For Papias...
I read four sections of the article so far (the initial article was more TalkOrigins usual propaganda conveniently not indicating all sides of the story). I would throw most of section 3 into the trash or classify it as Sci-Fi or creative scientific speculation and nothing more. I would like to say that it is by far better and demonstrates greater intellectual integrity to explore all sides of a given issue and always consider the arguments opposition opinion suggests seriously. Stereotypically lumping all who disagree into the same box does not prove one's points for which there may be no proof extant at this time (and I am guilty of this at times myself).
The genomes of men and ape-kind have been sequenced. Form this it has become apparent that the chimp genome is clearly not as closely related to the human genome as believed (for many reasons) and yet it is still pushed by the Darwinian community into classroom curriculum content as an obvious truth this can only hinder the discovery of actual truth. Simply disregarding scientists or evidence which indicates a favored theory or hypothesis may be incorrect in part or in whole is also contrary to the pursuit of truth (sadly a human problem that cannot always be avoided).
Now then, in 2002 molecular Biologist Roy Britten showed the genomes' sequences differed by at least 5% percent instead of the 1-2% percent usually propagated (now that figure has grown to more like 6%). He called the neo-Darwinian view “the old saw” view and indicates their position was possibly deceptive or at best uninformed.
http://ftp.genome.washington.edu/RM/RepeatMasker.html
It has been reported elsewhere that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes no apes contain, and now we find that of the 244 newly discovered (last year) microRNA genes, 10% are unique to humans (not found in any other organism). Chimps also have their own unique microRNA genes not found in any humans. Apparently, this "junk" might actually make the unique creature.
What this tells us is though the chimp and/or gorilla may be (may be’s never equal IS) our closest living relatives, evidence is accumulating which shows we most probably (most probably’s do not equal IS) do not have a common ancestor with the chimp. Even among the so called 24,000 “useful” genes there are no less than 1400 distinct differences between the human and ape genomes (not counting the many other differences within the so-called junk sections). We have no concept whatsoever of the vast differences in form and function that even just these genes do make or how they define or reflect on the assumption by consensus of common descent as neo-Darwinians define it. These issues do not even address the additional difference in basic chromosomal structure required to propagate…in the chromosomes it appears ape-kind may have evolved from human kind (depending if one interprets the differences by the concept of loss or gain…but maybe…just maybe…the forbidden possibility could be true and in fact each was always unique and separate from the time each suddenly appeared in the geological column of history)
Researchers below paid special attention to these discrepancies in gene numbers between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method, these scientists focused on 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) that Chimps do not have. Others have numbered such 729 differences. Plus we know without doubt that chimps have 86 genes that humans simply do not have.
Now again, neo-Darwinians interpret the genes chimps lack as having been “lost” since divergence, some others see the additional human genes as having been “gained” via micro evolutionary changes, but we really do not know that? No…in fact both of these are total assumption based interpretations so the facts (that they are possibly not even related creatures) fits the predetermined theory. Thus these ideas of loss or gain are interpolations (and in my opinion that taints the conclusion one can actually deduce…though I am sure it is usually not done intentionally since after all they went into the studies previously convinced by their mentors in school that the theory is correct, which unfortunately has biased the interpretation of much data). An example of such a biased interpretation is seen clearly at
Human-chimp difference may be bigger
The over 24 human only microRNA genes present only in humans (that help code for and produce the form we call human) do not exist in ape-kind. Their set of these kinds of genetic material is totally different than that found in humans, and one could not exist within the other without major disturbance. There is zero (zilch, nada) evidence to suggest one was an evolvement of the other but that is what is suggested in standardized text books…I would suggest however all these students at his juncture (you may like them as well) should read some of the articles written by L.H. Caporale and others who show the genome more likely supports an anti-randomness position and a convergent evolutionary hypothesis as far as evolution theory (which Caporale supports) is concerned.
Much to her surprise, her work suggests punctuated equilibria as the most viable explanation based purely on the evidence (a notion she never suspected would be biologically indicated). That does not say or mean randomness does not occur, just that it is not the causative event of what we see at this time (outside of interpretation made to fit the theory). Now understand this, Caporale is not an ID scientist (though there are many who are, including Lander, the scientist who discovered and first mapped the genome from Whitehead (Broad) Institute here in Cambridge). This evidence suggests the sudden appearance of unique gene sets. This disputes the idea of gradual gain and/or loss based on the process of mutation and natural selection (as Darwin would have defined it) just as the sudden appearance in the geological column of new creatures refutes Darwinian gradualism on that level.
Another interesting article that places Talk Origins in a questionable light can be found in Science, Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution, by Wake, Wake, and Specht (February 2011, Vol. 331 no. 6020 pp. 1032-1035), who also found evidence for a convergent evolution of new unique types of Genomes, which again contradicts the previous general assumption which colored previous interpretations. In Nomogenesis, pg.406, author Leo Borg writes "The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard." This, if eventually proven to be correct (an opinion Borg himself does not support at this time), would demonstrate our ancestor was only human and not related to ape-kind at all. Each therefore being a unique “suddenly appearing” line of genetic descent. Similarity (usually associated and called homology) therefore would be evolving simultaneously in distinctly different taxa, and not because they are related or came from one another.
Now as I said, Borg does not support this opinion, but at least he does not try and just disregard the mounting evidence and growing opinion demonstrating this possibility as if it were some creationist notion, but as a rational scientist he treats it (as all honest objective scientists should) as equally plausible scientific evidence that must be explored further even if this shows the previous theory to be revised. Borg knows we do not have the answer in common descent as the end all established fact! It is however the most commonly accepted interpretation at this time, but we must not forget the indirect programming one receives by this “old saw” as being essential to passing one’s courses at a college and university level. Well anyway, I can only commend Borg for his intellectual integrity.
I thought this initial Talk Origins article was really weak at best and proved nothing (unlike the Dalrymple Geological article)…I have only gotten through the first 4 sections (most of section 3 either belongs in the trash or in the creative scientific speculation department, but I liked sections 2 and 4, section one of course for the most part sets us up to accept what’s coming (or consider ourselves idiots...neither of which I will fall for…and I know you cannot see that there because you totally but into it all, not your fault).
Sorry this was long but Papias you always give what amounts to a book to respond to and I would not want to throw back 30 pages so you really need to narrow your points to a few at a time…so do you believe in God? And do you believe God created the universe? And if not how did it come about? Thanks…
Paul
