Originally Posted by
Jason Mallory
The first thing to note is that the mapping out of the human genome is not complete. DNA was not discovered until the late 70's after advances with the electron microscope. Since then only about 80-90% of the human gemone has been sequenced while only 2 chromosomes have been completed. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46 so the job is far from done.
The statement that humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees is far from conclusive since neither the human nor chimp gemone with their sum total of chromosomes has been completed. Scientists are only comparing a small portion of code and assuming the overall percentage of similarity from the incomplete sequence that they have at this time.
That being said, homology between kinds of plants or animals, whether it be structural or genetic, is not proof or evolution. It supports a common designer as much as it does a common ancestor.
On top of this DNA is not designed to change, it is designed to preserve the integrity of a species. DNA is a code of information that insures the perpetuity of a species. Genetic mutation, or changing the DNA of a species results in death. There is not one recorded case of a mutation producing a new gene. Also, 98% percent of all mutations are harmful to the organism or result in death. This is why we as humans avoid nuclear radiation.
When we really look into the science of genetics and DNA we see that it could not possibly have happend by chance or the mechanism of natural selection (which does not produce new genetic material but re-organize existing code). Human DNA alone is made up of more than a billion molecules of alternating phosphate and sugar that all have to be in a precise order. DNA in humans could not have organized by chance, let alone the rest of the DNA in every living organism on this planet.
My intention in starting this thread is to share how the idea of an intelligent designer and the advances in knowledge and modern science are not at odds with each other. The surprising fact is that as our knowledge base grows the evidence is mounting AGAINST evolutionary theory and proving it to be false.
I don't know about anybody else but I'm human, I do not descend from from a monkey, ameoba or a rock 3 billion years ago.
My enthusiam for this thread is waning but there is a lot here that simply isn't correct that should be addressed. Again, my intention is not to be hostile so please don't read it that way. I'm at work, I'm short on time, and as this thread grows the quantity of misinformation seems to grow exponentially (as it does every time I see this topic anywhere. *sigh*). It now requires that much more energy to refute/discuss and I already wrote my honors thesis once. I'm not doing it again (appearances to the contrary...).
1) The human genome was fully sequenced in 2001 (see link). James Watson and Francis Crick dechipered the structure of DNA in 1953 using x-ray crystallography performed by Rosalind Franklin (whose snubbing for her share of the Nobel Prize is a sore spot with me.)
[Venter JC et. al. The Sequence of the Human Genome. Science 16 February 2001:Vol. 291. no. 5507, pp. 1304 - 1351]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../291/5507/1304
2) The chimp genome sequence was completed in 2005 and MANY comparisons have been made with the human genome and published since (see link).
[The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005)]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04072.html
The comparison is really true for all mammals. Indeed, we not only share 99% of our DNA with chimps, we also share 99% of our DNA with mice. From the human genome project:
"Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion. I know of only a few cases in which no mouse counterpart can be found for a particular human gene, and for the most part we see essentially a one-to-one correspondence between genes in the two species. The exceptions generally appear to be of a particular type --genes that arise when an existing sequence is duplicated."
3) Homology implies only a common mechanism, not what that mechanism is. When we find similar simple structures across widely divergent species -- from simple to highly complex -- that implies that those structures evolved early and remained useful. Structural homology imples a common function while genetic homology implies common descent.
4) DNA changes regularly. Mutation occurs quite frequently in fact (see link). It often results in the death of the cell but not necessarily. It depends on the type of mutation and where it is.
[Nachman MW, Crowell SL. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans. Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000]
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297 (mutation rate in humans)
Everytime a cell divides, its DNA must be transcribed in full so that a copy goes to the new cell and a copy remains with the original cell. Transcription errors occur all the time and it's simply called mutation. First let's understand what DNA does. DNA encodes for amino acids. We have bases, codons, genes, and chromosomes. Three bases make up a codon. Each base can be thought of as a letter and each codon is a three-letter word. Each codon codes for an amino acid and a string of amino acids makes up a protein so the codon "words" are translated into amino acid "words" which form protein "sentences". The protein may be structural or chemically active (e.g. enzymes, ion channels, etc.). Each amino acid has several codons that code for it, but each codon only equals one amino acid. For example, CGU, CGC, CGA, and CGG all mean "arginine" and nothing else. With two exceptions, there are multiple codons for each amino acid plus three "stop" codons.
There are four types of mutation: Insertion, Deletion, Frameshift, and Substitution. Mutations may be point mutations where only a single base (or "letter") is changed or the mutation may change a few bases.
Insertion and Deletion mutations are exactly that: a base or bases are inserted or deleted. This may or may not effect the function of the protein depending on what was inserted/deleted and where. A Substitution is when one base is replaced during transcription with another base and does not change the length of the gene. One of three things may happen with a Substitution: a "silent" mutation is where the replaced base does not change the amino acid; e.g., CGU is mutated to CGA. The result is still Arg so there is no change to the protein. The substitution may code for a different amino acid in which case it will change the protein. Sickle cell anemia is an example of a point mutation. A single change from adenine to thymine at the 32bp of the DNA that codes for the beta-hemoglobin chain results in the disease. The single base pair change replaces glutamine with valine. The result is hemoglobin-S. That's it. ONE base change causes ONE amino acid change in ONE protein and the result is disease. Another example of a disease caused by point mutations is cystic fibrosis (see links).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...asestudy.shtml (sickle cell)
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ome/cftr.shtml (cystic fibrosis)
A frameshift mutation results from either an insertion or deletion. The loss of or addition of base pairs shifts the remaining "letters" in the sentence so it no longer makes sense. Think of a sentence composed of only three-letter words: "the fat cat sat." Removing or adding a letter turns it into nonsense: "hef atc ats at". The result is a truncated protein.
That's about all I have the time and energy for at the moment. Suffice it to say, there is an enormous amount of data freely available that strongly contradicts your claims. There is not one argument I've seen here on this thread against the science of evolution that has not already been refuted, debunked, or otherwise countered by those whose profession is the study of evolution and who are much better at it than I. If you'd like to go further down the rabbit hole I recommend the journals Science, Nature, and Genetics. I'd also recommend the Human Genome Project and genome.gov. If you'd like a great primer on all things introductory-evolution Berkely has a fantastic site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Reply With Quote
