Creationists, please provide evidence

[micrurus]

　There is no point having discussions with pretenders whose verbal diarrhoea shows their lack of knowledge and inability to understand their own research. God have mercy on you all because your science is not going to.....


Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists
Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists.
Charles Darwin's idea of a tree of life is now 'obsolete' according to some scientists.
8:26AM GMT 22 Jan 2009

They believe the concept misleads us because his theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries.
Evolution is far too complex to be explained by a few roots and branches, they claim.
In Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859, the British naturalist drew a diagram of an oak to depict how one species can evolve into many.
But not much was known about primitive life forms or genetics back then when he was only dealing with plants and animals – long before there was any real comprehension of DNA or bacteria.
Researchers say although for much of the past 150 years biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree it is now obsolete and needs to be discarded.
Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."
The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 – whose pioneers believed it would provide proof of Darwin's tree – opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology.
But current research is finding a far more complex scenario than Darwin could have imagined – particularly in relation to bacteria and single-celled organisms.
These simple life forms represent most of Earth's biomass and diversity – not to mention the first two-thirds of the planet's history.
Many of their species swap genes back and forth, or engage in gene duplication, recombination, gene loss or gene transfers from multiple sources.
Dr John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at Exeter University, said: "If there is a tree of life it's a small irregular structure growing out of the web of life."
More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.
Dr Dupré said: "There are problems even in that little corner." Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.
Dr Bapteste said: "If you don't have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology. At first it's very scary – but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds."
Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.
Dr Doolittle, of California University, said: "We should relax a bit on this. We understand evolution pretty well it's just it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."
But others see the uprooting of the tree of life as the start of something bigger, reports New Scientist.
Dr Dupré said: "It's part of a revolutionary change in biology. Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages."
Understanding how cells evolve and mutate is incredibly important it's helping scientists learn why some diseases are resistant to vaccines and antibiotics, and why others can evade the immune system.
It's leading to environmental solutions too some bacterial genes can break down harsh contaminants such as benzene into harmless by-products.
Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
He says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.
Dr Bapteste said: "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."
Darwin's model is no stranger to controversy. It has played a key role in the much larger debate with creationists who are convinced life on Earth is so complex it could only have come about from intelligent design – in other words, the hand of God.

you should know better then that, ID is oficially DEAD

 

[McBell]

I guess we won't be getting any evidence from this one.

Disappointing, isn't it?
I mean with all the space she has taken up with her mindless quote mining one would think that she could at the very least stay on topic.

 

[Autodidact]

　There is no point having discussions with pretenders whose verbal diarrhoea shows their lack of knowledge and inability to understand their own research. God have mercy on you all because your science is not going to.....


Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists
Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists.
Charles Darwin's idea of a tree of life is now 'obsolete' according to some scientists.
8:26AM GMT 22 Jan 2009

They believe the concept misleads us because his theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries.
Evolution is far too complex to be explained by a few roots and branches, they claim.
In Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859, the British naturalist drew a diagram of an oak to depict how one species can evolve into many.
But not much was known about primitive life forms or genetics back then when he was only dealing with plants and animals – long before there was any real comprehension of DNA or bacteria.
Researchers say although for much of the past 150 years biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree it is now obsolete and needs to be discarded.
Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."
The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 – whose pioneers believed it would provide proof of Darwin's tree – opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology.
But current research is finding a far more complex scenario than Darwin could have imagined – particularly in relation to bacteria and single-celled organisms.
These simple life forms represent most of Earth's biomass and diversity – not to mention the first two-thirds of the planet's history.
Many of their species swap genes back and forth, or engage in gene duplication, recombination, gene loss or gene transfers from multiple sources.
Dr John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at Exeter University, said: "If there is a tree of life it's a small irregular structure growing out of the web of life."
More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.
Dr Dupré said: "There are problems even in that little corner." Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.
Dr Bapteste said: "If you don't have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology. At first it's very scary – but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds."
Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.
Dr Doolittle, of California University, said: "We should relax a bit on this. We understand evolution pretty well it's just it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."
But others see the uprooting of the tree of life as the start of something bigger, reports New Scientist.
Dr Dupré said: "It's part of a revolutionary change in biology. Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages."
Understanding how cells evolve and mutate is incredibly important it's helping scientists learn why some diseases are resistant to vaccines and antibiotics, and why others can evade the immune system.
It's leading to environmental solutions too some bacterial genes can break down harsh contaminants such as benzene into harmless by-products.
Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
He says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.
Dr Bapteste said: "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."
Darwin's model is no stranger to controversy. It has played a key role in the much larger debate with creationists who are convinced life on Earth is so complex it could only have come about from intelligent design – in other words, the hand of God.

Are you claiming that this article (taken from the UK Telegraph without attribution) in some way supports your position? How can you tell, if you won't even state your position?

It is fascinating how the ToE, through the scientific method, is continually improved and refined, isn't it? Of course, all of this work is premised on the foundation of ToE, which none of the scientists you quoted would dispute. Not one of them accepts your hypothesis, which you are ashamed to even state because it's so silly, the Hypothesis of Magic Poofing, which we may hereafter refer to as HMP.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you claiming that this article (taken from the UK Telegraph without attribution) in some way supports your position? How can you tell, if you won't even state your position?

It is fascinating how the ToE, through the scientific method, is continually improved and refined, isn't it? Of course, all of this work is premised on the foundation of ToE, which none of the scientists you quoted would dispute. Not one of them accepts your hypothesis, which you are ashamed to even state because it's so silly, the Hypothesis of Magic Poofing, which we may hereafter refer to as HMP.

HoMP

Hypothesis of Magic Poofing....

 

[The Neo Nerd]

HoMP

Hyporhesis of Magic Poofing....

LOL i like.

Lock it in Eddie.

-Q

 

[newhope101]

Are you claiming that this article (taken from the UK Telegraph without attribution) in some way supports your position? How can you tell, if you won't even state your position?

It is fascinating how the ToE, through the scientific method, is continually improved and refined, isn't it? Of course, all of this work is premised on the foundation of ToE, which none of the scientists you quoted would dispute. Not one of them accepts your hypothesis, which you are ashamed to even state because it's so silly, the Hypothesis of Magic Poofing, which we may hereafter refer to as HMP.

No what I am saying is that this researcher has more brians and credentials than you and you should listen to your own sciences.

You are talking like as f this is the only researcher that is having problems with the Linnaeus system. Many, many researchers feel the same way and are favouring cladistics, that also has its' problems.

What is more amazing is that you purport yourself as being educated and are totally unaware of the concerns within evolutionary sciences taxonomy and phylogenics. This makes you look stupid, not educated.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No what I am saying is that this researcher has more brians and credentials than you and you should listen to your own sciences.

You are talking like as f this is the only researcher that is having problems with the Linnaeus system. Many, many researchers feel the same way and are favouring cladistics, that also has its' problems.

What is more amazing is that you purport yourself as being educated and are totally unaware of the concerns within evolutionary sciences taxonomy and phylogenics. This makes you look stupid, not educated.

How about we ALL stop with the name calling and keep the debate civil?

I love this subject and would hate to see this thread closed.

Thanks....

 

[Autodidact]

No what I am saying is that this researcher has more brians and credentials than you and you should listen to your own sciences.

I'm sure you're right on all counts.

You are talking like as f this is the only researcher that is having problems with the Linnaeus system. Many, many researchers feel the same way and are favouring cladistics, that also has its' problems.

Yes, no doubt, but what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

What is more amazing is that you purport yourself as being educated and are totally unaware of the concerns within evolutionary sciences taxonomy and phylogenics. This makes you look stupid, not educated.

Well, the thread's not about me. I don't consider myself particularly educated, but let's get back to the subject at hand: evidence for creationism. Now, what exactly would we be looking for evidence for? What do see as the mechanism for creation? HOW (remember, not who, but HOW) do you think God created all these different species? In other words,

WHAT IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS?
btw, you may do a better job of advancing your position if you focus on the question, rather than the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the other participants in the conversation.

 

[newhope101]

I so love it when you evolutionists woffle on and appear to know little about your own evolutionary science.

The male human Y chromosome is remarkably different to the chimps and it shouldn’t be according to your evolutionary predictions. Read the article and look for the scurry of hypothesis by researchers to once again explain away why the evidence for creation, very different Y chromosomes, can be theorised into an evolutionary model. Look creationists at the convoluted woffle required to turn simple data into an evolutionary mystery.

Evidence supports creation, theories support Toe.

Science News
Chimp and Human Y Chromosomes Evolving Faster Than Expected
ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) — Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.
By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature.
"The region of the Y that is evolving the fastest is the part that plays a role in sperm production," say Jennifer Hughes, first author on the Nature paper and a postdoctoral researcher in Whitehead Institute Director David Page's lab. "The rest of the Y is evolving more like the rest of the genome, only a little bit faster."
The chimp Y chromosome is only the second Y chromosome to be comprehensively sequenced. The original chimp genome sequencing completed in 2005 largely excluded the Y chromosome because its hundreds of repetitive sections typically confound standard sequencing techniques. Working closely with the Genome Center at Washington University, the Page lab managed to painstakingly sequence the chimp Y chromosome, allowing for comparison with the human Y, which the Page lab and the Genome Center at Washington University had sequenced successfully back in 2003.
The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content. The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes--a significant change in a relatively short period of time. Page points out that this is not all about gene decay or loss. He likens the Y chromosome changes to a home undergoing continual renovation.
"People are living in the house, but there's always some room that's being demolished and reconstructed," says Page, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "And this is not the norm for the genome as a whole."
Wes Warren, Assistant Director of the Washington University Genome Center, agrees. "This work clearly shows that the Y is pretty ingenious at using different tools than the rest of the genome to maintain diversity of genes," he says. "These findings demonstrate that our knowledge of the Y chromosome is still advancing."
Hughes and Page theorize that the divergent evolution of the chimp and human Y chromosomes may be due to several factors, including traits specific to Y chromosomes and differences in mating behaviors.
Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession, the males' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition. If a given male produces more sperm, that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female, thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes, some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome, to the next generation.
Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high, those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation. Such transmission is allowed to occur because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division. Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions. Without this ability, the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity. Either the entire chromosome is advantageous, or it is not.
In chimps, this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome's rapid evolution. Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production, resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart.
To determine whether this rapid rate of evolution affects Y chromosomes beyond those of chimps and humans, the Page lab and the Washington University Genome Center are now sequencing and examining the Y chromosomes of several other mammals.
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

 

[camanintx]

ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) — Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.

So how does evidence that the mammalian Y chromosome is rapidly evolving prove that it did not evolve?

 

[Autodidact]

I so love it when you evolutionists woffle on and appear to know little about your own evolutionary science.

The male human Y chromosome is remarkably different to the chimps and it shouldn’t be according to your evolutionary predictions. Read the article and look for the scurry of hypothesis by researchers to once again explain away why the evidence for creation, very different Y chromosomes, can be theorised into an evolutionary model. Look creationists at the convoluted woffle required to turn simple data into an evolutionary mystery.

Evidence supports creation, theories support Toe.

Science News
Chimp and Human Y Chromosomes Evolving Faster Than Expected
ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) — Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.
By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature.
"The region of the Y that is evolving the fastest is the part that plays a role in sperm production," say Jennifer Hughes, first author on the Nature paper and a postdoctoral researcher in Whitehead Institute Director David Page's lab. "The rest of the Y is evolving more like the rest of the genome, only a little bit faster."
The chimp Y chromosome is only the second Y chromosome to be comprehensively sequenced. The original chimp genome sequencing completed in 2005 largely excluded the Y chromosome because its hundreds of repetitive sections typically confound standard sequencing techniques. Working closely with the Genome Center at Washington University, the Page lab managed to painstakingly sequence the chimp Y chromosome, allowing for comparison with the human Y, which the Page lab and the Genome Center at Washington University had sequenced successfully back in 2003.
The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content. The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes--a significant change in a relatively short period of time. Page points out that this is not all about gene decay or loss. He likens the Y chromosome changes to a home undergoing continual renovation.
"People are living in the house, but there's always some room that's being demolished and reconstructed," says Page, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "And this is not the norm for the genome as a whole."
Wes Warren, Assistant Director of the Washington University Genome Center, agrees. "This work clearly shows that the Y is pretty ingenious at using different tools than the rest of the genome to maintain diversity of genes," he says. "These findings demonstrate that our knowledge of the Y chromosome is still advancing."
Hughes and Page theorize that the divergent evolution of the chimp and human Y chromosomes may be due to several factors, including traits specific to Y chromosomes and differences in mating behaviors.
Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession, the males' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition. If a given male produces more sperm, that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female, thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes, some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome, to the next generation.
Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high, those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation. Such transmission is allowed to occur because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division. Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions. Without this ability, the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity. Either the entire chromosome is advantageous, or it is not.
In chimps, this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome's rapid evolution. Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production, resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart.
To determine whether this rapid rate of evolution affects Y chromosomes beyond those of chimps and humans, the Page lab and the Washington University Genome Center are now sequencing and examining the Y chromosomes of several other mammals.
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

How is this "evidence for creation?" What do you mean by "creation?" What is the mechanism you think this is evidence for? Is it possibly Magic Poofing? Or is it some other manner of creation? In other words,

WHAT IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS?

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed.

Saying (against all facts) that "evidence supports creation" accomplishes nothing, except perhaps hinting onlookers about how desperate Creationism is at this point. I guess it can help some people in letting go of groundless faith, so it can be a good thing.

And expecting people to simply believe in Creationism is, quite literally, a cop-out, a Deus Ex Machina. Once one assumes that an all-mighty entity mighty possibly have created all of existence (and yet, curiously enough, made it so that he appears to be non-existent) it is possible to claim pretty much anything, yet clarify nothing at all.

 

[newhope101]

So how does evidence that the mammalian Y chromosome is rapidly evolving prove that it did not evolve?

Ahh..now you are talking about proof rather than support..two different things.

Accelerated evolution is the theory behind the evidence, not the evidence. The evidence is that the Y chromosome is greatly different in the chimp and human. That evidence supports the creation of chimps and humans individually. Your theory of accelerated evolution is what brings the evidence in line with Toe.

There is evidence and there are theories that address the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists look at the same evidence and give their hypothesis.

The thread requests evidence in support of creation. Whether you like it or not the male human & chimp chromosome is remarkably different. Evolutionists once again have had to come up with a theoretical assumption to explain it. In this case “Accelerated evolution”. There is no come back here until your researchers say they have made a mistake and the Y chromosomes are really similar. So far they haven’t.

The evidence is all life shares huge percentages of genes somewhere in the genome which are used in different ways to give expressions of uniqueness.

There have been many genomes sequenced over the past 10 years. Did you know the pufferfish has only 25% of its’ genes have no counterpart in humans? Did you know that the human genome shares 99% of its genes with a mouse, yet the human genome has 400 million more nucleotides than the mouse? There are only 300 genes unique to either organism. What was unexpected here is that the similarities lie in the junk DNA, mostly retrotransposons, in the species. Yet the mouse and humans last shared a common ancestor 75 million years ago. How is this explained? The explanation….wait for it..is…”Accelerated evolution”, where the mouse DNA has mutated twice as fast as human DNA.

Then of course there is the Chimp and human comparison that is said to be 1% difference. More recent research that looks at more of the genome has reported the difference as 6%.

So additional to having huge genetic similarity to other life forms human males have an extraordinarily different Y chromosome to the chimp. The so called genetic similarities are not really similarities at all. For example a plant carries FoxP2 but obviously it is expressed much differently and had other uses in a plant. Regardless, let’s just call them similar for now.

You have found inconsistencies in these comparisons that were not expected and they have been explained away by ‘accelerated evolution’. The close similarity to a mouse gives evidence that genetic similarity does not imply direct ancestry, in itself. Rather it only illustrates that all life is based on the same design.

You do not know what life would look like if it arose many times individually and did not undergo the supposed horizontal gene transfer. I suggest it would have the same basic structure regardless. What evidence do I have to back this up. Well, your horizontal gene transfer model cites many individual cells arising, in other words, evolving into life somehow individually. Then these cells supposedly shared genes.

The evidence based on this model, suggests the cells that arose individually were genetically similar enough to have horizontal gene transfer occur. Hence illustrating that no matter how life arises it is going to have to have the same basic design. Even if I was an evolutionist I would say your researchers are barking up the wrong tree somewhere in the forest.

It is not about the similarities it is about the differences. Chimps and humans have very different Y chromosomes and all life has many similarities. A hypothesis that can be made from that evidence is that the chimp and humans were created individually. Evos hypothesis is that ’accelerated evolution brought this remarkable difference about.

My hypothesis takes the evidence for what it is without the need for additional assumptions to explain what has been found. The same goes for much of your evidence. A creationists hypothesis can take the evidence for what it is and apply it to fit into creationist thinking without the need for additional theories to explain the evidence.

To me creationists have the upper hand and your research will only strengthen their stance..


Wiki Chimpanzee:
The genus Pan is considered to be part of the subfamily Homininae to which humans also belong. These two species are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans, sharing a common ancestor with humans six million years ago.[3] Research by Mary-Claire King in 1973 found 99% identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees,[4] although research since has modified that finding to about 94%[5] commonality, with some of the difference occurring in non-coding DNA. It has been proposed that troglodytes and paniscus belong with sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. One of the arguments for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees.
　
　
The Fickle Y Chromosome. Nature January 2010
Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome.
　
　
Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Project:
Results from the human and chimp genome analyses should help in understanding some human diseases. Humans appear to have lost a functional caspase-12 gene, which in other primates codes for an enzyme that may protect against Alzheimer's disease. Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes

 

[David M]

Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Project:
Results from the human and chimp genome analyses should help in understanding some human diseases. Humans appear to have lost a functional caspase-12 gene, which in other primates codes for an enzyme that may protect against Alzheimer's disease. Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes

Where does it show 24% in that paper?

You are once again misrepresenting the facts, if you compare things using different methods you get different numbers.

Here's what the paper actually says.
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

The main findings include:

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.
• Regional variation in nucleotide substitution rates is conserved between the hominid and murid genomes, but rates in subtelomeric regions are disproportionately elevated in the hominids.
• Substitutions at CpG dinucleotides, which constitute one-quarter of all observed substitutions, occur at more similar rates in male and female germ lines than non-CpG substitutions.
• Insertion and deletion (indel) events are fewer in number than single-nucleotide substitutions, but result in
  
  1.5% of the euchromatic sequence in each species being lineage-specific.
• There are notable differences in the rate of transposable element insertions: short interspersed elements (SINEs) have been threefold more active in humans, whereas chimpanzees have acquired two new families of retroviral elements.
• Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with
  
  29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.
• The normalized rates of amino-acid-altering substitutions in the hominid lineages are elevated relative to the murid lineages, but close to that seen for common human polymorphisms, implying that positive selection during hominid evolution accounts for a smaller fraction of protein divergence than suggested in some previous reports.
• The substitution rate at silent sites in exons is lower than the rate at nearby intronic sites, consistent with weak purifying selection on silent sites in mammals.
• Analysis of the pattern of human diversity relative to hominid divergence identifies several loci as potential candidates for strong selective sweeps in recent human history.

and

Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information 'Genome evolution'), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is

1.06% or less.

So chimps are still extremely similar to humans.

Thanks for pointing us to a paper that further confirms the common ancestry between chimps and humans .

 

[Autodidact]

There is evidence and there are theories that address the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists look at the same evidence and give their hypothesis.

They do? I missed the part where you gave your hypothesis. What is it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Given the thread question, I'm not looking for well established evolutionary fact that a creationist can twist.

I'm interested in (What INDEPENDENT experiments have the creationist performed to conclude creation?).

Example: Evolution shows humans and primates share a common ancestor. What INDEPENDENT study has the "creation scientist" performed to falsify this theory?

Using current data doesn't help because the religious have been saying ("God did it") well before ToE. Y Adam doesn't help the situation one bit. mtEve was conveniently abandoned by our resident creationist for some odd reason considering the prior usage hoping to prove a point.

So can any creationist answer these questions coherently and logically?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So can any creationist answer these questions coherently and logically?

Oh, look at you and your big words. I hope your enjoy using your extensive vocabulary while you burn in hell for all eternity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh, look at you and your big words. I hope your enjoy using your extensive vocabulary while you burn in hell for all eternity.

Hell is where the best parties are. Join us, Join us, Join us...!!! Muhahahaha haaaa!!!!

:seesaw:

 

[camanintx]

Accelerated evolution is the theory behind the evidence, not the evidence. The evidence is that the Y chromosome is greatly different in the chimp and human. That evidence supports the creation of chimps and humans individually. Your theory of accelerated evolution is what brings the evidence in line with Toe.

Human and chimp Y chromosomes are 98.3% similar compared to 98.8% for the rest of the genome. How is this rate of change too much for evolution to account for?

 

[newhope101]

Indeed.

Saying (against all facts) that "evidence supports creation" accomplishes nothing, except perhaps hinting onlookers about how desperate Creationism is at this point. I guess it can help some people in letting go of groundless faith, so it can be a good thing.
Listen up! I did not just SAY that evidence supports creation. I actually gave examples eg evidence of cambrian and precambrian ancestry, No LUCA, MRCA, FOXP2 gene etc.

The Y chromosome in chimp and Human being remarkably and unexpectedly nor predictably different to humans is other evidence. This, my dear, supports the hypothesis that humans chimps and mice were created individually.Why? Again because if we were so closely related the Y chromosome should be similar in male chimps and humans. It is your theory of accelerated evolution, and accompanying models that explain why humans survived mutations and why evolution chose deleterious mutations in the gaining of intelligence, that are required to explain this unexpected find. Theories turn the evidence in support of creation into some complicated mystery.

So don't go making out I don't back up. Rather, you have just popped in here going on about rubbish and having no refurte whatsoever to any point I have made.

That coupled with the already identified garbage bin of delusionary evidence, where your knuclewalker ancestry, brain increase accompanying bipedalism, LUCA, incremental evolution, Lucy with gorilla features etc etc etc all reside...is fairly sad for evos.
And expecting people to simply believe in Creationism is, quite literally, a cop-out, a Deus Ex Machina. Once one assumes that an all-mighty entity mighty possibly have created all of existence (and yet, curiously enough, made it so that he appears to be non-existent) it is possible to claim pretty much anything, yet clarify nothing at all.

So again there are evolutionists that believe in many variations of God or reincarnation. Are these people stupid? Are you only stupid if you are skeptical about Toe, but believing in a God of some description is sane? Let me remind you that this is a religious forum of which atheists haunt...go figure!


I'm not expecting anything, Are you? Are you under some delusion that I am going to try and get any of you clapping hands, or going to church on Sunday. I don't think I'm going to change anyone. I just like seeing the view counter go up when I come on and see how many people spend all day here. I'd say Auto and Outhouse pop in here about 50 times a day.

Like I have said many many many times. If your researchers found a homo sapien in the precambrian that still would not count as support for creation according to evolutionists.

Are evolutionists under the delusion that creationists are seeking acceptance from evolutionists? Don't be.