differences enter the conversation?

Regulatory DNA—not just genes—is essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It’s impossible. Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:10 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 1:

PUBLISHED BY GEORGIA TECH UNIVERSITY:
PHD. JOHN MCDONALD AND HIS TEAM

For years, scientists believed the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees would be easily explained – the two species must have significantly different genetic makeups. However, when their genomes were later sequenced, researchers were surprised to learn that the DNA sequences of human and chimpanzee genes are nearly identical. What then is responsible for the many morphological and behavioral differences between the two species? Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.

The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic “gaps” in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are “turned on” and “turned off.” The research shows that these genomic “gaps” between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA.

“These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences,” said McDonald. “Transposable elements were once considered ‘junk DNA’ with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees.”

McDonald’s research team, comprised of graduate students Nalini Polavarapu, Gaurav Arora and Vinay Mittal, examined the genomic gaps in both species and determined that they are significantly correlated with differences in gene expression reported previously by researchers at the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

“Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves,” said McDonald.

The current analysis of the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees was motivated by the group’s previously published findings (2009) that the higher propensity for cancer in humans vs. chimpanzees may have been a by-product of selection for increased brain size in humans.

Although humans and chimpanzees have accumulated significant differences in a number of phenotypic traits since diverging from a common ancestor about six million years ago, their genomes are more than 98.5% identical at protein-coding loci. This modest degree of nucleotide divergence is not sufficient to explain the extensive phenotypic differences between the two species. It has been hypothesized that the genetic basis of the phenotypic differences lies at the level of gene regulation and is associated with the extensive insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation between the two species. To test the hypothesis that large INDELs (80 to 12,000 bp) may have contributed significantly to differences in gene regulation between the two species, we categorized human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in or around genes and determined whether this variation is significantly correlated with previously determined differences in gene expression.

Extensive, large INDEL variation exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. This variation is primarily attributable to retrotransposon insertions within the human lineage. There is a significant correlation between differences in gene expression and large human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in genes or in proximity to them.

The results presented herein are consistent with the hypothesis that large INDELs, particularly those associated with retrotransposons, have played a significant role in human-chimpanzee regulatory evolution.

By angel (wrote 240 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:08 am

Post 30 is meaningless quibble

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 12:10 pm