Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look Pt 2

[Jefferson]

Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look Pt 2

This is the show from Friday January 18th, 2008.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

We're finding that because of these regions of the DNA that [evolutionists] thought were junk are now functional, the differences between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent which is way too many differences for us to have a common ancestor. It's not mathematically possible.

SUMMARY:

* New Island, Old Look Part 2: Creationist Bob Enyart and Creation Research Society webmaster Fred Williams conclude their talk through the fascinating articles in the latest Creation magazine, including about a brand new island that has major geographic features that evolutionists say would typically indicate millions of years.

Today's Resource: Bob Enyart Live will sign you up for a subscription to Creation magazine as a thank you if you order the BEL Science Pack or Donate $50 or more to BEL! (And thanks for spreading the word about the Lord and His righteousness!)

 

[Johnny]

We're finding that because of these regions of the DNA that [evolutionists] thought were junk are now functional, the differences between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent which is way too many differences for us to have a common ancestor. It's not mathematically possible.

Anyone have any idea what research is being cited here?

 

[Jukia]

Not "mathematically possible", why?

 

[Stripe]

A difference in DNA between monkeys and men must be attributed to a mutation that has been favoured by natural selection. The more differences the more time it takes. I guess anything more than a few hundred shifted molecules rules out the possibility that anything evolved from anything else within a certain timeframe.

 

[Johnny]

A difference in DNA between monkeys and men must be attributed to a mutation that has been favoured by natural selection. The more differences the more time it takes. I guess anything more than a few hundred shifted molecules rules out the possibility that anything evolved from anything else within a certain timeframe.

Indeed, that's the basic premise, but it's very complicated and you have to know what's being measured to understand the conclusion (which is why I ask what research is being cited).

For example, take the genetic sequence:
ATCCGACTTA

Compare it to this sequence:
ATTTACCGAC

If you compare letter for letter, the two strings are only 30% similar. But a single mutation can account for this 70% change in sequence
ATCCGACTTA transposes to ATTTACCGAC and viola.

So it's important to know how the dataset is approached and what they mean by "similar".

 

[Jukia]

Indeed, that's the basic premise, but it's very complicated and you have to know what's being measured to understand the conclusion (which is why I ask what research is being cited).

For example, take the genetic sequence:
ATCCGACTTA

Compare it to this sequence:
ATTTACCGAC

If you compare letter for letter, the two strings are only 30% similar. But a single mutation can account for this 70% change in sequence
ATCCGACTTA transposes to ATTTACCGAC and viola.

So it's important to know how the dataset is approached and what they mean by "similar".

Sounds suspiciously like sciency stuff to me?

 

[Stripe]

Right, Johnny. So how is the 98% number arrived at?

 

[Jukia]

Not "mathematically possible", why?

Again, why?

 

[Stripe]

Because it takes time for a mutation to propagate through a population. Time you do not have with too large a difference.

 

[aharvey]

Because it takes time for a mutation to propagate through a population. Time you do not have with too large a difference.

Especially if your mathematical model assumes that only one mutation can be propagated at a time. And assumes non-overlapping generations. And assumes that all mutations are simple point mutations.

By the way, I'm curious; Jefferson quoted Bob as saying "the differences between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent." Did Jefferson misquote Bob, did Bob misspeak (e.g., meaning to say "the similarity between chimps and humans is now between 89 to 95 percent"), or was Bob truly claiming that the similarity between chimps and humans is now thought to range between 5 and 11 percent?

 

[Jukia]

Because it takes time for a mutation to propagate through a population. Time you do not have with too large a difference.

And we know this to a mathematical (your word) certainty how? Haldane? See aharvey's post. Or in the alternative lets see your math, or Pastor Bob's math or his guest's math. Thanks ever so.

 

[Stripe]

How about the ones proposing that human and ape genes are similar show their working. Then we can assess it.

 

[aharvey]

How about the ones proposing that human and ape genes are similar show their working. Then we can assess it.

Um, this is pretty darn unintelligible, stipe! But if you're saying that it's up to the folks who have made this argument to present their data here so you then can assess it, I'd say that's a bit of an odd request. First, this information has been out there for a while, one might say it represents the conventional view in science. When Bob makes a claim that seems to contradict this conventional view, it hardly seems reasonable that his new claim should stand unexplained and unexamined until we first re-re-re-re-re-explain and -defend the conventional view!

I'm curious, have you ever compared human and chimp karotypes ?

 

[Jukia]

Um, this is pretty darn unintelligible, stipe! But if you're saying that it's up to the folks who have made this argument to present their data here so you then can assess it, I'd say that's a bit of an odd request. First, this information has been out there for a while, one might say it represents the conventional view in science. When Bob makes a claim that seems to contradict this conventional view, it hardly seems reasonable that his new claim should stand unexplained and unexamined until we first re-re-re-re-re-explain and -defend the conventional view!

I'm curious, have you ever compared human and chimp karotypes ?

Wow, that is pretty cool. What are the colored pieces seeming hanging in mid-air on some of the chromosomes?

 

[aharvey]

Wow, that is pretty cool. What are the colored pieces seeming hanging in mid-air on some of the chromosomes?

I'm not sure, exactly. Photographed human karyotypes seem to show them as being connected to the rest of the chromosome via a constriction, or perhaps a region that doesn't stain.

 

[Stripe]

I'm curious, have you ever compared human and chimp karotypes ?

Nope. Got any other species to put alongside those ones?

 

[Stripe]

...this information has been out there for a while, one might say it represents the conventional view in science...

I know it represents a conventional atheist view. Unfortunately the only access a layperson has is to news stories and neat graphics that tell the story from only one side.

Is there any analysis done where the genetic codes are lettered out side by side and a straight statistical comparison done between multiple species?

 

[Jukia]

I know it represents a conventional atheist view. Unfortunately the only access a layperson has is to news stories and neat graphics that tell the story from only one side.

Is there any analysis done where the genetic codes are lettered out side by side and a straight statistical comparison done between multiple species?

No, the conventional science view, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. The standard science opinion based on the evidence. Want to overturn it? Have your boys do some actual research that can stand the heat and they will be in line for all the big science prizes. Yeah, I know, there it is, that research thing.

 

[Stripe]

No, the conventional science view, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. The standard science opinion based on the evidence.

Did you even read what I said, Jukia?

I said the only access a layperson has is to NEWS STORIES and NEAT GRAPHICS that show ONE SIDE OF THE STORY ONLY. Or do you know of a major newspaper or TV station that regularly comments on the latest findings of creationists?

 

[Jukia]

Did you even read what I said, Jukia?

I said the only access a layperson has is to NEWS STORIES and NEAT GRAPHICS that show ONE SIDE OF THE STORY ONLY. Or do you know of a major newspaper or TV station that regularly comments on the latest findings of creationists?

Perhaps that is why I often suggest that creationists take the time to learn some science. It appears awfully easy for creationists to hide behind the excuse you suggested instead of taking the time and effort to try to get some real information.
Stop whining, suck it up and learn something for a change.