Genetic Differences Between Humans and Apes
Hi Everybody!
This represents my first discussion that will cover a topic I've seen come up here in the midst of other threads. As if there weren't already enough irrefutable proofs for a recent, literal, six-day creation to be found in the arenas of geology, paleontology, and nearly every other scientific discipline, I wish to discuss the amazing DNA molecule.
As I pointed out in a previous thread, the genetic difference between humans and apes amounts to somewhere around 7%. Now, that may not seem like much, but when one considers that that constitutes a difference of well over 40,000,000 base pairs, not to mention their corresponding telomeres, (once considered "junk" DNA, but have been shown to be quite valuable to the life-form for the replacement of damaged or missing genes). Additionally, many fail to realize, or are otherwise unaware that only a small percentage of the entire human genome has been mapped; not much more than 30%--35% to date. Now if only 35% of the genome having been mapped produces a difference of over 40 million base pairs of genes, how great will that difference be when the entire genome is understood? It is my understanding that a difference of only 3% in genetic material will prove fatal to an organism (if my figure is in error, please let me know). I have thouroughly read the "New Answers Book 3", and have 1 and 2 waiting for me when I get home, as well as numerous other volumes dealing with many varied subjects relating to origins; and I must admit, given ALL of the available evidences in the physical world that only the Biblical accounts of origins and speciation make sense. It has been oft quoted, even by noted evolutionists and secularists that evolution is "unproven & unprovable". Even Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, (Darwin's Bulldog) said "I suppose the reason why we reject the Bible and embrace evolution is the that we don't want God interfering with our sexual mores." paraphrase. Indeed, it would seem that there is truly no legitimate reason to accept evolution apart from a need to not be held accountable for the life we've been given. After all, the evidences generally given for evolution are weak at best and usually easily proven to be in error. God Bless You Richly in Christ Jesus! Ron Craig
Views: 6
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on -
Great post Ron!
-
Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on -
No, Ron, this is not a great post. It just shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you want me to elaborate?
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on -
By all means. I did make one small mistake that I'm aware of. When I said that a 3% difference in genetic material was fatal to the organism, what I meant to say was a 3% difference in the nucleotide sequence would prove fatal. Apart from thaaaaat...........
Prometheus Wins said:No, Ron, this is not a great post. It just shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you want me to elaborate?
-
Permalink Reply by Eddy Lepkowicz on
-
still waiting on the elaboration....
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on
-
I'm not saying that the present evolutionary community is holding up Huxley as their "spokesperson". As a matter of fact, It was Huxley himself, a hundred and fifty years or so ago who said that regarding all those who bought into Darwin's theory.
Also, why does it seem to escape everyone's notice that Darwin wasn't even a scientist? He was in fact a recent graduate of a Bible college, taking a ride along on a trip to collect bugs and such for some bugologist friend of his when he made all of his dubious observations. Upon his return to England, he was in fact quite hesitant about releasing any of his findings. And just in the "for what it's worth" category, most people seem to forget the whole title of his book which shows all too well his racially bigoted predisposition..."Origin of Species through means of natural selection or, the preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the struggle for life"
Maybe it's just me, but that title suggests a bit of racial bias; part of what made it so appealing to the other ignorant europeans and Brit's of his time no?
How then can so many people put such stock in a man, his book, or his theory, written more than a century and a half ago, by a non-scientist, whose views about humanity at large would today be considered highly "politically incorrect" and call it science?!?
I guess it just goes to show that we haven't "evolved" as far as we credit ourselves.
Paul Iacono said:the genetic difference between humans and apes amounts to somewhere around 7%. ... Now if only 35% of the genome having been mapped produces a difference of over 40 million base pairs of genes, how great will that difference be when the entire genome is understood?
Ummm... 7%. That's the basis for public opinion surveys, tests of new pharmaceutical products, etc., where they take a sample of the population that doesn't even come close to 35%, but the portion they take extrapolates to the population as a whole.
As to your Julian Huxley quote, Ron... I'm pretty sure that none of us in the "evolutionist" community consider young Jules our "spokesman". Neither should you.
-
Permalink Reply by Eddy Lepkowicz on
-
well done Ron
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on -
Ron,
So far as I understand it, the observations and notes of Charles Darwin were meticulous and thorough. AIG has indicated as such, and while he may not have held any degrees, the evidence/observations are valid regardless or source. So far as his prejudices, we all have them, we are all flawed, and again, attacking the person rather than the arguments is a logical fallacy - ad hominem I believe.
Now, that being said, Darwins observations were of Natural Selection, which is well documented not only by him, but by many since. That it occurs is not under dispute. Where natural selection leaves off is where Darwin, and evolution itself stretches into the unobserved and thus disputed changes from one type of creature into another type of creature through natural selection, and as added since the time of Darwin's publishing, mutation.
Brian
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on
-
Point taken Brian, and thank you.
I wasn't in fact trying to attack Darwin himself (ad hominem), but rather more his ideas. And I agree, his observations were indeed very astute and meticulously recorded. But then he (and subsequently millions of others) then with great assumptions, extrapolated the observed natural selection, a.k.a. micro-evolution to somehow be evidence for mAcro-evolution; the physical change from one created kind into another, which simply doesn't happen: never been observed to happen: can't be shown through the fossil record to have ever happened.
Brian Guiley said:Ron,
So far as I understand it, the observations and notes of Charles Darwin were meticulous and thorough. AIG has indicated as such, and while he may not have held any degrees, the evidence/observations are valid regardless or source. So far as his prejudices, we all have them, we are all flawed, and again, attacking the person rather than the arguments is a logical fallacy - ad hominem I believe.
Now, that being said, Darwins observations were of Natural Selection, which is well documented not only by him, but by many since. That it occurs is not under dispute. Where natural selection leaves off is where Darwin, and evolution itself stretches into the unobserved and thus disputed changes from one type of creature into another type of creature through natural selection, and as added since the time of Darwin's publishing, mutation.
Brian
-
Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on
-
The latest posts here make my own somewhat obsolete, but I spent so long writing it that here it is.
Ron please let me know if I overstep the line here, but I think this is a fair analysis of the situation: Sorry but your post was not an honest attempt at inquiry about what genomic data can tell us regarding evolutionary scenarios. It was an incoherent mix of unreferenced assertions about genomic sequences and completely unrelated quotes and personal attacks against random evolutionists. I assume that your primary purpose was to raise your own spirits a little by preaching to the choir and perhaps get a pat on the back in return. Which, I note, Alex promptly supplied.
Now, if you want to discuss this issue, try to stay on topic and avoid unrelated stuff. As you see, the thread has (predictably) already degenerated to mud-slinging against long-dead old men who did not even have a clue about the existence of DNA.
Just a couple of notes (I can’t help myself):
1) Why do some creationists spend such disproportionate amounts of time exorcising the ghosts of scientists that died 100+ years ago, and then spend equal time whining about how the scientific community does not take them seriously?
2) Apart from their unfortunate habit of subjugating and colonizing less favoured races, the British are also known for their dry, ironic sense of humour. I suspect that the Huxley quote (was it the elder or the younger?) is an example of irony. In fact, without knowing anything about the context, I am willing to bet 500 Ameros that this was the case.
3) I would gladly discuss the relationship between the truth value of a scientific theory and the morality of its discoverer, but not here. I just note that there are still people living in the US today that were subject to institutionalized racial discrimination, so why harp on the racial bias of the Victorians? (Matt. 7:3). There are also sexual minorities being institutionally discriminated today (but let’s not go there...). The times do change, fortunately.
4) Last but not least: You dismiss Charles Darwin as less than a ”true” scientist because he did not study ”science” at college*. Charles Darwin published a large body of scientific papers and theses, including one that became one of the greatest blockbusters in scientific history. All of these were published on the open market and successfully defended against critique from his peers and society at large. If that is not the hallmark of a true scientist, then what is? This contrasts rather unfavourably with the current practice of creation scientists and other fringe scientists that avoid peer-reviewed journals where their ideas would be open to critique and dialogue. Instead, they form their own isolated bubbles separate from the rest of the scientific community. You employ an interesting double standard when you simultaneously feel free to casually dismiss the opinions of the majority of today’s ”true” scientists, college educated with PhDs in Biology and Geology, as soon as their conclusions do not suit your taste. Now did you or anyone else here claim to take a balanced view on the subject? (Matt. 7:3)
*Very few scientists got what we would call a proper college science education in those days. Science, along with fox hunting, was just one of the few socially acceptable leisures for young gentlemen of fortune with too much time on their hands.
Sorry about the rant. Finally: Shall we get back to the topic? Where did you get the figures that you mentioned in your original post? Were they just things you pulled out of...out of thin air, or do they have some substance? I need to check this out before I can comment.
Ron Craig said:Point taken Brian, and thank you.
I wasn't in fact trying to attack Darwin himself (ad hominem), but rather more his ideas. And I agree, his observations were indeed very astute and meticulously recorded. But then he (and subsequently millions of others) then with great assumptions, extrapolated the observed natural selection, a.k.a. micro-evolution to somehow be evidence for mAcro-evolution; the physical change from one created kind into another, which simply doesn't happen: never been observed to happen: can't be shown through the fossil record to have ever happened.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on
-
Fair enough Prometheus. I suppose I might apologize for the lack of source references, but since this isn't a peer reviewed science journal, I sort of took for granted that that wasn't required. But I have read and reviewed quite a bit of material regarding genomics. While I am not a geneticist or otherwise degreed practicione of a particular scientific discipline, I nonetheless consider myself fairly well informed on a wide variety of scientific subjects. Additionally, I asked my son, who is a biology major to read and review this discussion question. Apart from a couple of clarifying questions, he couldn't find any flaws to speak of concerning the science.
All that being said, I would briefly address the subject of information. You mentioned previously that while information (DNA in this case) would seem to necessitate the mind of a sender, but not necessarily the recipient....IF I read you right. I would respectfully beg to differ.
The information contained in DNA is by necessity a product of the intelligent mind of a Creator. I believe even the honest evolutionist would have to concede that for information to arise on it's own by random chance; no matter the length of time involved, is unlikely in the extreme. Now then, Information transmitted needs a primer, or equally intelligent entity to "decode" it to be able to make use of it. This is where the RNA molecule comes in.
You used the analogy of a computer, which itself is a product of intelligent design. The computer must be programmed by it's designer, or programmer to be able to colate and transmit the information in question. All of this necessitates intelligence. To design the machine, to design and write the programs necessary for the processing and transmission of information, and so on.
On the other end awaits the recipient, which you claim doesn't require intelligence. Again I disagree. In keeping with the computer analogy, the recieving computer on the other end of the network must also, by necessity be from the hand of a creator, and itself be intelligent. Allow me to illustrate: In order for the receiving computer to process and make use of the information it's received, it too has to be programmed by a designer, and contain the appropriate software to "decode" the information and disseminate it to where it will be used. Now, if the sending computer only speaks say, ASCII, and the receiving computer only speaks binary, then the recipient will have no idea what was sent; if it can receive it at all. So it is with the relationship of RNA to DNA. You can't have one intelligence to speak, as it were, without another intelligence to understand and use the information. Otherwise speaker number one is just talking to a wall; it will profit no one.
There are many valuable links available on the AIG website, as well some I have found just by Googling. I'll try and paste one here; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/neanderthals . This a rather lengthy article, but it provides a lot of reference sources at the end; both secular and creationist.
Prometheus Wins said:The latest posts here make my own somewhat obsolete, but I spent so long writing it that here it is.
Ron please let me know if I overstep the line here, but I think this is a fair analysis of the situation: Sorry but your post was not an honest attempt at inquiry about what genomic data can tell us regarding evolutionary scenarios. It was an incoherent mix of unreferenced assertions about genomic sequences and completely unrelated quotes and personal attacks against random evolutionists. I assume that your primary purpose was to raise your own spirits a little by preaching to the choir and perhaps get a pat on the back in return. Which, I note, Alex promptly supplied.
Now, if you want to discuss this issue, try to stay on topic and avoid unrelated stuff. As you see, the thread has (predictably) already degenerated to mud-slinging against long-dead old men who did not even have a clue about the existence of DNA.
Just a couple of notes (I can’t help myself):
1) Why do some creationists spend such disproportionate amounts of time exorcising the ghosts of scientists that died 100+ years ago, and then spend equal time whining about how the scientific community does not take them seriously?
2) Apart from their unfortunate habit of subjugating and colonizing less favoured races, the British are also known for their dry, ironic sense of humour. I suspect that the Huxley quote (was it the elder or the younger?) is an example of irony. In fact, without knowing anything about the context, I am willing to bet 500 Ameros that this was the case.
3) I would gladly discuss the relationship between the truth value of a scientific theory and the morality of its discoverer, but not here. I just note that there are still people living in the US today that were subject to institutionalized racial discrimination, so why harp on the racial bias of the Victorians? (Matt. 7:3). There are also sexual minorities being institutionally discriminated today (but let’s not go there...). The times do change, fortunately.
4) Last but not least: You dismiss Charles Darwin as less than a ”true” scientist because he did not study ”science” at college*. Charles Darwin published a large body of scientific papers and theses, including one that became one of the greatest blockbusters in scientific history. All of these were published on the open market and successfully defended against critique from his peers and society at large. If that is not the hallmark of a true scientist, then what is? This contrasts rather unfavourably with the current practice of creation scientists and other fringe scientists that avoid peer-reviewed journals where their ideas would be open to critique and dialogue. Instead, they form their own isolated bubbles separate from the rest of the scientific community. You employ an interesting double standard when you simultaneously feel free to casually dismiss the opinions of the majority of today’s ”true” scientists, college educated with PhDs in Biology and Geology, as soon as their conclusions do not suit your taste. Now did you or anyone else here claim to take a balanced view on the subject? (Matt. 7:3)
*Very few scientists got what we would call a proper college science education in those days. Science, along with fox hunting, was just one of the few socially acceptable leisures for young gentlemen of fortune with too much time on their hands.
Sorry about the rant. Finally: Shall we get back to the topic? Where did you get the figures that you mentioned in your original post? Were they just things you pulled out of...out of thin air, or do they have some substance? I need to check this out before I can comment.
Ron Craig said:Point taken Brian, and thank you.
I wasn't in fact trying to attack Darwin himself (ad hominem), but rather more his ideas. And I agree, his observations were indeed very astute and meticulously recorded. But then he (and subsequently millions of others) then with great assumptions, extrapolated the observed natural selection, a.k.a. micro-evolution to somehow be evidence for mAcro-evolution; the physical change from one created kind into another, which simply doesn't happen: never been observed to happen: can't be shown through the fossil record to have ever happened.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on
-
Ron,
Prometheus was not the one to indicate the recipient did not require a mind, I did. He was asking about it.
So far as your contention, I understand your reasoning, but the intended recipient of the communication would be where I derive the stipulation. In a computer program, I'm writing the program for the computer to use. Same would be for a robot that say is used in manufacturing. My recipient is not the person getting the car that is being manufactured by the robot, but the robot, and my recipient is not the person designing the robot. They build it with certain capabilities, to understand instructions that are formatted appropriately, but they are not who I would be communicating with.
Part of the conditions for communication involve the recipient being able to understand the message, and take an action. I would encourage you to read the online book at AIG's website (In the Beginning was Information) - the link is provided where the rest of the "information" discussion took place.
Brian
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on
-
Gotcha. Thanks Brian.
Brian Guiley said:Ron,
Prometheus was not the one to indicate the recipient did not require a mind, I did. He was asking about it.
So far as your contention, I understand your reasoning, but the intended recipient of the communication would be where I derive the stipulation. In a computer program, I'm writing the program for the computer to use. Same would be for a robot that say is used in manufacturing. My recipient is not the person getting the car that is being manufactured by the robot, but the robot, and my recipient is not the person designing the robot. They build it with certain capabilities, to understand instructions that are formatted appropriately, but they are not who I would be communicating with.
Part of the conditions for communication involve the recipient being able to understand the message, and take an action. I would encourage you to read the online book at AIG's website (In the Beginning was Information) - the link is provided where the rest of the "information" discussion took place.
Brian
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by 
.
