Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

Thomas Anderson · #**191** 12th June 2009, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Baggins

You still haven't grasped the simplest concepts of evolution have you Thomas.

The niche for the upright walking talking space monkey is filled.

You still see plans and direction in evolution where no such things exist.

It really isn't a difficult concept - mutation - differential reproductive success.

That is more or less it.

I can see you haven't grasped the differences between us and apes. Still focusing on the similarities. Its your choice where you put your faith, a monkey doesn't have that choice.

AV1611VET · #**192** 12th June 2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

I can see you haven't grasped the differences between us and apes. Still focusing on the similarities. Its your choice where you put your faith, a monkey doesn't have that choice.

--- I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a Sin Nature.

mark kennedy · #**193** 12th June 2009, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

I can see you haven't grasped the differences between us and apes. Still focusing on the similarities. Its your choice where you put your faith, a monkey doesn't have that choice.

Actually he is putting his faith in mutations and a kind of naturalistic lottery winner. Mutations are a failure of DNA repair but when they do have an effect it is almost always deleterious (harmful).

Only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same. More importantly, with brain related genes I have yet to see one that had a beneficial effect. These are the effects most often seen:

Charcot–Marie–Tooth (CMT) sensorimotor neuropathy
Infantile spasms, dystonia, and other X-linked phenotypes
Schizophrenia
Brain tumors
Alzheimer's disease
Parkinson's disease

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

Effects like this one are unknown to science:

One of the sequences, HAR1, has mutated more rapidly in humans than in any of the others studied so far; all other species have an almost identical version of the gene. The region consists of 118 base pairs; in chimps and chicks, which are seperated by more than 300 million years of evolution, HAR1 is almost identical, with only two nucleotides differing.

A comparison of the sequences in chimps and humans showed that 18 of the 118 nucleotides differ (left, top and bottom, respectively). This, says Pollard, is “an incredible amount of change,” because chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

Rapidly evolving RNA genes in human evolution

By the way, the rapid expansion of the human brain would not have started 6 million years ago, it would be closer to 2 million years ago:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(See Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

This can be easily demonstrated from the peer reviewed scientific literature and one more thing. All they are really doing with the fossils are digging up ape fossils and passing them off as our ancestors giving the illusion of a gradual evolutionary process. To date there have been hundreds of fossils that are supposedly our ancestors but the chimpanzee ancestors are represented by three fossilized teeth from roughly the same period.

mark kennedy · #**194** 12th June 2009, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

--- I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a Sin Nature.

Actually you are categorized as Homo sapien sapien which is the technical taxonomic name for human beings. All humans have a sin nature because of Adam and Eve so more to the point, like all Homo sapien sapiens you have a sin nature.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Cabal · #**195** 12th June 2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

--- I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a Sin Nature.

Woh, hang on there bucko, your little proof for that has had its genetic backside handed to it by me every time you've brought it up, so maybe don't post it on other threads like it means something?

AV1611VET · #**196** 12th June 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cabal

Woh, hang on there bucko, your little proof for that has had its genetic backside handed to it by me every time you've brought it up, so maybe don't post it on other threads like it means something?

GuidanceNeeded gave this link to me, which contains this passage:

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).

SOURCE

In addition, Homo sapiens have a [Homo] predecessor --- mankind doesn't --- (except for God, that is).

Cabal · #**197** 12th June 2009, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

GuidanceNeeded gave this link to me, which contains this passage:SOURCE

In addition, Homo sapiens have a [Homo] predecessor --- mankind doesn't.

Ok, you ad hoc'd your way out of the Jesus part (missing the point somewhat, but nevermind).

But unfortunately, we were talking about you, not Jesus. If you were a female, by your model you'd be sinless. Might wanna rethink the mantra there.

mark kennedy · #**198** 12th June 2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Cabal

Ok, you ad hoc'd your way out of the Jesus part (missing the point somewhat, but nevermind).

But unfortunately, we were talking about you, not Jesus. If you were a female, by your model you'd be sinless. Might wanna rethink the mantra there.

What he is getting at is the blood is inherited from the father while the RH factor comes from the mother. Mary would not be sinless since she had a human father but Jesus was born of a virgin. Actually finding a 'sin' gene is about as substantive as arguing whether or not Adam had a belly button.

I don't know how you guys got on the X chromosome/Y chromosome thing but it looks like a dead end to me.

Typically when an evangelical or fundamentalist is discussing this sort of thing it's passages like this one they have in mind:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (Romans 3:25)

Sin is carried in the blood, would seem to be the inference, when it is realized that the blood comes from the Father some think its the reason for the virgin birth. Personally I'm not all that sure but it's an interesting thought.

Cabal · #**199** 12th June 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

What he is getting at is the blood is inherited from the father while the RH factor comes from the mother. Mary would not be sinless since she had a human father but Jesus was born of a virgin. Actually finding a 'sin' gene is about as substantive as arguing whether or not Adam had a belly button.

I don't know how you guys got on the X chromosome/Y chromosome thing but it looks like a dead end to me.

Sorry, Mark, I should have been clearer.

AV's claim is that sin is ONLY inherited via the father. To have a factor that is present in all humans but is male-transferred only causes several problems.

And I totally agree with you on the "sin gene" concept, it's a complete waste of time - which is why even if the genetics were sound, to pursue this point is a waste of AV's time too.

AV1611VET · #**200** 12th June 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Cabal

Ok, you ad hoc'd your way out of the Jesus part (missing the point somewhat, but nevermind).

But unfortunately, we were talking about you, not Jesus. If you were a female, by your model you'd be sinless. Might wanna rethink the mantra there.

Here we go again.

Can a female carry her father's DNA?

If yes --- can one of those DNA units harbor the Sin Nature?
- If yes --- what's the problem?