Genetic basis for human evolution

[mark kennedy]

Recently, the Chimpanzee Genome Project published the 'The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee and comparison with the the human genome'. (Nature, Sept, 2005 available online). What follows are the reasons from the scientific evidence that confirms creationism in my mind conclusively.

What they found were 35 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and indels (insertions/deletions over 1 nucleotide) that total 90Mb(megabytes or 90,000,000 nucleotides). All tolled this comes to 124,000,000 nucleotides that are totally differnent when comparing the two genomes. Our supposed single common ancestor lived about 5 million years ago so when you divide 5/125 you would need 25 nucleotides changed per year for 5 million years for us to have evolved from a common ancestor. In addition there are 50 genes in the human sequence not found in the chimpanzee sequence. However, the chimpanzee genome is 200Mb longer then the human genome. We have been told we are 98% chimpanzee which is absured when you look at the actual comparison.

Evolutionists go on ad infinitum about the Endogenus Retroviruses (ERVs). They seem to think this is something we inherited from a common ancestor. This is absurd as well. The ERVs are all but extinct in human lineage with only a single retrovirus human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K)

 

[KerrMetric]

Mark, learn to calculate bytes correctly just for a starter. 124 million nucelotides is not 124 Mb. It's actually around 30 Mb.

You are very error prone in your posts as I saw when you shut up in a hurry two weeks ago over Homo species brain sizes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, learn to calculate bytes correctly just for a starter. 124 million nucelotides is not 124 Mb. It's actually around 30 Mb.

You are very error prone in your posts as I saw when you shut up in a hurry two weeks ago over Homo species brain sizes.

"On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40−45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies63, 64, 65, 66, 67. Of course, the number of indel events is far fewer than the number of substitution events (5 million compared with 35 million, respectively)."​

http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...l;jsessionid=8A4F952BE6D02071DA194BD1BAF46EB7

90Mb plus 35Mb, you do the math. By the way, this is in addition to 9 pericentric inversions involveing at least 20 Mb and dozens of genes. These sections are the DNA turned upside down:

"It was suggested that such rearrangements led to reduced gene flow and accelerated adaptive evolution...We re-examined this issue and dound no evidence of accelerated evolution on chromosmoes with major rearrangements even if we considered eachy rearrangement seperatly"​

Counting chromosomal re-arrangements it would require 29 nucleotide SNPs, indels or rearrangements involving as many as 4Mb for 5 million years. There are 3.3 billion nucleotides in the human genome. About 2% are genes that total about 66 million nucleotides. Of these genes 5% show in-frame indels so 3.3 mbs are different in the genes.

I honstly don't know what you are talking about with regards to the Homo skull sizes and I am not sure you do either. From Homo habilis to Homo Erectus the cranial capacity doubled in size. I have never seen a serious answer from an evolutionist on how this is possible.

Want to know what happens when nucleotides, whether it's SNPs or indels, are changed? Follow the link and tell me how many beneficial effects from mutations were discoverd by the DOE Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research Program. They list hundreds of diseases and disorders but not the slightest mention of a beneficial effect. You want to know why, because it does not result in adaptation, postive selection or evolution, that's why.

Why don't you follow the link and click on any human chromosome. Then show me where all these beneficial effects came from for natural selection to preserve.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/chooser.shtml

 

[KerrMetric]

What you stated was wrong about calculating the data content. I aven't read the paper yet but I know how to calculate bits and bytes - you did not.

I also remember your brain size comments in the past were erroneous with regard to time scales and sizes.

 

[KerrMetric]

Mark, you do realise a Mb is not a Megabyte don't you?

This is not a major point but it shows your inability to parse the information.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've been watching your postings elsewhere about HERV's and in reading the OP here, it becomes obvious that you simply do not understand what HERV's are, nor are you handling the scientific information carefully. Often making serious mistakes in fundamental principles.

with something like this:

Evolutionists go on ad infinitum about the Endogenus Retroviruses (ERVs). They seem to think this is something we inherited from a common ancestor. This is absurd as well. The ERVs are all but extinct in human lineage with only a single retrovirus human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K)

i am reminded of the phrase "it is not even wrong".

i'd like to enter into a discussion of the value of HERV's for the CED debate but i don't know where to start to help you undo your false ideas of the field and where to go to read accurate principles without you grudging them.

I don't mean this as a personal put down, for it is not, it is an expression of concern that you are trying to enter into a technical discussion with not just inadequate background but very wrong ideas which make your writings wrong from the beginning.

 

[vossler]

Mark, you do realise a Mb is not a Megabyte don't you?

This is not a major point but it shows your inability to parse the information.

For the average person, who isn't a computer science major, this is truly is an insignificant point. The vast majority of laymen would understand what he said without any difficultly and so too would someone with a CS degree.

This is nothing but an attempt to discredit him and his findings. If you must attack, why not attack the findings themselves?

 

[KerrMetric]

For the average person, who isn't a computer science major, this is truly is an insignificant point. The vast majority of laymen would understand what he said without any difficultly and so too would someone with a CS degree.

How can you understand something when it is stated WRONG - there is nothing to understand. And it is germane. Mark tries to come off as scientifically capable and having an ability to read technical info and somehow to be better informed than a team of 30 top university molecular biologists. But that he cannot get something as basic as this correct tells me he is incapable of even understanding the basics let alone figuring out the team analysing the Chimp genome are incompetent.

This is nothing but an attempt to discredit him and his findings. If you must attack, why not attack the findings themselves?

What findings to attack. If he cannot get something that trivial correct I doubt he has stated the facts in the paper correct either. I haven't had time to read it yet. I just know from this, and past posts, if Mark states it then it is likely an incorrect summary based upon a poor understanding.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

For the average person, who isn't a computer science major, this is truly is an insignificant point. The vast majority of laymen would understand what he said without any difficultly and so too would someone with a CS degree.

This is nothing but an attempt to discredit him and his findings. If you must attack, why not attack the findings themselves?

take a minute and look at a blog entry from yesterday at: http://community.livejournal.com/useless_facts/634329.html#cutid1

i responded to what appears to be a simple math error, not because it was a big deal but because it was simply wrong, completely wrong. the person posting it did NOT UNDERSTAND what they were doing. it is not insignificant to enter into a semi-technical discussion and mishandle the math.

it is not discrediting any one. it is handling rightfully the data we have at hand in the best possible manner that we can consistent with the level of the discussion. megabits and megabytes differ by a factor of 8. this is very significance given that the argument is basically about DIFFERENCES between the chimp and human genome. it is fundamental to quantitizing the argument to get the math right.

but read the watch blog entry referred to above. the author wrote and explained what happened. now isn't that refreshing, both s/he learned something and so did we. that is what ought to happen here. education. learning. correcting mistakes, on all sides.

 

[vossler]

How can you understand something when it is stated WRONG - there is nothing to understand. And it is germane. Mark tries to come off as scientifically capable and having an ability to read technical info and somehow to be better informed than a team of 30 top university molecular biologists. But that he cannot get something as basic as this correct tells me he is incapable of even understanding the basics let alone figuring out the team analysing the Chimp genome are incompetent.

In his original post he made it clear he was talking about megabytes yet you wish to hound him on a minor error of posting Mb instead of MB. I see this as vindictive, based I guess on previous dialog with him, in nature. How can this be viewed as Christlike?

Help me to understand something, why is it that you are so fast to jump on a fellow brother over something as innocuous as this? This isn't a scientific journal that is in need of someone picking through it with a fine tooth comb, we're suppose to be Christians who are sharing thoughts and ideas. Giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

If this is your idea of fellowship, wow I'd hate to be in your Sunday school class and make a theological error in expressing myself.

What findings to attack. If he cannot get something that trivial correct I doubt he has stated the facts in the paper correct either. I haven't had time to read it yet. I just know from this, and past posts, if Mark states it then it is likely an incorrect summary based upon a poor understanding.

So you admit to not having read the paper but dismiss it based upon prejudices you have against Mark. Hmphh...

 

[vossler]

take a minute and look at a blog entry from yesterday at: http://community.livejournal.com/useless_facts/634329.html#cutid1

i responded to what appears to be a simple math error, not because it was a big deal but because it was simply wrong, completely wrong. the person posting it did NOT UNDERSTAND what they were doing. it is not insignificant to enter into a semi-technical discussion and mishandle the math.

I don't know how one can compare your blog entry with this. I'm at a loss to do so. Obviously you see this attack as legitimate and completely within the realm of how one is suppose to act. Given that I don't know what else I have to add that can help.

I've said my piece. I will now leave you now to continue this, this...lambasting of your brother Mark.

 

[KerrMetric]

I This isn't a scientific journal that is in need of someone picking through it with a fine tooth comb, we're suppose to be Christians who are sharing thoughts and ideas. Giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

No we aren't.

If this is your idea of fellowship, wow I'd hate to be in your Sunday school class and make a theological error in expressing myself.

You wouldn't catch me within a light year of a Sunday school class.

So you admit to not having read the paper but dismiss it based upon prejudices you have against Mark. Hmphh...

Vossler, from past experience with you on here I don't expect you to state correctly what I said back at me but please make no comment if you cannot do it correctly.

I haven't read the paper yet because it was not the issue I was tackling. I also would be unlikely to dimiss the paper since I am somewhat familiar with the subject matter and I know the point Mark in his long winded error riddled way was trying to make. My guess is that the paper verifies the mutation rates from human-chimp divergence expected - otherwise the title would be different.

The only prejudice I have against Mark is that he is very error prone and shows an obvious lack of grasping the technical. This is a valid prejudice to hold.

You on the other hand seem to knee jerk glowing responses to anything Creationist in flavour without even taking the time to larn anything about the topic. At least we can say Mark tries.

 

[KerrMetric]

Oh and one note to everyone on here:

We are talking science here. We are not brothers. We are people who in all likelihood have never met each other.

So don't give me this 'don't pick on our brothers' rubbish. Spare the rod and spoil the child IMO.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I don't know how one can compare your blog entry with this. I'm at a loss to do so. Obviously you see this attack as legitimate and completely within the realm of how one is suppose to act. Given that I don't know what else I have to add that can help.

I've said my piece. I will now leave you now to continue this, this...lambasting of your brother Mark.

i do not understand this personalization of the discussion. We are discussing a posting, not a person. it is not personal, i know MarkT only from what he writes here, i address only the postings and the ideas they contain, i do everything possible not to discuss people issues. The same as correcting the math in the watch example. it was wrong. So is the way HERV's are used in his postings. I don't believe he understands what they really are, it is a technical grasp of scientific information. It has nothing to do with personalities or people but rather handling accurately the data.

deal with the data.
are HERV"s extinct? (from the OP)
it is a nonsense question, and shows a lack of understanding of the basic science underneath the principles he is trying to deal with. HIV is a retrovirus. people with HIV have the potential to have cells with HIV integrated into their genome.
it is possible that there was today an integration of an HIV into a germ cell in someone who will now pass that HERV down to their children, should they survive the HIV infection long enough to have children.

The ERVs are all but extinct in human lineage with only a single retrovirus human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K)
i actually don't have any idea of what he means with the phrase about HERV-K

 

[random_guy]

I do not know very much genetics, I just begun studying the subject, but isn't the human chromosome #2 huge evidence of ape human common ancestory? This chromosome contains telomeres in the middle and on the end. In chromosomes, they are usually only found at the end. This is evidence that two chromosomes fused together to become human chromosome #2.

Sequencing the chromosome, we find that it is extremely similar to chimp chromosome 2p and 2q. This is exactly what evolution predicts to explain the difference between human and chimp chromosome count.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If this is your idea of fellowship, wow I'd hate to be in your Sunday school class and make a theological error in expressing myself.

i'm not sure who you are addressing here.
i don't think i've posted in the CED forums that i teach a Sunday School class once per year, but i certainly have at the Reformed forum, where the Calvin's Institutes class is posted as a sticky thread.

interestingly this is an ad hominem, not discussing the issues but the people behind the postings and their way of handling conflict.

as a matter of fact, the strongest criticism from the class on my last class was that i allowed people to much personal opinion expression rather than ask people to discuss the issue after church and get on with the prepared lessons.
so if you are talking to me, you are in fact, wrong, the opposite happens, i allow more theological discussion than the majority of the class desires. so your comment is not just an ad hominem but doesn't conform to reality.

 

[KerrMetric]

i'm not sure who you are addressing here..

He was addressing me.

 

[vossler]

You wouldn't catch me within a light year of a Sunday school class.

We are not brothers.

If nothing else, I appreciate your honestly.

 

[KerrMetric]

If nothing else, I appreciate your honestly.

Which I might add is often a prime differentiator on here. I have nothing against anyone personally on here.

When I say we are not brothers it is in reference to the issues debated on here.

When I say someone is ignorant on an issue it means they display a lack of knowledge.

When I say someone is error prone on a topic it means they exhibit basic errors of fact and a failure to grasp the subject matter.

This is not character assassination it is honesty. But I am sick of Creationists martyring their ignorance and claiming that these are personal attacks when they are not meant as such. What are we supposed to do when someone makes a basic error such as Mark in the OP. Pretend it doesn't matter and blindly carry on as though their credibility is intact?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Which I might add is often a prime differentiator on here. I have nothing against anyone personally on here.

When I say we are not brothers it is in reference to the issues debated on here.

When I say someone is ignorant on an issue it means they display a lack of knowledge.

When I say someone is error prone on a topic it means they exhibit basic errors of fact and a failure to grasp the subject matter.

This is not character assassination it is honesty.

The point of course is that "brotherhood" (and sisterhood, btw...) is for the fellowship posts. Here we debate... we're all brothers and sister in Christ here, but that earns no free passes, changes no facts, and overlooks no errors.

Now, my scientific knowledge is nowhere near up to par to actually follow the technical details of this thread, but what I have been able to glean goes something like this:

Mark Kennedy: "Here's my refutation of an evolutionist article."

Kerrimetric: "Your 'refutation' is based on a stunningly obvious error in calculation which, when corrected, shoots down your entire argument....which has happened before."

Vossler: "hey, cut the guy some slack! He's a fellow Chistian!"

Kerrimetric: "That doesn't make him any less mistaken... and this isn't the first time."

So... have I got the gist of it?