Similarity of human and chimp DNA is down.

[Zaius137]

“If you were a designer with a thimble of sense, why would you change a perfectly functional design to something that produces the exact same result?”

You might ask what was in the mind of the designer. Does a four cylinder engine push a car down the road the same way a six cylinder engine does? In a sense yes but one may belong to small car and the other to a larger car or even the same model. Without knowing the complete function of this amazingly designed DNA how can anyone answer that? But of course when evolutionists first looked at these none coding sections they just assumed they were junk DNA. Amazing how information can change some one’s explanation.

You are again speaking from that same old paradigm.

 

[Loudmouth]

Without knowing the complete function of this amazingly designed DNA how can anyone answer that?

We know that replacing yeast genes with human genes does not change the yeast at all. The human gene provides the same exact function as the yeast gene. However, the genes are only 70% similar. So why would a designer rewrite an entire gene to provide the same exact function? Why wouldn't a designer use the same sequence in both?

But of course when evolutionists first looked at these none coding sections they just assumed they were junk DNA. Amazing how information can change some one’s explanation.

Regulatory regions were not considered junk. Perhaps you are thinking of pseudogenes?

 

[Zaius137]

It does however provide an explanation for the origin of variability within the created kinds in the biblical creation model. In this model, the information content of genes is conserved, while certain regulatory changes bring about changes in gene expression.


“And here, he basically says that enhancer evolution does work. Since morphologically and genetically speaking, we're well within the "ape kind" (unless domestic dogs are several different kinds...), your "did you read???!!11!!!" source appears to be on my side ”

Sorry but the author is not speaking about evolution of any kind here. Take note the author only refers to adaptation. Information is conserved, expression is changed. This is just typical with what I am up against when I try to reason with you. Excuse me do you see “biblical creation model” in this sentence? I am continually amazed how evolutionists can turn things inside out without even flinching.

 

[Zaius137]

“We know that replacing yeast genes with human genes does not change the yeast at all. The human gene provides the same exact function as the yeast gene. However, the genes are only 70% similar. So why would a designer rewrite an entire gene to provide the same exact function? Why wouldn't a designer use the same sequence in both?”

Ok Loudmouth where is the citation you left out?

 

[Loudmouth]

“We know that replacing yeast genes with human genes does not change the yeast at all. The human gene provides the same exact function as the yeast gene. However, the genes are only 70% similar. So why would a designer rewrite an entire gene to provide the same exact function? Why wouldn't a designer use the same sequence in both?”

Ok Loudmouth where is the citation you left out?

"With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986)."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

So why rewrite a gene to serve the same function in different species? Also, why have it so that these genes fall into the expected nested hierarchy that would be produced by evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry but the author is not speaking about evolution of any kind here. Take note the author only refers to adaptation.

How are they different?

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry but the author is not speaking about evolution of any kind here. Take note the author only refers to adaptation. Information is conserved, expression is changed. This is just typical with what I am up against when I try to reason with you. Excuse me do you see “biblical creation model” in this sentence? I am continually amazed how evolutionists can turn things inside out without even flinching

To all creationists:

FOR PETE'S SAKE, STOP REDEFINING EVOLUTION!

Adaptation is a possible outcome of evolution. However you dress it up, evolution is exactly what he is talking about.

(By the way, since when does a change in gene expression conserve information?)

 

[cupid dave]

“We know that replacing yeast genes with human genes does not change the yeast at all. The human gene provides the same exact function as the yeast gene. However, the genes are only 70% similar. So why would a designer rewrite an entire gene to provide the same exact function? Why wouldn't a designer use the same sequence in both?”

Ok Loudmouth where is the citation you left out?

That science and the Bible are compatible seems verified bythe analogous statements in the book taken on faith for so long, and the science we hold to today.



(1) Adam, (an eponym for a whole species concurrent with Ramaphitecus Man and Sahelanthropus tchadensis).
(2) Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus)
(3) Enoch, (Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy).
(4) Irad (a species concurrent with Australopithecus boisei).
(5) Mehujael (species concurrent with Australopithecus robustus).
(6) Methusael (Homo ergaster, Early Homo erectus).
(7) Lamech (Homo antecessor, and “the daughters of men&#8221
The story was covered in - Discover Dec. 1997 issue.
Homo antecessor is likely a direct ancestor of Modern Homo sapiens, living 750,000 years ago and evolving into Homo heidelbergensis.
(8) Jabal, (Heidelbergensis Neanderthal)
appearing in the fossil record living roughly 600,000 to 250,000 years ago
(9) Jubal (H. neanderthal).
(10) Tubal-cain, (H. floriensis, nicknamed Hobbit, existed up until 18kya.)

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J. Sawyer, Viktor Deak
Hardcover, 256 pages
Published June 28th 2007 by Yale University Press

12) Homo sapiens
11) Homo antecessor: Homo antecessor is the last common ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens.
10) Homo Heidelbergensis
9) Homo erectus, a species concurrent with Modern Homo erectus: Europe, China, SE Asia H. Erectus
8) Homo ergaster: Africa H. Erectus
7) Homo habilis*
6) a species concurrent with Homo rudolfensis
5) a species concurrent with Australopithecus boisei
4) Australopithecus africanus*
3) a species concurrent with Australopithecus aethiopicus
2) Australopithecus afarensis*/Australopithecus anamensis
1) Ardipithecus ramidus



*http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html

 

[Loudmouth]

That science and the Bible are compatible seems verified bythe analogous statements in the book taken on faith for so long, and the science we hold to today.

With that amount of ad hockery I could make the Bible consistent with anything.

 

[Naraoia]

You might ask what was in the mind of the designer.

If a hypothesis can explain any possible evidence, it doesn't explain anything.

Does a four cylinder engine push a car down the road the same way a six cylinder engine does? In a sense yes but one may belong to small car and the other to a larger car or even the same model. Without knowing the complete function of this amazingly designed DNA how can anyone answer that?

Oh, the you don't know everything argument. Until you show how the function of the stripe 2 enhancer does differ among these fruit flies, that is nothing more than daydreaming. Seeing as all the actual evidence we have suggests that they do the same job in all of them.

Moreover, please see Ludwig and Kreitman (1995), which discusses stripe 2 enhancer variation within species. Variation that is consistent with neutral evolution, i.e. no difference in function. Same model, different engine, same performance...?

 

[cupid dave]

With that amount of ad hockery I could make the Bible consistent with anything.

So the alternative is to make it intentionally inconsistent with the facts?

My general thrust is to show that we CAN make it consistent, so why not do so?

 

[Loudmouth]

So the alternative is to make it intentionally inconsistent with the facts?

Or understand that metaphors and allegories are not meant to be consistent with facts. They are meant to convey philosophical and theological tenets.

My general thrust is to show that we CAN make it consistent, so why not do so?

In doing so you have only shown that you can twist scripture to fit any situation.

 

[sfs]

So the alternative is to make it intentionally inconsistent with the facts?

No, the alternative is to try to understand the text in the cultural context in which it was written. Consistency with the facts can take care of itself.

My general thrust is to show that we CAN make it consistent, so why not do so?

Because any set of words can be made consistent with any set of facts, if you're willing to allow arbitrary meanings. That means that any text can be made consistent with an infinite set of possible facts, and also be made inconsistent with the same set. The result is that the text doesn't mean anything at all.

"I cannot combine some characters -- "dhcmrlchtj" -- which the divine Library has not foreseen and which in one of its secret tongues do not contain a terrible meaning. No one can articulate a syllable which is not filled with tenderness and fear, which is not, in one of these languages, the powerful name of a god. To speak is to fall into tautology... (An n number of possible languages use the same vocabulary; in some of them, the symbol library allows the correct definition of a ubiquitous and lasting system of hexagonal galleries, but library is bread or pyramid or anything else, and these seven words which define it have another value. You who read me, are You sure of understanding my language?)"

"The Library of Babel", Jorge Luis Borges

 

[Zaius137]

“No, the alternative is to try to understand the text in the cultural context in which it was written. Consistency with the facts can take care of itself.”

What happened to evolution? That’s Funny!

 

[SLP]

3.84% is a much higher percentage of divergence than is published in peer reviewed articles. Obviously, this method will always return a lower percentage of similarity than a base-to-base comparison of aligned sequence.

It is a very sleazily dishonest method, I think dreamed up for the sole purpose of trying to shore up flimsy "we are specially created" platitudes.