RSF: Now the Gorilla Genome Doesn't Fit
This is the show from Friday, May 18th 2012.
SUMMARY:
*DNA Doesn't Lie, and that includes Gorilla DNA: This program will be the first in a new annual tradition, like our List of Not So Old Things, and our Dinosaur Soft Tissue reports, today begins our RSF's List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit! For the genomes march on at Real Science Friday. Now, it turns out that 15 percent of the gorilla genome is closer to humans than to chimps! Bob Enyart and RSF co-host Fred Williams point out that for many decades Darwinists have claimed that humans are closest to chimpanzees. So this throws yet another monkey wrench into the theory of evolution. The guys also review the enormous and unpredicted difference between the human Y chromosome and the chimp Y, and the human genome generally with the published comparisons of the sponge genome, a worm, and the kangaroo genome!
* Gorilla Ears, Octopus Eyes, and the Platypus: By Darwinian theory, hundreds of millions of the gorilla's nucleotides (genetic letters) should not be ordered more closely to the human genome than to the chimpanzee genome. Why not, because allegedly, as repeated ten thousand times, including in Nature in 2011, "chimpanzees [are] the closest living relatives of Homo sapiens." So, watch for the bait and switch method whereby as continued genetic research undermines the Darwinian prediction, we'll hear that gorilla ears, etc., are more human than chimp-like, and also that the orangutans, the gorillas, and chimpanzees, are all are closest living relatives! These diversions help to maintain the evolutionary illusion even in the face of such a strongly falsified evolutionary prediction.
* Neanderthal DNA Falsifies Another Darwinian Prediction: Coming up on next week's RSF Caveman program, it turns out that Neanderthals are completely human. How do we know that? Because DNA doesn't lie! And Neanderthal DNA is closer to the genome of living humans that two chimps, of the same species no less, are to one another! And from previous shows, here's our RSF List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit:
* Shock Chimp Y Chromosome Report, 30% Different: As previously on RSF, geneticists have sequenced the chimpanzee's Y chromosome has been sequenced, the evolutionists are in "shock" once again. See the April 2011 Creation Magazine and their online report about team leader Dr. David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., said in the journal Nature (1-14-2010), that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other." Horrendously? A_O, is that a scientific term? Why not just, "different?" Why horrendously so? Because for modern Darwinism to not lose face, chimps have to be shown to be our closest relatives. Yet the chimp's Y chromosome (that which makes us reproducing males... well, males...):
- has only 66% of the genes that we do
- codes for only half the proteins ours does
- has 30% of the entire Y that can't be aligned to our Y
- and the human Y has 30% that doesn't line up to the chimps.
* Sequencing of Marine Worm Kills Common Ancestor of Man and Insects: As previously on RSF, falsifying the general expectations of neo-Darwinism, a typical roundworm and a human have about the same number of genes! And further, also as previously on RSF, molecular biology has removed from its perch the long-alleged common ancestor of insects and humans, the marine worm acoelomorphs. According to LiveScience, "the missing link has gone missing"! For as reported in the Jan/Feb 2011 Creation Matters:
- marine worms are more closely related to humans than are mollusks and insects - Nature 2-9-11
- Acoelomorpha Flatworm formerly known as common man-bug ancestor
- Evolution: A can of worms. Nature 2-9-11
- "the missing link has gone missing" Dept. of Genetics & Evolution's Max Telford, Univ. College, London
- evolutionists "alarmed" with "vehemence" - Nature magazine
- shows how important these worm props were to the evolutionary story-telling
- "the most politically fraught paper I've ever written" -Genetic researcher Max Telford. Political? Exactly!
* Kangaroos: As previously on RSF, the director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, says that, "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that, "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" Evolutionists are not much like kangaroos, regardless of what they might think. But they should consider that:
- claiming (while exaggerating) that humans were 98% similar to chimps doesn't mean what it was meant to convey
- percent of genetic similarity simply doesn't imply evolutionary descent nor relationship
- CMI: "organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are 'built' using the same developmental genes."
- So with the death of Darwin's Tree of Life, and
- with the regulatory gene blueprint throughout the animal kingdom (including in sponges), and
- with kangaroo genes showing such extraordinary similarity to humans,
the bottom line is that Darwinists were wrong to use that kind of genetic similarity as evidence of a developmental pathway from apes to humans.
* If Chimps Were 98% Human, Then Sponges are 70%: The sequencing of the Great Barrier Reef sponge genome shows, according to the co-author's interview with AFP in Scientists find sea sponges share human genes, "that sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes!" The study, reported in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, Sponge genome goes deep, goes beyond it's factual findings of human-to-sponge overlap to speculate on a period of evolution after sponges that, "Nearly one-third of the genetic alterations that distinguish humans from their last common ancestor with single-celled organisms took place during this period." And while humans have 20,500 genes, the lowly sponge according to Nature, has "more than 18,000 individual genes." Thus "the sponge genome represents a diverse toolkit." Exactly says RSF!! As Nature reports, "according to Douglas Erwin, a palaeobiologist at the Smithsonian, such complexity indicates that sponges must have descended from a more advanced ancestor than previously suspected. 'This flies in the face of what we think of early metazoan evolution,' says Erwin." Nature also says about sponge DNA: "The genome also includes analogues of genes that, in organisms with a neuromuscular system, code for muscle tissue and neurons." Those Darwinists who hold to the circular logic of methodological naturalism do not have the intellectual liberty to consider that perhaps the Intelligent Designer devised a genetic toolbox from which He could pull out of the same basic blueprint tools for making sponges, kangaroos, and people. And from Science Daily about "the sponge, which was not recognized as an animal until the 19th century," Science Daily reports that, "the team looked in the sponge genome for more than 100 genes that have been implicated in human cancers and found about 90 percent of them." And from a researcher with the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., "Though we think of a sponge as a simple creature whose skeleton we take to the bathtub, it has a lot of the major biochemical and developmental pathways we associate with complex functions in humans and other more complex animals," she said. (More from RSF on sponges...)
* "6,000 year-old" Mitochondrial Eve: As the Bible calls "Eve... the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), genetic researchers have named the one woman from whom all humans have descended "Mitochondrial Eve." But in a scientific attempt to date her existence, they openly admit that they included chimpanzee DNA in their analysis in order to get what they viewed as a reasonably old date of 200,000 years ago (which is still surprisingly recent from their perspective, but old enough not to strain Darwinian theory too much). But then as widely reported including by Science magazine, when they dropped the chimp data and used only actual human mutation rates, that process determined that Eve lived only six thousand years ago! In Ann Gibbon's Science article, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," rather than again using circular reasoning by assuming their conclusion (that humans evolved from ape-like creatures), they performed their calculations using actual measured mutation rates. This peer-reviewed journal then reported that if these rates have been constant, "mitochondrial Eve… would be a mere 6000 years old." See also the journal Nature and creation.com's "A shrinking date for Eve," and Walt Brown's assessment. Expectedly though, evolutionists have found a way to reject their own unbiased finding (the conclusion contrary to their self-interest) by returning to their original method of using circular reasoning, as reported in the American Journal of Human Genetics, "calibrating against recent evidence for the divergence time of humans and chimpanzees," to reset their mitochondrial clock back to 200,000 years.
* Even Younger Y-Chromosomal Adam: (Although he should be called, "Y-Chromosomal Noah.") While we inherit our mtDNA only from our mothers, only men have a Y chromosome (which incidentally genetically disproves the claim that the fetus is "part of the woman's body," since the little boy's Y chromosome could never be part of mom's body). Based on documented mutation rates on and the extraordinary lack of mutational differences in this specifically male DNA, the Y-chromosomal Adam would have lived only a few thousand years ago! (He's significantly younger than mtEve because of the genetic bottleneck of the global flood.) Yet while the Darwinian camp wrongly claimed for decades that humans were 98% - 99% genetically similar to chimps, secular scientists today, using the same type of calculation only more accurately, have unintentionally documented that chimps are about as far genetically from what makes a human being a male, as mankind itself is from sponges! Geneticists have found now that sponges are 70% the same as humans genetically, and separately, that human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously" 30% different. (See also Why Was Canaan Cursed)
* New Scientist Says Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life: Recall the historic cover story, Darwin was Wrong, Cutting Down the Tree of Life! Darwin's theory of the tree of life (named after the real tree described in Genesis), according to New Scientist was as important as his theory of natural selection. However, of the thousands of species evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a genetic biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). Today, as reported on RSF, the remains of Darwin's tree, the branches now laying around on the ground, have been thrown into the shredder with this completed sequencing of the gorilla genome!
* Also Mentioned on Today's RSF Program: Fred mentioned that Bob was recently on assignment in Kentucky with Dr. Don Patton and that RSF is happily giving Dr. Patton the courtesy of first publishing their findings! Also, the guys discussed the Science Daily article about a new treatment for muscular dystrophy using, of course, not embronic but adult stem cells!
Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! (By buying it here, you'll also help keep Real Science Friday on the air, and you'll get Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!) Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems! For after all, most fundamentally, rather than being carbon based, life in information based! (And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!)
This is the show from Friday, May 18th 2012.
SUMMARY:
Spoiler
*DNA Doesn't Lie, and that includes Gorilla DNA: This program will be the first in a new annual tradition, like our List of Not So Old Things, and our Dinosaur Soft Tissue reports, today begins our RSF's List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit! For the genomes march on at Real Science Friday. Now, it turns out that 15 percent of the gorilla genome is closer to humans than to chimps! Bob Enyart and RSF co-host Fred Williams point out that for many decades Darwinists have claimed that humans are closest to chimpanzees. So this throws yet another monkey wrench into the theory of evolution. The guys also review the enormous and unpredicted difference between the human Y chromosome and the chimp Y, and the human genome generally with the published comparisons of the sponge genome, a worm, and the kangaroo genome!
* Gorilla Ears, Octopus Eyes, and the Platypus: By Darwinian theory, hundreds of millions of the gorilla's nucleotides (genetic letters) should not be ordered more closely to the human genome than to the chimpanzee genome. Why not, because allegedly, as repeated ten thousand times, including in Nature in 2011, "chimpanzees [are] the closest living relatives of Homo sapiens." So, watch for the bait and switch method whereby as continued genetic research undermines the Darwinian prediction, we'll hear that gorilla ears, etc., are more human than chimp-like, and also that the orangutans, the gorillas, and chimpanzees, are all are closest living relatives! These diversions help to maintain the evolutionary illusion even in the face of such a strongly falsified evolutionary prediction.
* Neanderthal DNA Falsifies Another Darwinian Prediction: Coming up on next week's RSF Caveman program, it turns out that Neanderthals are completely human. How do we know that? Because DNA doesn't lie! And Neanderthal DNA is closer to the genome of living humans that two chimps, of the same species no less, are to one another! And from previous shows, here's our RSF List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit:
* Shock Chimp Y Chromosome Report, 30% Different: As previously on RSF, geneticists have sequenced the chimpanzee's Y chromosome has been sequenced, the evolutionists are in "shock" once again. See the April 2011 Creation Magazine and their online report about team leader Dr. David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., said in the journal Nature (1-14-2010), that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other." Horrendously? A_O, is that a scientific term? Why not just, "different?" Why horrendously so? Because for modern Darwinism to not lose face, chimps have to be shown to be our closest relatives. Yet the chimp's Y chromosome (that which makes us reproducing males... well, males...):
- has only 66% of the genes that we do
- codes for only half the proteins ours does
- has 30% of the entire Y that can't be aligned to our Y
- and the human Y has 30% that doesn't line up to the chimps.
* Sequencing of Marine Worm Kills Common Ancestor of Man and Insects: As previously on RSF, falsifying the general expectations of neo-Darwinism, a typical roundworm and a human have about the same number of genes! And further, also as previously on RSF, molecular biology has removed from its perch the long-alleged common ancestor of insects and humans, the marine worm acoelomorphs. According to LiveScience, "the missing link has gone missing"! For as reported in the Jan/Feb 2011 Creation Matters:
- marine worms are more closely related to humans than are mollusks and insects - Nature 2-9-11
- Acoelomorpha Flatworm formerly known as common man-bug ancestor
- Evolution: A can of worms. Nature 2-9-11
- "the missing link has gone missing" Dept. of Genetics & Evolution's Max Telford, Univ. College, London
- evolutionists "alarmed" with "vehemence" - Nature magazine
- shows how important these worm props were to the evolutionary story-telling
- "the most politically fraught paper I've ever written" -Genetic researcher Max Telford. Political? Exactly!
Spoiler
* Kangaroos: As previously on RSF, the director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, says that, "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that, "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" Evolutionists are not much like kangaroos, regardless of what they might think. But they should consider that:
- claiming (while exaggerating) that humans were 98% similar to chimps doesn't mean what it was meant to convey
- percent of genetic similarity simply doesn't imply evolutionary descent nor relationship
- CMI: "organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are 'built' using the same developmental genes."
- So with the death of Darwin's Tree of Life, and
- with the regulatory gene blueprint throughout the animal kingdom (including in sponges), and
- with kangaroo genes showing such extraordinary similarity to humans,
the bottom line is that Darwinists were wrong to use that kind of genetic similarity as evidence of a developmental pathway from apes to humans.
* If Chimps Were 98% Human, Then Sponges are 70%: The sequencing of the Great Barrier Reef sponge genome shows, according to the co-author's interview with AFP in Scientists find sea sponges share human genes, "that sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes!" The study, reported in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, Sponge genome goes deep, goes beyond it's factual findings of human-to-sponge overlap to speculate on a period of evolution after sponges that, "Nearly one-third of the genetic alterations that distinguish humans from their last common ancestor with single-celled organisms took place during this period." And while humans have 20,500 genes, the lowly sponge according to Nature, has "more than 18,000 individual genes." Thus "the sponge genome represents a diverse toolkit." Exactly says RSF!! As Nature reports, "according to Douglas Erwin, a palaeobiologist at the Smithsonian, such complexity indicates that sponges must have descended from a more advanced ancestor than previously suspected. 'This flies in the face of what we think of early metazoan evolution,' says Erwin." Nature also says about sponge DNA: "The genome also includes analogues of genes that, in organisms with a neuromuscular system, code for muscle tissue and neurons." Those Darwinists who hold to the circular logic of methodological naturalism do not have the intellectual liberty to consider that perhaps the Intelligent Designer devised a genetic toolbox from which He could pull out of the same basic blueprint tools for making sponges, kangaroos, and people. And from Science Daily about "the sponge, which was not recognized as an animal until the 19th century," Science Daily reports that, "the team looked in the sponge genome for more than 100 genes that have been implicated in human cancers and found about 90 percent of them." And from a researcher with the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., "Though we think of a sponge as a simple creature whose skeleton we take to the bathtub, it has a lot of the major biochemical and developmental pathways we associate with complex functions in humans and other more complex animals," she said. (More from RSF on sponges...)
* "6,000 year-old" Mitochondrial Eve: As the Bible calls "Eve... the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), genetic researchers have named the one woman from whom all humans have descended "Mitochondrial Eve." But in a scientific attempt to date her existence, they openly admit that they included chimpanzee DNA in their analysis in order to get what they viewed as a reasonably old date of 200,000 years ago (which is still surprisingly recent from their perspective, but old enough not to strain Darwinian theory too much). But then as widely reported including by Science magazine, when they dropped the chimp data and used only actual human mutation rates, that process determined that Eve lived only six thousand years ago! In Ann Gibbon's Science article, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," rather than again using circular reasoning by assuming their conclusion (that humans evolved from ape-like creatures), they performed their calculations using actual measured mutation rates. This peer-reviewed journal then reported that if these rates have been constant, "mitochondrial Eve… would be a mere 6000 years old." See also the journal Nature and creation.com's "A shrinking date for Eve," and Walt Brown's assessment. Expectedly though, evolutionists have found a way to reject their own unbiased finding (the conclusion contrary to their self-interest) by returning to their original method of using circular reasoning, as reported in the American Journal of Human Genetics, "calibrating against recent evidence for the divergence time of humans and chimpanzees," to reset their mitochondrial clock back to 200,000 years.
* Even Younger Y-Chromosomal Adam: (Although he should be called, "Y-Chromosomal Noah.") While we inherit our mtDNA only from our mothers, only men have a Y chromosome (which incidentally genetically disproves the claim that the fetus is "part of the woman's body," since the little boy's Y chromosome could never be part of mom's body). Based on documented mutation rates on and the extraordinary lack of mutational differences in this specifically male DNA, the Y-chromosomal Adam would have lived only a few thousand years ago! (He's significantly younger than mtEve because of the genetic bottleneck of the global flood.) Yet while the Darwinian camp wrongly claimed for decades that humans were 98% - 99% genetically similar to chimps, secular scientists today, using the same type of calculation only more accurately, have unintentionally documented that chimps are about as far genetically from what makes a human being a male, as mankind itself is from sponges! Geneticists have found now that sponges are 70% the same as humans genetically, and separately, that human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously" 30% different. (See also Why Was Canaan Cursed)
* New Scientist Says Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life: Recall the historic cover story, Darwin was Wrong, Cutting Down the Tree of Life! Darwin's theory of the tree of life (named after the real tree described in Genesis), according to New Scientist was as important as his theory of natural selection. However, of the thousands of species evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a genetic biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). Today, as reported on RSF, the remains of Darwin's tree, the branches now laying around on the ground, have been thrown into the shredder with this completed sequencing of the gorilla genome!
* Also Mentioned on Today's RSF Program: Fred mentioned that Bob was recently on assignment in Kentucky with Dr. Don Patton and that RSF is happily giving Dr. Patton the courtesy of first publishing their findings! Also, the guys discussed the Science Daily article about a new treatment for muscular dystrophy using, of course, not embronic but adult stem cells!
Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! (By buying it here, you'll also help keep Real Science Friday on the air, and you'll get Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!) Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems! For after all, most fundamentally, rather than being carbon based, life in information based! (And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!)
Last edited by a moderator:
