The Truth and Lies about Chimp DNA/fossils.

[mark kennedy]

Someone has been sending me PMs asking me about Chimp/Human genomics and it's hard to fit everything into a PM. I've been into this whole creation/evolution thing now for years and the most convincing arguments for creation are the things evolutionists will never honestly admit. I'm not entirely sure why but scientists, highly reputable scientists and prestigious publications like Time, Nature and Scientific American have reported that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees. Not only is this not true, or even close, it is a well known fact that we are no more then 96% the same overall. They will tell you that the 4% does not matter, that we are virtually identical in our protein coding genes which isn't true, only 29% of the protein coding genes are identical.

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids
• 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

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome/ (Nature, September 2005)

So what's the problem? That comes to at least 90 million base pairs due to indels and 35 MB (million base pairs) due to single nucleotide substitutions. Answers in Genesis has responded to this (Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More), so I'm not the only one who noticed. When this paper was announced Nature simply lied about the DNA similarity, there is no nice way of saying it:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome ​

As did Time Magazine:

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. (What Makes Us Different, Time)​

And Katherine Pollard in Scientific American made this blatantly bogus statement:

Of the three billion letters that make up the human genome, only 15 million of them-less than 15-have changed in six million years or so since the human and chimp lineages diverged. (Pollard, Scientific American May 2009)​

The Chimpanzee genome paper, published years before any of the others, found 35 million single base pairs diverged and at least 90 million base pairs due to gaps, aka indels (insertions/deletions). Pollard knows this, she even cites the Chimpanzee genome paper after grossly misrepresenting the findings. She is not some hack journalist with a humanities degree writing on things she knows nothing about. She is a genetic researcher who is intimately acquainted with the divergence between chimpanzees and humans and has done extensive research in Human accelerated region 1 (highly accelerated region 1, HAR1):

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)​

I have seriously tried to find a molecular basis for the 3 fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, I have found absolutely none. I'm not exaggerating here, random mutations with beneficial effects are impossible, there has never been anything but a neutral or deleterious (harmful) effect from a mutation is a brain related gene. I can list literally hundreds of brain related diseases and disorders caused by gene mutations. Not one single beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene has ever been discovered, published or even hypothesized.

How about the skulls? There are literally hundreds of hominid (human ancestor) fossils, mostly from Africa, yet chimpanzee ancestry is represented by 3 teeth. If Chimpanzees were not alive today there would be no evidence that they ever existed. Uncovering a chimpanzee skull in Africa is good for one thing and one thing only, passing it off as a human ancestor, the older the better. The Taung Child and Lucy for example have chimpanzee size brains, in fact, their skulls are kind of small even for a Chimpanzee. So why lie and if they are lying why doesn't someone expose their error?

I think I know the answer to this, it would completely destroy Darwin's theory of natural selection for one thing. see, Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory? The reason being that the mutation rate would have to be too high and far too dangerous for us to have evolved from apes:

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, Genetics September 2000)​

The closest I have ever gotten to a straight forward estimate of the mutation rate was our own sfs, one of the staff scientists working at the Broad Institute at the time the Chimpanzee genome paper was being written.

Common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees: mutations

This essay doesn't even mention the indels, and there is a reason for that. The mutation rate would have to have been so high it was a formula for extinction, not accelerated evolutionary adaptation.

Mind you, this does not even begin to deal with Creationism as doctrine or the Bible (especially Genesis) as history. As a concise example of a couple of the primary proof texts, I'll post this brief exposition:

The Scriptures speak clearly on the ex nihilo creation of life using the term (H1254, bara, בָּרָא ). Specifically the creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21), and Adam (1:27) the New Testament makes it clear that to worship Christ as Savor and Lord is to worship him as Creator (John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1,2), but that mankind exchanges the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:18-20). Based on the clear testimony of Scripture and the Nicene Creed you must be a Creationist (defined Biblically, not capriciously) in order to be a Christian.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it , "Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin". (see Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy : I also debated Papias on Catholic theology and evolution here) It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

If you are a Christian and still believe that Darwinian evolution has made it's case then go in peace, I have no problem with you. If you have serious and prayerfully reconciled the natural history of evolutionary biology with the clear testimony of Scripture and found peace between the two, take my hand. I will without hesitation extend the right hand of fellowship with no qualms about it.

If on the other hand you are wanting to bury the facts of science and the essential meaning of Scripture, I have but one warning for you. The Christian apologist carries not the sword in vain.

As for me, I am completely convinced that there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. There is no molecular mechanism capable of the accelerated adaptive evolution required and the deleterious effects of mutations on brain related genes makes this impossible. I base this not on Creation Science literature but on the peer reviewed scientific literature quoted, cited and linked in the brief summary.

What is more the Scriptures are clear that Adam and Eve were our first parents and when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil we did not fast. The need for justification is traced back to the sin of Adam by Paul in Romans 5 making it inextricably linked to the Gospel. All of this together makes the threat of Darwinian evolution to the Gospel evident and obvious. An apologetic response is called for and this brief exposition of some of the requisite Scriptures and Scientific literature is my offering on the subject.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

1: You claim that the brain could not evolve fast enough. How do you know this? This boils down to the inexplicably complex argument. Even tiny improvement in cognition would greatly improve an organism's ability to reproduce and pass on its genes. You contend that it could not happen that fast. How do you know?

You start by comparing the size and complexity of the human brain with Chimpanzees. Then you look at the multiplicative effects of mutations on fitness. Guess what you don't find? A mutation in a brain related gene that has a beneficial effect.

2. You mention that publications do not include your "indels". Assuming they don't, this is probably because they don't care about your indels. When somebody writes about the Egyptian pyramids they don't start off by disproving that aliens made them. This is because nobody has shown that aliens did build the pyramids. Nobody has provided substantial evidence of your indels being problematic. (In a prestigious peer reviewed journal not a creationist website.)

No their not providing evidence of them being problematic, they are just pretending they don't exist.

3. Quoting your book does not bolster your argument about genetics.

My book?

4. You say mutations are bad for the brain. Mutations are the origin of novel adaptations. The brain is the result of many "favorable" mutations.

The only things that mutations in brain related genes are resulting in are things like:

Leukodystrophies
Phenylketonuria
Tay-Sachs disease
Wilson disease
spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA),
Huntington’s disease (HD),
dentatorubral pallidoluysian atrophy (DRPLA), and
spinocerebellar ataxias (SCA) type 1, 2, 3, 7, and 17.

Not favorable traits or maybe you know something modern genetics don't.

5. Why do you carry a sword? Please clarify that point.

You wouldn't understand, it involved defending the Gospel by standing firm in the present truth.

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, (Eph. 6:11-17)​

 

[mark kennedy]

1. You do not need "A" brain related gene to get from a chimpanzee/bonobo to humans. Humans did not come from chimps/bonobos. I think you may misunderstand how evolution works.

I didn't say from a troglodyte or a bonobo, I never suggested anything of the sort. You do need a brain related gene like the HAR1f that allowed only 2 substitutions in almost 400 my since the common ancestor of chimpanzees and chickens. Then suddenly about 2 my ago it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory 118 nucleotides long. Before you start assuming this happened you should understand how science works, you need a cause and effect. There has to be a molecular mechanism capable of making the change or some cause before selection can act. That's how evolution works.

2. You don't have to pretend that something unproven doesn't exist. I don't have to pretend that unicorns don't exist unless you can prove they do. The burden of proof is upon those trying to prove the existence of unicorns.

So God acting in time and space to create life by divine fiat is tantamount to unicorns? What I'm talking about are highly conserved brain related genes that never respond well to mutations. The burden of proof is on those who propose the change happened, which goes to cause. You can't just assume natural selection acted on a favorable trait if there is no why for the trait (allele) to be altered in the first place.

3. You know I am referring to the Christian Bible. Who is pretending now?

How is it 'my book'? if you mean the Scripture then say so. This is a Christians only forum, as such it should be our book. What is more if you have a passage of Scripture in mind try citing it with the book, chapter and verse as a reference and quote it. Otherwise, if it's not our book then what are you doing here?

5. Yes, there are things that go wrong with the brain. That doesn't mean helpful mutations don't exist. Again, favorable mutation is what allowed the brain to be the way it is. I don't think you understand how evolution works.

That is exactly what it means in the empirical sciences, it must be directly observed or demonstrated. Since 2001 human genome sequences have been available, new sequences are becoming available all the time. The only changes in brain related genes are resulting in a vast array of disease and disorder. To date, there has not been documented a single favorable trait in one of these genes recorded, even theoretically. I don't think you understand how an adaptive trait in a population works over time, which btw, is the very definition of evolution. That's because your still assuming they do because they must if God did not create the originally created kinds and supposition isn't science, it comes before the empirical data is examined.

I don't think you understand how Creation as essential doctrine works.

6. So your statement is saying be careful if you deny what I say because I am speaking the truth. Yet your truth seems to lay with in the imagined gaps of what we reasonably believe to be true.

Gaps are an apt description of the indels and the truth is they represent real world divergence in genomic comparisons of humans and chimps. What you are speaking are suppositional truths, generalities and pedantic condescending corrections of well established facts. You haven't said enough to even be right or wrong, your just talking in circles around the facts.

Why don't you try doing a little reading on the subject before you start correcting someone who has already has.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

1. Again, I don't think you understand how evolution/natural selection works. If an organism has a trait that allows it to be more adaptive to its surroundings it is more likely to survive and reproduce. Its offspring receive those traits because of genetics. Those offspring are better adapted to their environment and are more likely to survive and reproduce. So on and so on and so on. There are different kinds of mutations. You may want to look at a biology text book for more in depth explanation.

Again, I think it's obvious you don't understand how science works, there has to be a cause in order to produce the effect. You start off with condescending to me then you jump right to the beneficial trait already being there. You neglected, more likely you assumed, a favorable trait just showed up at random. That's not how evolution works and selection is really just an effect. What you are arguing is not evolutionary biology, nor is it scientific, what you are arguing is Darwinism. Science must have the cause, adaptive traits must be produced through molecular mechanisms and your arguing in circles around two assumptions.

The first assumption is for universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. The favorable trait emerged because it had to in order to avoid God as creator being the first cause. When I refuse to make the first assumption you automatically assume I'm ignorant. Both assumptions are fallacious.

2. Yes, it is tantamount to unicorns. You miss what I am saying entirely. I am telling you that everything about you is the result of mutations selected by nature. You seem to think that the brain exists as it is and can not be changed because mutations would be "bad". The brain came about because of mutations. All mutations are not "bad".

I'm only going to tell you this once more, this is a Christians only forum. What a Christian is on Christian forums is generally defined by the Nicene Creed if you ever bother to read the rules. In order to be a Christian you must be a creationist, even if your a theistic evolutionist. You have been duly warned.

Anyway, the mutations in the human brain (or the requisite genes) are always deleterious. I'm telling you that everything about you as a living organism is facilitated by genetic molecular mechanisms that work with clock work precision. Mutations can have beneficial effects but not in brain related genes and that is not my opinion, that is what decades of genetic researchers have demonstrated and directly observed.

3. I am talking about your long list of citations of the bible. I am not citing the bible. My original statement was that citing the bible does nothing to promote your argument on genetics.

It does when you are defending Creationism as essential Christian theism as it relates to universal common descent vs. special creation.

5. "*You're assuming." No the only assumption here is this: "I can't figure out how this happened, therefore, god."

No, I'm assuming nothing. God is a self evident, a priori fact?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

What is being assumed is exclusively naturalistic causes, I simply refuse to do that.

6. Well established facts. Like the ones established in peer reviewed papers? You are simply trying to poke holes in our understanding of evolution. You have provided no evidence that a god did anything.

I'm not trying to poke holes in anything, with regards to history the Genesis account of creation is far more reliable with regards to origins then any of the inductive sciences. Biology is about how living systems work and random mutations in highly conserved genes like the human brain are always deleterious.

Really this is all pointless. Even if every scientific theory was proved incorrect tomorrow, it would still not prove the existence of a Christian God.

It is pointless but not because of some genuine theory, hypothesis or law of science. The reason it is pointless is because you are arguing for and from Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and calling it evolution.

 

[Aman777]

Miles:>>You miss what I am saying entirely. I am telling you that everything about you is the result of mutations selected by nature.

Dear Miles, Not so. Your human intelligence was not obtained from mindless Nature, nor was it the result of mutations and long periods of time and Nature had nothing to do with it. It was made into Adam when he was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7 We are the descendants of Adam and NOT Cheeta. Adam was the FIRST made of all of the living creatures, long Before a single Chimp existed.

Miles:>>You seem to think that the brain exists as it is and can not be changed because mutations would be "bad". The brain came about because of mutations. All mutations are not "bad".

Adam has NO mutations. They are not necessary for humans who have inherited the superior intelligence of Adam. Adam had NO evolution to magically produce him from Chimp like ancestors, nor any other living creature. That's because evolution is simply adaptation within kinds.

Miles:>>3. I am talking about your long list of citations of the bible. I am not citing the bible. My original statement was that citing the bible does nothing to promote your argument on genetics.

Adam had the Human gene. Have you found it yet? IF not, then you are still probing in the dark for the knowledge which can be easily obtained from Genesis. The answer has been in front of mankind's nose for thousands of years now, but as typical with know it all men, he thinks he knows more than God.

In the end, everyone will see that God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Miles:>>Aman. How do you know we received our brains from Adam?

Dear Miles, We didn't receive our "brains" from Adam. We inherited our invisible, undetectable, human intelligence from Adam. The only way to get it is to inherit it from another set of humans. Can you show us How and When nature magically changed Apes intelligence into Human intelligence? Of course not but go ahead and try. We need a good laugh.

Miles:>>f Adam was real then how do you know he had no mutations?

Because Adam was made the 3rd Day, billions of years BEFORE life began in the water, on the 5th Day, some 3.7 billion years ago, in man's time, on our Planet.

Miles:>>"Adam had the Human gene. Have you found it yet?" What does this mean?

It means that only Humans have inherited the Human gene from Adam, the first Human. We received it directly from Noah's grandsons who married the people who were here when Noah arrived. Human intelligence can be traced to them.

Miles:>>Everything about you came from a mutation.

Dream on ol unbeliever. I can trace my ancestry to the first Human, Adam. IF you knew God's Truth, you could trace your ancestry to Adam, too. This would make it possible for you to quit telling people you're nothing but a mutated Chimp. You're better than that. Pick yourself up and act like a man.

In Love,
Aman

 

[mark kennedy]

We have the molecular mechanism. It is called genetics.

No, molecular biology focuses on the physical attributes of molecular mechanisms while genetics is more focused on traits. With the discovery of the DNA double helix the two disciplines were merged graduating genetics to a real world science. Always before genetics was more focused on effects rather then causes while molecular biology had the physical properties but could never clearly determine what they actually done.

It's that whole cause and effect thing that has defined natural science since the Scientific Revolution, get your terms straight.

Natural selection is not random. Mutation is random. You are assuming that the human brain is in its original state. I have said a few times now that the brain arose from mutations selected by natural selection. You are saying that mutations are bad for the brain. These two things can not both be true.

Natural selection acts on traits that are already there whether deleterious or beneficial. The vast majority of the time mutations don't have enough effect for selection to act. Mutations, aka random mutations are nothing more the copy errors which is a failure of DNA repair. There are a number of repair mechanisms and processes by which these mutations but on rare occasions they get through, you have about 175 of them in you.

You do keep saying that the brain was produced by chance mutations and the statement is utterly absurd. Mutations are deleterious if not lethal in every single case where they actually have an effect. There isn't one single case where a beneficial trait from a mutation was strong enough for selection to act, certainly not on an evolutionary scale.

It's called an a priori assumption, it's Darwinian logic and it's deeply flawed.

Evolution and the cause of the universe are different things. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

God created the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:25) by divine fiat. That is what I said in the OP and repeat every time the subject comes up.

In order to be a Christian you must be a creationist? So the only way to discuss something is to agree with you? That must be handy. Again with the threats.

In Christian Forums Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith. If you follow the link you will find this in their copy of the Nicene Creed:

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)​

If you go on the Unicorns Forum they will probably have a problem with you coming into the Unicornians only forum and arguing against Unicorn. On Christian forums, based on the opening line of the Nicene Creed, you are not allowed to come into a Christians only forum and argue against God as Creator as it is expressed in the Nicene Creed. You can be a theistic evolutionist, old earth creationist or a young earth creationist but one thing is required. You must be a Creationist in the sense of the Nicene Creed because all Christians must are Creationists in that sense.

Please show me the mountains of evidence that show that changes in the brain must always be negative. If a brain can not be mutated in a favorable way then how did it arise at the present state?

Go on Pub Med and try searching mutations and the human brain. When I did I got 27069 hits, here is the link. Pub Med

Now why don't you take a look and tell me if you can find a single beneficial effect from a brain related mutation. On the first page I got:

• New Single Nucleotide Deletion In the SMPD1 Gene Causes Niemann Pick Disease Type A in a Child from Southwest Iran: A Case Report.
• Clinical, biochemical, cellular and molecular characterization of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome due to novel mutations in the MPV17 gene.
• amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
• Brain white matter oedema due to ClC-2 chloride channel deficiency: an observational analytical study.
• Polymorphism in Human Heroin Abusers.
• Mutations in TNK2 in severe autosomal recessive infantile-onset epilepsy.
• Forward genetic screen for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor formation identifies new genes and pathways driving tumorigenesis.
• Tau pathology and neurodegeneration.
• Somatic alpha-synuclein mutations in Parkinson's disease: Hypothesis and preliminary data.
• Proteome-wide discovery of mislocated proteins in cancer.

How big of a mountain would you like?

No, I'm assuming nothing. God is a self evident, a priori fact?

No, it is not self evident.

Yes God is self existing, self evident and the glory of God is reflected in creation. God's divine attributes, eternal power and Godhead has been clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made according to Paul. Are you calling Paul a liar?

What is being assumed is exclusively naturalistic causes, I simply refuse to do that.

I know you refuse it. Besides natural causes what other evidence is there?

God acting in time and space is a cause.

You say you aren't trying to poke holes in anything. So we both agree that the available evidence is the best representation of the truth?

Scientific research has proven to be a reliable way to investigate natural phenomenon. It's a superior way of determining factual data based on direct observation and demonstration. It's not the only way to know anything like the divine nature of God and His eternal attributes. It is certainly limited in what it can determine with regards to the requisite miracles of the Christian faith especially things like the Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension and Creation of the universe and life which are all the same power of God exercised according to His good and perfect will. The best way to determine the truth is by receiving it from God through direct or indirect revelation which is truth in the absolute and eternal sense.

Indeed evidence indicates what the truth is but generalities are not especially helpful when examining empirically determined facts.

Are you saying that disproving a scientific idea does prove the existence of a god?

No, I'm saying God proves the existence of God through natural revelation and in the direct revelation witnessed to in the clear testimony of Scripture.

We actually are apes. So... we have ape brains. You suggest I believe in magic (I don't) and yet you say that the human mind is magical as it is invisible and undetectable. Can you show me where a mind exists with out a brain?

We are only apes if we share a common ancestor and that transition has not molecular basis with regards to the 3 fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. We do not have ape brains, we have human brains. If by 'magic' you been the supernatural power of God, of course I believe in it, all Christians do. The nebulous question about the mind being separate from the brian reeks of atheistic materialism and I'm not interested thanks.

How do you know Adam was made on the "third day"?

How do you know he wasn't? How do you know Jesus was raised from the dead? How do you know that Isaac was the result of God's power rather then some nebulous naturalistic explanation? What kind of a question is that?

The noah comment: Wait, there were people that were not killed that were not on the ark? I don't remember that part of the bible. Your argument here is since we are human therefore we came from Adam because Adam was human. You have not shown that Adam exists. SHOW THAT ADAM EXISTED.

Ok, first, do you believe the Bible?

I never said anyone was a mutated chimp. That is ridiculous. We are all mutants.

Nonsense, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between your genome and mine except for about 175 mutations.

Act like a man? Now you have reduced yourself to petty insults. This does nothing to forward your point.

I've answered you pedantic ad hominem attacks directly and thoroughly. I have not made a single personal remark let alone made petty insults a part of the argument. Why don't you stand up and defend your argument like someone who has the courage of their convictions.

Show me evidence for your beliefs if you want me to believe them.

If your a Christian I know what you believe, if your not we shouldn't be having this conversation. As far as what I believe about evolutionary biology as it pertains to natural history I have shown you the evidence. After a couple of posts you abandoned the substantive discussion and empirical evidence and resorted to ad hominem arguments. It's not my fault if you have nothing but fallacious arguments to fall back on.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Aman777]

Miles:>>We actually are apes. So... we have ape brains.

Dear Miles, YOU may be an Ape, but I'm descended from Adam, the first human. I'm a man. I changed from a cousin of Cheeta to a human when Noah's grandson's, like Cain on the first Earth, had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced offspring with the descendants of the sons of God (Prehistoric people) who were here when Noah arrived. Just as I am no longer a form of bacteria, I am no longer an Ape.

Notice where human civilization began. It was just south of the mountains of Ararat, in the vallies where the FIRST farmers planted their crops, and then built cities, developed writing, math, and all of the other traits of modern humans...PROVING...that we did NOT evolve our human intelligence from mindless Nature, but inherited it from Adam, through Noah.

Miles:>>You suggest I believe in magic (I don't) and yet you say that the human mind is magical as it is invisible and undetectable. Can you show me where a mind exists with out a brain?

On the computer screen you are reading from. It displays my mind to you, visually. Right? It's not you who believes in magic, but rather, evolution would have to be magic to be True.

Miles:>>How do you know Adam was made on the "third day"?

Genesis 2:4-7 tells us that Adam was made the SAME Day the Earth was made, which was the 3rd Day according to Gen. 1:9-10. It also reveals that other heavenS were made at the beginning of this 3rd Day. The first heaven was made the 2nd Day. Gen. 1:6-8

The other heavenS, include our Cosmos and the 3rd Heaven, were made the 3rd Day. The beginning of our Cosmos was some 13.7 Billion years ago in man's time, but the 3rd Day to God. That was 3 Days ago to God but 13.7 Billion years to mankind. This means that each of God's Days is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time.

Miles:>>The noah comment: Wait, there were people that were not killed that were not on the ark? I don't remember that part of the bible. Your argument here is since we are human therefore we came from Adam because Adam was human. You have not shown that Adam exists. SHOW THAT ADAM EXISTED.

Can you type? Do you know of any other creature, except a human, who can type, reason, and speak? ONLY humans, the people who are descended from Adam, have the human intelligence of Adam. Without Adam, you would still be swinging in the trees.

BTW, Adam's world was totally and completely destroyed in the Flood. Our world is still here. There has Never been a Global Flood on our Earth. It was the first world, made on the 2nd Day which was destroyed. Our Earth will be burned. All Christians will be with Jesus in the 3rd Heaven, forever.

Miles:>>I never said anyone was a mutated chimp. That is ridiculous. We are all mutants.

Not me. I'm a child of God, born of His Spirit, and destined to have dominion over every other living creature. That's because I'm NOT just another animal, but a descendant fo Adam, the first Human. Mutants are those who reject God. They are also called the lost.

Miles:>>Act like a man? Now you have reduced yourself to petty insults. This does nothing to forward your point.

It makes it more interesting. How long has it been since you talked to a Creationist who could show you that the TOE is nothing but a Lie?

In Love,
Aman
Show me evidence for your beliefs if you want me to believe them.

 

[Metal Minister]

2. You don't have to pretend that something unproven doesn't exist. I don't have to pretend that unicorns don't exist unless you can prove they do. The burden of proof is upon those trying to prove the existence of unicorns.

Actually unicorns DO exist. They look like this:

And even a guy on YouTube proved that THESE are what the bible is talking about. See more here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEUbqjzmycE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sorry Mark, hope I didn't derail your thread!

 

[mark kennedy]

Humans are classified into the ape family. I didn't make that call so don't get mad at me.

If and only if they have a common ancestor. To date I have yet to see the empirical evidence for a molecular basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes, therefore, I have concluded that it's pure supposition. Don't get mad at me, I'm not the one who told you to base your world view on secular naturalistic assumptions.

The location of the first known civilization does not prove that Adam existed. It shows that it is the location of the first known civilization. Nothing else.

Which would be Egypt which is in close proximity to where the Garden of Eden would have been. There was no civilization before that so you point is moot.

My screen is displaying what you are thinking. It is not your mind. Are you telling me that your brain is in your computer? Give me one example where a mind exists with no physical source.

I would have to depart my body in order to do that, it hardly seems likely you would find even that persuasive.

Quoting the bible proves nothing.

It does when you are arguing it as Christian Theology.

I am still curious about the Noah getting off the ark and finding people bit. Where is that in the bible because I do not remember that at all.

I don't know what your talking about and I'm not sure you do either.

Hold on. The first world? Are you telling me Noah's ark is a space ship?!

Now your just being silly.

Again show me that Adam exists. The fact that we are intelligent does not prove Adam exists. It proves we are intelligent.

It's going in circles and descending into smaller and smaller spirals. Do you have a point?

Show me that Adam exists. Quoting the bible proves nothing. Insults do not promote your point. Insults show you have no argument.

It does if you are a Bible believing Christian. Are you a Christian?

I'm guessing you accidentally quoted me on the last part where it says "Show me evidence for your beliefs if you want me to believe them".

If you say so.

How can you call yourself a Christian if you have not honestly assessed your beliefs in an objective way?

I have and I do. Now I would like to know if your a Christian, just tell me plainly because your not coming off as one. Just a brief profession of faith is all I ask.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[ChetSinger]

Just do this one thing and this one thing only. Prove that Adam existed. The bible is not proof. Being intelligent is not proof.

Hello Miles, and welcome to CF.

I see you're new here. Miles, this is one of the Christian-only subforums. If you're a professing Christian you're welcome to post here. But if you're not, there are two other origins-related forums that are open to all, regardless of beliefs.

They are:
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution

Cheers,
Chet

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not entirely sure why but scientists, highly reputable scientists and prestigious publications like Time, Nature and Scientific American have reported that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees.

The problem stems from our view of DNA as some kind of spooky magic that makes us each different.
DNA is for structure. We LOOK 99% similar so even 99.9 would not be startling to me.
Lets say that DNA is like a lego building block.

"I made my pupils aware of multiple intelligences through a practical situation: I gave each pupil the same number of Lego blocks and asked them to build a house. Once they finished, I made them notice that despite having the same material, every house created was different from the other."
http://www.pedagooogia3000.info/web/Files/P3000_English_book.pdf

 

[Aman777]

Miles:>>Humans are classified into the ape family. I didn't make that call so don't get mad at me.

Dear Miles, That is a man made classification system because today's Science is igornant of the true "kinds" made by the Hands of Jesus. We are NOT Ape kinds. We were made FIRST and not last. Quit relying on man's knowledge, and believe God's.

Miles:>>The location of the first known civilization does not prove that Adam existed. It shows that it is the location of the first known civilization. Nothing else.

ONLY humans build human houses, in case you were going to tell me about Termites, Ants, and other creatures who live in holes. This is because Agriculture promotes settling down instead of chasing animals in order to eat. For 99%+ of the time since man diverged from Chimps, we lived just like animals, and we would have continued that way forever.

SUDDENLY, Noah arrived and brought the human intelligence of the first FARMER, Adam, to this Planet of beings who began in the water some 3.7 Billion years ago.

It wasn't a Natural event, but a SuperNatural event which brought life into being. On the 5th Day God commanded that life be created and brought forth from the water. Gen. 1:21 EVERY living creature came forth from the water, including Chimps and their cousins. The cousins are the incorrectly classified as "human" by Science.

This creation from the water, happened on Adam's Earth "and also after that" on our Planet. Genesis 6:4 tells us that the combination of the sons of God and the daughters of man (Adam) produces mighty men, or humans. When Noah arrived, his grandsons had NO other humans to marry. Like Cain on Adam's Earth they married the descendants of the sons of God who came forth from the water on our Earth.

This is important because it shows that life will be found throughout our world. Where ever we find liquid water in our Cosmos, life will be found, because God commanded it to be so on the 5th Day. Humans are ONLY on our Earth because there was only ONE Ark. Our destiny is to have dominion or responsibility for EVERY living creature. Genesis 1:29

*********

Mies:>>My screen is displaying what you are thinking. It is not your mind. Are you telling me that your brain is in your computer? Give me one example where a mind exists with no physical source.

God is the best example. He's all around you and you don't even see Him.

Miles:>>Quoting the bible proves nothing.

Then WHY are you here in this Christian Forum?

Miles:>>I am still curious about the Noah getting off the ark and finding people bit. Where is that in the bible because I do not remember that at all.

It's the story of the Flood in Gen. 7 and 8. Noah was above the highest hills of Adam's Earth on the 150th day after the Flood began. Later, that SAME day, the Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. IOW, Noah and his 450 foot boat arrived in Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat, in Northern Mesopotamia, and brought the unique, superior, intelligence of Adam to our world.

Miles:>>Hold on. The first world? Are you telling me Noah's ark is a space ship?!

No. The Ark was in the first heaven or firmament. I view heavens as Universes or Boundaries of the 3 Universes within our Multiverse. The first heaven had a firmament or boundary which protected it from the water into which is was placed. Gen. 1:6-8 The first heaven was a Biosphere, which I believe was much smaller than our world, because it was floating in Lake Van. The Ark could NOT be a Spaceship since it was not protected from the Vacuum of Space.

Miles:>>Again show me that Adam exists. The fact that we are intelligent does not prove Adam exists. It proves we are intelligent.

The LORD tells us that Adam had become as one of US (The Trinity) knowing both good and evil. Gen. 3:22 ONLY God and man have the ability or higher intelligence necessary to know both good and evil. Animals are innocent and do NOT have this ability. That is WHY the sons of God (Prehistoric man) is NOT human, because he did NOT descend from Adam, who was made with a much higher intelligence level than ANY creature which evolved from the water, after they were created and brought forth on the 5th Day.

Miles:>>Show me that Adam exists. Quoting the bible proves nothing. Insults do not promote your point. Insults show you have no argument.

Sorry, but I've been insulted in every way possible. I suppose when I speak to someone who doesn't believe Scripture, I just naturally go into my fight mode. Evols really hate me because Scripture reveals that their TOE, is False.

Miles:>>I'm guessing you accidentally quoted me on the last part where it says "Show me evidence for your beliefs if you want me to believe them".

Correct. This shows that I am but a man full of errors.

Miles:>>How can you call yourself a Christian if you have not honestly assessed your beliefs in an objective way?

There is but one thing about a Christian which requires Faith, from God, and that is to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, His crucifixion for our sins, His burial and resurrection the third day, according to the Scriptures, which you don't like to discuss.

I call myself a Christian because God gave me the Faith to believe in Jesus and Jesus saw that I truly believed in Him, and He prayed the Father, and the Father sent His Spirit to live within me. Those who have NOT been born of His Spirit are NONE of His. Romans 8:9

Have YOU been born again?

In Love,
Aman

 

[mark kennedy]

The problem stems from our view of DNA as some kind of spooky magic that makes us each different.
DNA is for structure. We LOOK 99% similar so even 99.9 would not be startling to me.
Lets say that DNA is like a lego building block.

It depends on what sequence we are talking about. Protein coding genes are far more then some 'structure', they come in triplet codons that dictate and amino acid sequence, which is translated into proteins that build every aspect of life.

One base substitution and you can get a frameshift with devastating consequences.

"I made my pupils aware of multiple intelligences through a practical situation: I gave each pupil the same number of Lego blocks and asked them to build a house. Once they finished, I made them notice that despite having the same material, every house created was different from the other."

An interesting analogy, thanks for that.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

One base substitution and you can get a frameshift with devastating consequences.

We agree that a frameshift mutation causes often devastating consequences - but not always, right? After all, mutations usually have no effect, sometimes are harmful, and are less often lethal or beneficial. Frameshift mutations, like any other, can sometimes be beneficial.

I don't have data on the exact proportion of beneficial to harmful, so if you have data on what that proportion is, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

One base substitution and you can get a frameshift with devastating consequences

We agree that a frameshift mutation causes often devastating consequences - but not always, right? After all, mutations usually have no effect, sometimes are harmful, and are less often lethal or beneficial. Frameshift mutations, like any other, can sometimes be beneficial.

True as far as it goes, indeed most mutations are neutral because they don't effect how things function. In a protein coding gene the odds of it being beneficial are astronomical, yea it happens, but most often you are looking at a truncated protein. The famous nylon bug is said to be an example of this kind of beneficial effect from a random mutation, it even adapts the bacteria to eat nylon. When you look closely at the phenomenon the new stand does actually have a new sequence but something very interesting has happened, it came from another place in the genome. Basically the molecular mechanisms swapped out the reading frame. If I knew how I would be on a plane going to Stockholm to collect my million bucks and the prize for science.

There are other examples, some much better and more dramatic. What I would love to know is how the molecular mechanisms do this. Random mutations are the worst explanation in the long history of bad Darwinian explanations. This is especially significant when you are talking about genes as highly conserved as the ones in vital organs like the human brain.

I don't have data on the exact proportion of beneficial to harmful, so if you have data on what that proportion is, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Papias

You won't find statistics like that very often, the beneficial effect from a mutation in an open reading frame is so rare it's simply regarded as a phenomenon. When they do they are seldom of great enough effect to be adaptive and certainly not on an evolutionary scale. It happens but there has to be a better explanation then a copy error.

I found this one interesting and I've went back to it again and again:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against; a mutation that is deleterious or advantageous in a large population may be neutral in a small population, where random drift outweighs selection coefficients. (Rate of Spontaneous Mutations)​

If you decide to pursue this there are key concepts, the expression 'selective coefficients' is potent. Even an adaptive trait can be purged because of the cost of fixing a change. Anyone who has studied evolutionary biology knows that adaptations happen, that's a given. The biggest problem with hybrids, to use Darwin and Mendel's key interest, is that they have a strong tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. Darwin even called it the 'bane of horticulture' because hybrids are so often infertile. There was even an experiment where hybrids of the famous mustard plants (geneticists like doing knockout on them) reverted back to the grandparent form completely isolated. At any rate...

If you take an interest Paias let me know what you find and I'll gladly help you along the way if I get the opportunity. I don't think looking into the distant past will afford many insights for laymen such as us. My guess would be you should start somewhere closer to home.

Ask yourself this fundamental question, what species wild or domestic has shown adaptive evolutionary trends being fixed in the DNA sequences? If you come up with something let me know what you find.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

Mark,
Since beneficial mutations was brought up, can you name some? I've never heard of any, other than some trying to pass off Sickle Cell Anemia as a beneficial mutation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,
Since beneficial mutations was brought up, can you name some? I've never heard of any, other than some trying to pass off Sickle Cell Anemia as a beneficial mutation.

Well the Nylon Bug is a common example but there might be something else going on there. The fact is that mutations with beneficial effects from mutations are rare, they happen but tracking down the particulars is tedious at best. Sickle Cell isn't really a benefit, it only persists because it offers some resistance to malaria and only because the blood cells are deformed and move slower, slowing the spread.

I have seen very little to convince me that beneficial mutations are an answer to adaptive evolution. The best explanation available is that molecular mechanisms were front loaded at creation, triggers cause adaptations not copy errors.

It's not an example of a beneficial mutation but there is this arctic fish, evolutionists on here have shown no interest in it whatsoever. Both in the northern and southern arctic regions these independent populations developed this gene that creates a protein that acts like antifreeze. I emphasis, these are brand new genes developed independently. They are simple repeats but they are not modified genes. Why this doesn't create a flurry of posts in these debate forums is a mystery to me, real world adaptive evolution is happening and they want to talk about retroviruses, old bones and dirt.

If you want to learn more about adaptive evolution mutations are a dead end, I see no relevance in these copy errors being responsible for much along these lines. What you would be looking for are fully developed molecular mechanisms that are triggered by the environment and can be heritable.

That brings you to a very interesting twist in the semantics. When there is any change in the DNA sequence it's called a mutation. Like the term, 'evolution' itself you have to discern between a copy error and a purposeful change. If evolutionists were being straightforward they would have to admit that most adaptations are fixed without any need for rewriting the genetic code and that copy errors rarely have anything to do with it. This would be openly admitting that the molecular mechanisms were originally created fully formed. That's why they have to equivocate mutations as copy errors and adaptive evolution on a molecular basis.

I did see one very interesting example years ago I thought was fascinating. There is something called 'functional constraint', it's kind of the quality checks mechanisms that repair DNA. The only time, according to this one paper, they allow the functional constraint to be relaxed is when it makes them better capable of screening mutations.

Papias actually had a pretty dramatic array of beneficial effects that not only occurred in bacteria but after a lot of generations they outnumbered the negative effects. It was after something like 50,000 generations so I didn't find it all that impressive but believe it or not they do happen, just finding one on an evolutionary scale is a monumental task. If they had an example, believe me, we would be hearing about it almost constantly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

Cool, thanks!

 

[SkyWriting]

It depends on what sequence we are talking about. Protein coding genes are far more then some 'structure', they come in triplet codons that dictate and amino acid sequence, which is translated into proteins that build every aspect of life.

One base substitution and you can get a frameshift with devastating consequences.



An interesting analogy, thanks for that.

Lego's have similar characteristics.
Small changes may or may not cause mayhem.