Scientific literature on Human Evolution.

[mark kennedy]

As many times as I have challenged evolutionists with these questions I have never asked creationists for their thoughts. I was wondering if anyone is interested in discussing these three papers and some of the other scientific literature surronding human evolution.

Let us ponder the the most signifigant questions confronting the single common ancestor model in our day. What makes us human? (Nature 437, 69-87 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Genome Research 14:1462-1473)

Currently I am involved in a pretty elaborate Bible study project so I don't really have time for the Creation/evolution thing right now. I was just curious if creationists on here were interested in looking at some of the scientific papers I have used in my debates.

If you are I would love to hear your thoughts, if not no big deal, you can go in peace and let this thread sink into the stacks. It just occured to me the only people I have not asked about these papers are YECs, strange really but I rarely get a chance to discuss scientific literature with creationists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. The poll is only for my general interest, there is no right or wrong way to answer the question. If you are uncomfortable with the choices offered then please feel free to elaborate at any length.

 

[keyarch]

The papers look interesting, but are also a little too technical for someone with limited science and chemistry education. I like to use these kinds of papers for reference, but it's not part of my every day reading and it would take me quite some time to get thru them.

 

[mark kennedy]

The papers look interesting, but are also a little too technical for someone with limited science and chemistry education. I like to use these kinds of papers for reference, but it's not part of my every day reading and it would take me quite some time to get thru them.

The abstracts are generally not all that technical but they can be a little tedious. The main points are that modern science does not have a genetic mechanism for an ape brian to triple in size, plain and simple. There is also the problem if identifying traits that make humans distinct from apes. Think about it, the human brain is remarkably unique as compared to chimpanzees.

If you really think about it you could come up with a long list of differences but the most dramatic would be the human brain. From the first line of the first abstract:

"The size of human brain tripled over a period of 2 million years (MY) that ended 0.2–0.4 MY ago. This evolutionary expansion is believed to be important to the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions, yet its genetic basis remains unknown."

It not only would have to get bigger but denser and much more sophisticated. The liver would have to undergo dramatic adaptive evolutionary changes as well and this has to happen in a very brief period of time.

One other little tid bit, in the title it mentions the ASPM gene. That is a genetic defect that results in an abnormal spindle in the chromosomes and a greatly reduced brain size. After extensive research Bruce Lahn admitted that it is hard to imagine a reduced brian could provide a selective advantage.

Thank you for your interest,
Mark

 

[savedandhappy1]

Mark, I was just getting ready to start a thread about some of what you are asking, so thought I would just put it here. If you would prefer not let me know and I will remove it.


And God said,
Let Us make Man ('adam) in Our image,
after Our likeness.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind,
and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
And God said,
Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle,
and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Genesis 1:25-26)

Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. "What is it in that other 1.6 percent that makes us different from them?
That's the critical question," said de Waal, a renowned primatologist."If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions." (from http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/aaa/marksaaa99.htm) "Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human? Another good example is that during the sixties, American doctors tried to use chimpanzee organs for transplants in humans, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. ... An interesting footnote that shows how complex this issue really is, ... humans differed from most other animals, including chimpanzees, in a small but possibly vital way. In most animals, the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecues called sialic acid. In humans, a genetic mutation means this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. Proteins and membrane lipids that have sialic acid take part in many processes. They help cells stick to one another. They may also play a part in disease susceptibility. This might be a reason why Chimpanzees seem far less suspeceptible for infectious diseases like malaria and cholera. ... This might be one factor in those chimp to human transplants in which organs were rejected." (from http://www.fromlondon.freeserve.co.uk/cuchimpdna.html)
A more recent "Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions." ref: Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13

Didn't copy all of article because of copywrite laws, so here is the link.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/image.html
​

 

[laptoppop]

I voted beyond my comprehension because I have never taken the time to go in depth like I would like to on genetics/dna/etc. In terms of creationism, I have focused much more on the geological and other aspects. I can usually grasp what is being discussed, but the details are often beyond where I have studied. However, I totally grasp your basic arguments, and they seem quite sound.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, I was just getting ready to start a thread about some of what you are asking, so thought I would just put it here. If you would prefer not let me know and I will remove it.

It's fine that you offered some of the resources you found important. This is an exciting area of research for a Creationist and there is a growing interest in genetics among Creationists. I would be interested in taking a look at the thread you are starting if you wouldn't mind my participation here and there. You would be amazed at how much the evolutionists can teach you about the life sciences, even though they probably think you are nuts.

I had seen the article before and the general principles are sound enough. There are a couple of things I would point out though. First of all the Human and Ape DNA matches up in pairwise comparisions in roughly 96% of the base pairs. That is down about 100 million base pairs from 5-10 years ago and really sends the evolutionists scrambling. Also the genomes of the Chimpanzee and Human DNA are pretty close to the same number of base pairs.

Don't get me wrong, human genetics is unique and no self respecting geneticist would deny that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I voted beyond my comprehension because I have never taken the time to go in depth like I would like to on genetics/dna/etc. In terms of creationism, I have focused much more on the geological and other aspects. I can usually grasp what is being discussed, but the details are often beyond where I have studied. However, I totally grasp your basic arguments, and they seem quite sound.

The life sciences are as deep as the ocean and I am firmly convinced that they are not in conflict with the Scriptures. It has been a source of considerable of fascination for me personally that genetics contradicts Darwinian philosophies at every turn.

I do have a tendancy to go into some pretty technical discussions but I try to make my posts readable at least. I never really thought that real science was an obstacle for Creationism just the worldly arguments of science falsely so called.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[savedandhappy1]

It's fine that you offered some of the resources you found important. This is an exciting area of research for a Creationist and there is a growing interest in genetics among Creationists. I would be interested in taking a look at the thread you are starting if you wouldn't mind my participation here and there. You would be amazed at how much the evolutionists can teach you about the life sciences, even though they probably think you are nuts.

I had seen the article before and the general principles are sound enough. There are a couple of things I would point out though. First of all the Human and Ape DNA matches up in pairwise comparisions in roughly 96% of the base pairs. That is down about 100 million base pairs from 5-10 years ago and really sends the evolutionists scrambling. Also the genomes of the Chimpanzee and Human DNA are pretty close to the same number of base pairs.

Don't get me wrong, human genetics is unique and no self respecting geneticist would deny that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mark,

I don't understand alot of this stuff, if it isn't put into a general terms. Well that probably isn't the best way to state it. What I mean is if I have to look up all the big words by the time I finish reading I have no idea what I read.

I sometimes think that some people, no all, but some just use the big words to try and make themselves seem smarter then maybe they are.

When I was taking classes for Radiology the teacher that taught Physics could only explain what we were studying one way. If you didn't understand what he was trying to teach, and ask a question, he would just repeat what he said. Same words as before and just as fast as he had said it before. I kept telling myself that he knew what he was talking about, he just wasn't able to teach it on any level but his level. Anyone who hadn't studied Physics before had no idea what he was saying, and I was one of them.

I was studying some on this before, and thought it was so funny to find out that we are about the same as a bananna when it comes to DNA. That totally explains everything since we came from monkeys.

Everytime I read articles like the one I posted here, and yours, I hear a small voice inside me say, well of course the DNA's have alot in common. It was the same creator wasn't it? When I have mentioned that to those who know and understand the scientific areas better then me, they just laugh. I don't understand why that shouldn't be considered if they really do believe that God is the creator.

Anyhow I will start a thread about this article and see what comes of it. I hope I can get them to keep it simple.

God Bless.
​