- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 3,999
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
In searching for an old post I had made, I came across an exchange containing some rather, shall we say, interesting claims by a YEC.
A certain YEC had started a thread claiming to demolish the claims of a close genetic identity between chimps and humans. His bread and butter claim was laid out here:
I replied:
The YEC never really responded to me in that thread, so I brought it up in another thread, where this exchange took place :
I later found that the YEC had plagiarized the description of the genes he had built his case on from YahooAnswers... Which was denied...
Such is life as a YEC...
A certain YEC had started a thread claiming to demolish the claims of a close genetic identity between chimps and humans. His bread and butter claim was laid out here:
What it ACTUALLY shows is some semblance of similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.
If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted pre-conceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....
Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...
Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long
Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.
The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.
Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!
Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric.
If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted pre-conceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....
Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...
Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long
Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.
The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.
Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!
Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric.
I replied:
Had you considered the possibility that those 'same genes' were not sequenced to the same extent?
[...]
I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).
[...]
I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).
The YEC never really responded to me in that thread, so I brought it up in another thread, where this exchange took place :
YEC:Now whether or not the "disparate lengths" were due to not being equally sequenced (which they obviously are not)
ME:
Really? How do you know that?
YEC:
Because they contain a different number of base pairs (thus not equal)....
ME:
Really? How do you know that?
YEC:
Because they contain a different number of base pairs (thus not equal)....
I later found that the YEC had plagiarized the description of the genes he had built his case on from YahooAnswers... Which was denied...
Such is life as a YEC...
