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: 8
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on -
Ron, I wasn’t trying to corner you asking for references. I just need to be able to follow your line of reasoning from the beginning. Some basics: The ”whole” (ninetysomething percent) genomes of both humans and chimps are sequenced. The rest represent virtually non-expressed repetitive DNA that is difficult to assemble (mainly from centromeres in the middle and telomeres at the end of the chromosomes). You can actually get your own genome sequenced in a few weeks if you coff up a few hundred grand or so (a guestimate) at present, with prices falling rapidly.
Regarding the differences between the genomes of chimps and humans, it is actually difficult to put a single value on this, because we differ in many different ways depending on whether you talk about protein-coding genes or other parts of the genome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
Regarding your estimate that a 3% change in a genome would be fatal: this figure sounds quite arbitrary, and therefore I was curious where you got it. A change in a single base pair can be fatal (as can be the case with hemophilia, I think), but at the same time much more than 3% of the base pairs could probably be substituted in some cases (DNA not involved in gene transcription + ”synonymous” substitutions that do not change amino acids in genes) without any visible differences in phenotype (= the finished product, the person).
If we assume that humans and chimps have a (say) 7% difference between their genomes, it is obvious that this does not kill neither us nor the chimps, so I guess it’s not the ”difference” per se you have a problem with. I guess that you ask whether we could get from the chimp to the human genome by means of an evolutionary ”walk” one base substitution at a time without encountering a fatal intermediate stage. Based on the evidence that this is what has actually happened (via some pre-Lucy common ancestor) i would answer yes. We can discuss why I think the evidence for common ancestry is strong some other time. But of course there is no way of testing this in real time, not even as a computer simulation, as we don’t know how to calculate the phenotype of every possible intermediate.
Regarding my previous questions on creating and receiving information somewhere else, I was only trying to get a clarification from Brian and Paul. I did not state an opinion. But I must emphasize that the current basic theory in Biology is that NO conscious creator is behind the accumulation of information in DNA, but a process called natural selection. Your statement: ” The information contained in DNA is by necessity a product of the intelligent mind of a Creator” thus does not conform to the opinion of most biologists. On the other hand, they would agree with your statement: “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”. The process of natural selection simply has nothing to do with random chance, which is something that creationists (and most people in general) have a hard time grasping.
Regarding human evolution and neanderthals, perhaps we can take that discussion over at the Lucy and Ardi thread some other time.
Ron Craig said: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.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on -
Thank you Jeannette.
I knew it wouldn't take long for those to show up on these threads who greatly out classed me in knowledge. That goes for you too Prometheus. Please bear in mind though, that the majority of what I had expressed in the original question that started this thread was taken from memory of lectures and other material I had read more than 4 or 5 years ago. I'm not trying to cop out here, or give excuses, it's just that I've relied too heavily on my own memory to produce my info; and being at work on the boat, I don't have very many available resources to research my responses.
All that being said, I'm grateful to everyone here for helping to set me straight. Thank you, Ron
Jeannette Parry said:Hi Ron
I've only just looked at this thread and am too tired tonight (it's nearly 12.30) to read or comment in detail.
there was just one thing - for accuracy's sake - it makes no difference to your basic comment.
You said:
"...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)."
I don't think that telomeres were ever thought of as "junk" DNA, because their function was known before the genome project.
Wikipedia says:
"A telomere is a region of repetitive DNA at the end of a chromosome, which protects the end of the chromosome from deterioration. Its name is derived from the Greek nouns telos (τέλος) "end" and merοs (μέρος, root: μερ-) "part". The telomere regions defer the degradation of genes near the ends of chromosomes by allowing for the shortening of chromosome ends, which necessarily occurs during chromosome replication."
"Junk" DNA was called that because its function was unknown. It was assumed by evoutionary scientists that it therefore had no function and mostly consisted of evolutionary left-overs.
Of course, as any creationist could have told them from the start, most of this "junk" has turned out to have some very important functions after all. For example, control of gene expression, especially in embryonic development.
Again, Wikipedia says:
"In genetics, noncoding DNA describes components of an organism's DNA sequences that do not encode for protein sequences. In many eukaryotes, a large percentage of an organism's total genome size is noncoding DNA, although the amount of noncoding DNA, and the proportion of coding versus noncoding DNA varies greatly between species.
Much of this DNA has no known biological function and at one time was sometimes referred to as "Junk DNA". However, .many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have known biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely but as-yet undetermined function, an inference from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but appear to be under heavy selective pressure"
As Wikipedia is very strongly in the Evolutionist camp this admission carries even more weight!
Yet another example of wrong assumptions hindering (only for a time in this case) scientific progress. (The idea that organs such as the appendix were "vestigeal" held up medical advances for much longer)
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on
-
To bounce back your quote; You flatter me! Thanks. Those may just be my few redeeming qualities! LOL
Paul Iacono said:Ron, your honesty and humility is inspiring.
Ron Craig said:Thank you Jeannette.
I knew it wouldn't take long for those to show up on these threads who greatly out classed me in knowledge. That goes for you too Prometheus. Please bear in mind though, that the majority of what I had expressed in the original question that started this thread was taken from memory of lectures and other material I had read more than 4 or 5 years ago. I'm not trying to cop out here, or give excuses, it's just that I've relied too heavily on my own memory to produce my info; and being at work on the boat, I don't have very many available resources to research my responses.
All that being said, I'm grateful to everyone here for helping to set me straight. Thank you, Ron
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Craig on
-
Ya slay me!@%!!*@ LOL!
Paul Iacono said:Your basic premise is wrong!@!#@! IT'S WRONG!!! LOL
Ok, actually I have no idea if it's wrong lol. I just saw that Jeannnette said I would use it against you, so I felt a certain obligation to use it against you LOL
Jeannette Parry said:I hope you didn't think I was trying to show off my knowledge Ron, (I can be a bit pedantic at times!)
The reason for mentioning it was because someone else (such as Promethius or Paul) might pick up on it and use that minor error as an excuse to say your basic premise was wrong!
There is new research being done all the time - this sort of thing is really at the cutting edge. So much more has been discovered since I studied Biology; but I love reading articles about new discoveries, even if some of the detail is very specialised and a bit beyond me.
Anyway, it's very late here, nearly 1.30 am now, so will say good night x
-
Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on
-
Ron, if you want a balance for Wikipedia's Evolutionist views I can highly recommend Conservapedia!!!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
As Wikipedia is very strongly in the Evolutionist camp this admission carries even more weight!
-
Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on
-
Yeah, those Americans are crazy..:-) And Conservapedia is crazy squared:-)
Jeannette Parry said:Is Conservapedia conservative politically or religiously, or both? I have found that Americans seem to combine the two, which isn't the case here in the UK. I'm not interested in politics, and once came across a conservative American site that seemed to be pushing conservatism (in religion too) for its own ends. Even where I agreed with them that really put me off!
Prometheus Wins said:Ron, if you want a balance for Wikipedia's Evolutionist views I can highly recommend Conservapedia!!!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on -
I understand what you are saying, but for semantic purposes, they aren't "re-writing" the Bible. They are simply doing a different "version" to yes, make it more conservative. This actually goes on quite a bit. I know some accuse the ESV (which I actually like) of being too liberal when it comes to parts of Genesis.
Paul Iacono said:The founders of Conservapedia are actually re-writing the Bible, because they think the current translations are all too liberal. No joke.
Jeannette Parry said:Is Conservapedia conservative politically or religiously, or both? I have found that Americans seem to combine the two, which isn't the case here in the UK. I'm not interested in politics, and once came across a conservative American site that seemed to be pushing conservatism (in religion too) for its own ends. Even where I agreed with them that really put me off!
Prometheus Wins said:Ron, if you want a balance for Wikipedia's Evolutionist views I can highly recommend Conservapedia!!!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
This issue, ape vs. man DNA, like every other issue, comes down to what one believes. Even if there were a less then 1% difference, would that matter to anyone on the creationist side?? If there were a 98% difference would that matter to Paul??? No, in both cases.
As we know, this is a matter of whether one believes in common design or common descent.
-
Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on
-
No.
Jeannette Parry said:So you are not American either?
Prometheus Wins said:Yeah, those Americans are crazy..:-) And Conservapedia is crazy squared:-)
Jeannette Parry said:Is Conservapedia conservative politically or religiously, or both? I have found that Americans seem to combine the two, which isn't the case here in the UK. I'm not interested in politics, and once came across a conservative American site that seemed to be pushing conservatism (in religion too) for its own ends. Even where I agreed with them that really put me off!
Prometheus Wins said:Ron, if you want a balance for Wikipedia's Evolutionist views I can highly recommend Conservapedia!!!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
