Creationists, please provide evidence

[David M]

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

I see the liars from ICR are still lying.

The claim that a 70% alignment between the 2 chromosomes undermines chimp-human similarity is a lie.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto..

You articulate your hypothesis.

You are unable to do better than paste up picture. Go on state a hypothesis for your evolution..and while you're at it..

Explain HOW HOW HOW evolution works and HOW HOW HOW life poofed into existence.

You can't, and you already know what that makes you.

You and outhouse have satisfactorily bored me to tears, just like the other thread with nothing to contribute than the same old war cry. You are both totally unable to refute anything and the fact that both of you always manage to instantly reply and always seek to have the most recent reply demonstrates to me you that do not have a life and RF is your life. CONGRATULATIONS...whose child has a fanatical and emotionally unavailable mother?

My hypothesis is,,,as I have told you many many times is
GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL LIFE..are you unable to comprehend amongst your other flaws.

Wow, you're really hard to communicate with. I have no hypothesis that is relevant to this thread, which is about your position as a creationist. Since I'm not a creationist, I don't have a creationist hypothesis, obviously.

I accept modern scientific knowledge, which has nothing to do with poofing; I don't know where you're getting that from?

"God created the universe and all life" is not a scientific hypothesis. Do you see why, or do I need to explain it? Always remember,

HOW. HOW, HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
We can all agree, for the purpose of this thread, that your position is completely correct. We agree! We're not arguing about whether God created the universe and all life. Please stop arguing about that; it's agreed. Now, what this thread is actually about:

HOW did He do so? That's the hypothesis we're waiting for you to put forward.

Please, I beg of you, I can't stand it. Please indicate that you comprehend this, and don't force me to post it again. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Seriously..instead of woffling on about asides. Let’s look at just one point within my evidence for creation. Let’s look at the remarkable difference in the male human and chimpanzee Y chromosome.
According to your evolutionary assertions the male human Y chromosome should be very similar to the chimp Y chromosome because they are our closest ancestor. I have already spoken to the article that appeared in Nature speaking of these remarkable differences.

An article from a creationist site has summed up my assertion that the human and chimp Y chromosome is evidence that humans and chimpanzees were created individually and they did not descend from a common ancestor. If they did, our Y chromosomes should be very similar and not remarkably dissimilar. Remember it is your researchers that have dicovered this difference.

Of course there are many theories has to how this came about. These only add to the ‘Precambrian rabbit’ discussions that no matter what you find, no matter how unexpected the findings, no matter how they go against predicted expectations, whatever flies in the face of your TOE, will be explained away by additional theories. Again I restate the obvious; The evidence (what you find) supports creation, your theoretical assumptions (why the evidence cannot be taken as evidence) supports evolution.

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.
One of the main deficiencies with the original chimpanzee genome sequence published in 20053 was that it was a draft sequence and only represented a 3.6-fold random coverage of the 21 chimpanzee autosomes, and a 1.8-fold redundancy of the X and Y sex chromosomes. In a draft coverage, very small fragments of the genome are sequenced in millions of individual reactions using high-throughput robotics equipment. This produces individual sequence fragments of about 500 to 1,200 bases in length. Based on overlapping reads, these individual sequences are assembled into contiguous clusters of sequence called sequencing contigs. In the case of a chimpanzee, an organism with a genome size of about 3 billion bases, a 3.6-fold coverage means that approximately 10.8 billion bases of DNA were sequenced (3.6 x 3.0). The result is a data set consisting of thousands of random sequencing contigs, or islands of contiguous sequence that need to be oriented and placed in position on their respective chromosomes.
In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10 percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of human-chimp similarity, but was also inherently flawed.
The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content." Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome because it was standing on its own merit.
The Y chromosome is found only in males and contains many genes that specify male features, as well as genetic and regulatory information that is expressed throughout the whole body. Because of the recent outcome comparing the chimp and human Y chromosomes in a more objective assessment, it is possible that major discrepancies will be revealed among the other chromosomes that are claimed to be so similar.
From a large-scale perspective, the human and chimp Y chromosomes were constructed entirely differently. On the human Y chromosome, there were found four major categories of DNA sequence that occupy specific regions. One can think of this in terms of geography. Just as a continent like Europe is divided into countries because of different people groups, so are chromosomes with different categories of DNA sequence.
Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1
As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.
Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively short--according to the evolutionary timeline--six-million-year time span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City who wasn't involved in the research, told the Associated Press, "That result is astounding."6
Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments.
In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing way: "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1
So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.
However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures.

The research is sited in the article;

　
Your acceptance of the evidence for creation is not required. It is there, whether you accept it or not; ignore it or not; have a myriad of assumptions to explain it or not. The evidence is there.

There is ample evidence to support creation. The trouble is, evolutionists would not see it if it smacked them in the face. The thread requested evidence for creation. I have provided some.

You still haven't stated a hypothesis. Therefore you have not presented evidence of anything.

 

[Autodidact]

Micruras...you'll need to ask autodidact why she is on about this crap. It appears to be the best refute she can come up with. I have stated a hypothesis many times "God created all life" and still goes on like a broken record. As annoying as it is I love it as it demonstrars she has nothing intelligent to add as an appropriate refute. Nor is she able to articulate an evolutionary hypothesis. There is none other than all life evolved from something else, some time, some how. So go tell Auto to shut up because she is bound to put up more irrelevant woffle.

She nor you will be gane to put upany hypothesis for Toe as they can all be instantly refuted.

I agree what the heck is Auto going on about? This is thread about providing evidence for creation, not provide an irrefutable hypothesis for creation that you evolutionists like or will accept.

O.K., I'll explain. This thread asks for evidence of a creationist hypothesis. Obviously, we first need to figure out what that hypothesis is, before we can do that. The hypothesis is not about God created all things, as that is outside the scope of science. You do know that, right? I mean, you can't possibly be that ignorant as to not know that, after the amount of time you've spent discussing this stuff? What we're after is your hypothesis as to HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW he did so. I understand that you don't have one. It follows that you cannot possibly have any evidence. The thread is now over, and you have failed.

 

[Autodidact]

S
Again you are simplistically referring to in kind variation.

O.K., here's a hint of a scintilla of a hypothesis, good. What on earth is "in kind variation?" How does it work?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hi Newhope,

Perhaps a possible hypothesis could be that god magically "poofed" everything into existence. It would be at this point that you could then present evidence to back up this hypothesis.

-Q

 

[camanintx]

Explain HOW HOW HOW evolution works and HOW HOW HOW life poofed into existence.

Please answer one simple question for me. How long do you think it would take for a single cell organism to become a fully formed human being?

 

[McBell]

Please answer one simple question for me. How long do you think it would take for a single cell organism to become a fully formed human being?

I am going to go with 9 months.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Please answer one simple question for me. How long do you think it would take for a single cell organism to become a fully formed human being?

About 9 months.


PS: Damn, Mestemia beat me to it.

 

[outhouse]

About 9 months.


PS: Damn, Mestemia beat me to it.

LOL i read this earlier and you didnt only beat me to it I had to think about it for a minute lol

Good one Mestemia

 

[etheric1]

Creationism is something that must be understood and can only be realized by enlightenment or evolution. Those which hold strong beliefs cannot evolve beyond the point in which their beliefs limit them to, therefore the arguement will always exist. Unfortunately religion does not allow you to question your belief - how convenient...It is futile with those who do not question belief and accept what has been handed to them from birth with no real evidence.

 

[DeistPrimate]

An article from a creationist site has summed up my assertion that the human and chimp Y chromosome is evidence that humans and chimpanzees were created individually and they did not descend from a common ancestor. If they did, our Y chromosomes should be very similar and not remarkably dissimilar. Remember it is your researchers that have dicovered this difference.

Unfortunately creationist websites interpret data in dishonest ways (when they aren't making up data whole cloth).

Human and chimp (and indeed all great ape) DNA are extremely homologous, most of the differences being which genes are shut down and which aren't. We share hoc mutations, the only way of doing this is through common ancestry.

 

[paolops181]

You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

The Bible is the evidence that God exists. How bout you? what is your evidence of the bigbang theory?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The Bible is the evidence that God exists. How bout you? what is your evidence of the bigbang theory?

So how do you know the bible is correct?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The Bible is the evidence that God exists.

The Bible is evidence that the Bible exists.
Difference.

How bout you? what is your evidence of the bigbang theory?

Sorry mate, not going to spin the tread even more out of control.
I'll be happy to discuss Cosmology if you like but please make a separate tread.

 

[rusra02]

Unfortunately creationist websites interpret data in dishonest ways (when they aren't making up data whole cloth).

Human and chimp (and indeed all great ape) DNA are extremely homologous, most of the differences being which genes are shut down and which aren't. We share hoc mutations, the only way of doing this is through common ancestry.

Similarities in DNA, to the extent they exist (or not), prove nothing as to origin. Patterns in creation repeat themselves across many plant and animal kinds. Rather than prove any supposed common ancestry, they rather display the handiwork of a common Creator. The evolutionary emperor has no clothes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Similarities in DNA, to the extent they exist (or not), prove nothing as to origin. Patterns in creation repeat themselves across many plant and animal kinds. Rather than prove any supposed common ancestry, they rather display the handiwork of a common Creator. The evolutionary emperor has no clothes.

Perhaps you could define a hypothesis then so we can begin to compare evidence?

 

[camanintx]

I am going to go with 9 months.

Exactly! And yet creationists will claim that one single cell organism cannot evolve into another over the course of thousands or even millions of years.

 

[newhope101]

Creationism is something that must be understood and can only be realized by enlightenment or evolution. Those which hold strong beliefs cannot evolve beyond the point in which their beliefs limit them to, therefore the arguement will always exist. Unfortunately religion does not allow you to question your belief - how convenient...It is futile with those who do not question belief and accept what has been handed to them from birth with no real evidence.

Actually it is evolutionsists that require more faith than creationsists. Evolutionists need to be resilient to seeing solid evidence turn to mud over and over without a loss of faith. OR ignorant of recent advances to believe their theory is not in crisis. Your Toe was alot more believable 15 years ago.

If you still can't work out if neanderthal is our ancestor with DNA and all your fancy technology, if it took Ardi to make a gorrilla out of Lucy, what hope have you got with anything else?

 

[McBell]

Actually it is evolutionsists that require more faith than creationsists. Evolutionists need to be resilient to seeing solid evidence turn to mud over and over without a loss of faith. OR ignorant of recent advances to believe their theory is not in crisis. Your Toe was alot more believable 15 years ago.

If you still can't work out if neanderthal is our ancestor with DNA and all your fancy technology, if it took Ardi to make a gorrilla out of Lucy, what hope have you got with anything else?

Your dedication to beating dead horses is without equal.