Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's actually an interesting thought and I've tried. Whole genome sequences are not that easy to come by. I've always wanted to see comparisons of arctic wild like, especially bears and wolves. Still no luck and it's been a while since I seriously researched this stuff.
As far as direct comparisons to the human genome to the chimpanzee genome the idels are massive. Highly conserved brain related genes would have had to accept major overhauls are be built from scratch. The most basic concept behind the inductive approach to science is one of cause and effect relationships. When it comes to brain related genes mutations are a wrong answer, that much I'm 100% sure of.
I was giving an example of the false assumptions of the ToE which are being force taught to children all over the world. Humans are NOT descended from Apes.
The sons of God (prehistoric people) did descend from the common ancestor of Apes according to Genesis 1:21 which shows their creation from WATER. Humans (descendants of Adam) were formed from the dust of the GROUND.
But... 3 decades of scientific reading and subscriptions to Science and Nature...I'm willing to bet (turn of phrase, not literally - I don't bet) he hasn't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
what are you talking about? see here:
Distinctive structures between chimpanzee and humanin a brain noncoding RNA
"HARs: 18 substitutions occurred since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, whereas HAR1 is well conserved across other amniotes with only 2 nucleotide (nt) changes between chicken and chimpanzee"
Ugh, that was even worse than I thought. I'll correctly your misunderstanding in a bit.what are you talking about? see here:
Distinctive structures between chimpanzee and humanin a brain noncoding RNA
"HARs: 18 substitutions occurred since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, whereas HAR1 is well conserved across other amniotes with only 2 nucleotide (nt) changes between chicken and chimpanzee"
You're not parroting that garbage from ICR's Brian Thomas, are you?
what are you talking about? see here:
Distinctive structures between chimpanzee and humanin a brain noncoding RNA
"HARs: 18 substitutions occurred since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, whereas HAR1 is well conserved across other amniotes with only 2 nucleotide (nt) changes between chicken and chimpanzee"
I guess there's reading... and there's understanding ¯\_(ツ)_/¯But... 3 decades of scientific reading and subscriptions to Science and Nature...
You can try here:
Home - Genome - NCBI
But there is really no need to wait until entire genomes are available. Nearly any pair of kinds you can imagine have at least many kilobases (I imagine) of available sequence to compare.
The bonobo and common chimp genomes are available.
Odd that people who do this type of research for a living disagree.
Oh I don't know, ye shall be as gods was a pretty big one. They think this is something modern but there is nothing new under the sun (Romans 1:22; Acts 17:28). I've been going over their evidence for years and found them less then convincing to put it mildly. The logic is flawed and the evidence is contrived, not that the artifacts and scientific observations are nonexistent, just that their arguments based on them don't line up with actual evidence.
Grace and peace,
Mark
This does not follow from what I wrote.
Some creationists may well have better understanding on specific issues, but I can, without hesitation, say that none that I have encountered do, and without question none on here do.
What assumptions are you talking about?
Your falsifying evidence is...?
Evidence for this?
-_- real weaknesses exist in all scientific theories. However, at least 97% of the "weaknesses" of evolution I hear creationists mention aren't real ones, but rather the result of not understanding the theory in the first place.Amen. When you actually show the weakness of the false ToE, they call you names and imply that your are either uneducated or crazy. Such is the world's opinion, today. God Bless you
-_- real weaknesses exist in all scientific theories. However, at least 97% of the "weaknesses" of evolution I hear creationists mention aren't real ones, but rather the result of not understanding the theory in the first place.
For example, people claiming that beneficial mutations never happen. They measurably happen, and what mutations are beneficial and detrimental can depend greatly on the environment in which a population lives, and it is not uncommon for a mutation to have both beneficial and detrimental consequences.
I'll never call or imply that someone is crazy on this site, because that'd definitely get me banned and doing it does not help in debates. However, I will call someone out on their ignorance if they persist in their ignorance (they've been shown how their argument is based on misunderstanding the material in question, but they insist on continuing to use the argument anyways). I won't tolerate quote mining at all, because it is a dishonest debate tactic.
1. it wasn't a lot of beneficial mutations, when it comes to intelligence specifically, most of the responsibility is mutations that rendered functional genes non-functional. Namely, a gene that helped control cell division in brain cells, and one for the formation of a jaw muscle. Without the former, organisms within the human lineage had their brains grow at an extreme rate, which lead not only to increased intelligence, but an increase in brain cancer risk. It just so happens that the benefit of increased intelligence outweighed the detriment of cancer being more common in the population. Without the latter, the skull size was less restricted, as the jaw muscle in question made skull growth limited as a physical barrier. This allowed more space for a larger brain, with the consequence of resulting in weaker jaws as well.Science teaches that evolution has no direction but can be effected by the environment. Can you explain Why evolution lined up many many positive mutations in order to produce superior intelligence in Apes since it would take zillions of them to produce an intelligence like God's in Apes?
Again there is no such thing as a theory of evolution, it's a phenomenon in nature and no one disputes that. Equivocating evolution with the naturalistic assumptions of atheistic materialists is the core weakness of the argument.Amen. When you actually show the weakness of the false ToE, they call you names and imply that your are either uneducated or crazy. Such is the world's opinion, today. God Bless you
1. it wasn't a lot of beneficial mutations, when it comes to intelligence specifically, most of the responsibility is mutations that rendered functional genes non-functional. Namely, a gene that helped control cell division in brain cells, and one for the formation of a jaw muscle. Without the former, organisms within the human lineage had their brains grow at an extreme rate, which lead not only to increased intelligence, but an increase in brain cancer risk. It just so happens that the benefit of increased intelligence outweighed the detriment of cancer being more common in the population. Without the latter, the skull size was less restricted, as the jaw muscle in question made skull growth limited as a physical barrier. This allowed more space for a larger brain, with the consequence of resulting in weaker jaws as well.
2. Our intelligence isn't like a god's, especially not like the Christian god's. This being is supposedly omniscient; something physically impossible for a human to even be close to, even if one had access to books which contained all there is to know. We can't remember enough information, no matter how much time we'd have to read and memorize.
i never said that the chimp genome is colser to the chicken then to human.OK...
Let me try to explain this...
What that line is indicating is that when comparing HAR1 among many organisms ("They first scanned regions of the chimpanzee genome with at least 96% identity over 100 base pairs (bp) with the orthologous regions in mouse and rat. In each of the 35,000 such regions, they examined the orthologous segments in all available amniotes, including chicken, opossum, and platypus."), they found only 2 differences BETWEEN chimp and chicken. And what of the rat, mouse, opossum, and platypus (and, although it is not clear in my brief reading of the paper, apparently many more as they refer to 'all available amniotes')?
No differences.
That quote does not mean what you think it does.
but i never said that chimp genome is closer to the chicken one.Now that I'm back on my computer I can make a proper comment.
When analysis of the chimpanzee and human male-specific Y chromosome (MSY) showed that they were as divergent as the entire genomes of human chickens, the ICR's Brian Thomas, M.S. wrote an article with this dishonest headline:
Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?
Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps? | The Institute for Creation Research
That is what I thought you were referring to. Having read your reply, I see it's much worse.
As @tas8831 pointed out, the mention of chickens is because the analysis of amniote genomes compared the HAR1 region and there was 2 nucleotide changes over the ~310 million years since hominids and birds shared a common ancestor while there have been 18 changes in the ~6 million years since humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor. The analysis had nothing to do with how close humans and chickens were.
They know that, it's a distraction from the burden of proof. The HAR1f regulatory gene is different by two nucleotides as compared between the chimpanzee and chicken representing over 300 million years of natural history. Then two million years ago it takes on 18 substitutions in a highly conserved brain related developmental gene. It is one of a long list of highly conserved genes that would have either had to undergo impossible transformations or be built from the ground up. This doesn't happen in reality, so they are left with diversions.i never said that the chimp genome is colser to the chicken then to human.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?