As mutations accumulate in populations of animals and people, they act as ticking time bombs primed to go off when the organisms can no longer function because of degraded genetic information. An accurate measurement of the rate of mutations would enable researchers to estimate how many "ticks" are left before the bomb explodes, and how many ticks have already taken place.
According to a study published in January 2010, humans accumulate mutations at a rate of 1 to 5 percent per generation.2 Another 2010 DNA base-by-base analysis yielded a smaller number, finding that 60 new, irrevocable mutations add up each generation.3 Either result shows that the human genome clock has been counting down fast. These data set reasonable limits to the total duration of mankind on earth. Those limits are incompatible with "millions of years," but they fit just right with the thousands of years history that the Bible provides. The human genome looks very young indeed.
Human DNA Is Unique
One common argument used to support the evolutionary concept that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ape-like ancestor was that the two species share so many of the same genes. In 2009, a counterargument held that these studies focused only on the genes and ignored the equally critical regulatory DNA sequences. Thus, the "we share the same genes as chimps" argument can only be supported by extremely biased studies.4
But in 2010, the first direct, sequence-for-sequence comparison of any of the corresponding chimp and human chromosomes was published. The new work was made possible by powerful new techniques that are able to quickly compare reams of data, unlike prior spot-check estimates of DNA sequence similarity.
The results showed that the human "Y" chromosome is totally different from the chimp's, containing large sections of coded information that were unique to man, and very large portions that had a unique layout and arrangement.5 In other words, humans and chimps look to be in no way related.
1. Lynch, M. 2010. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (3): 961-968. 2. Thomas, B. New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 9, 2010, accessed December 22, 2010. 3. Tomkins, J. 2009. Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 12. 4. Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5. 5. Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*facepalm* Your very first sentence gets it wrong, Ron:
"As mutations accumulate in populations of animals and people, they act as ticking time bombs primed to go off when the organisms can no longer function because of degraded genetic information."
I'll elaborate: I'm familiar with the Lynch article in question, since I have a passing interest in genetics, and you misunderstand his point. Lynch is intending to assert that industrial societies have found ways to prolong the lives of people with neutral and/or harmful mutations, thus increasing the rate at which those mutations accumulate in the species. This is not an attempt to set an upper bound on the age of humanity; it is an observation that acting to suppress the effects of natural selection is accelerating our collective mutation rate. We don't drown babies with six fingers anymore, fearing that they're witches or fairies; we give medication to people with congenital heart defects. And these people go on to have children who have an increased chance to suffer the same maladies.
It is, in other words, a paper that is heavily steeped in exactly the sort of selection that you are trying to use it to refute.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also want to address the "humans are less similar to chimps than we think" issue, because Tomkins is engaging in a bit of deception here.
Basically, the "we share 99% of our genetic code with chimpanzees" has been one of those factoids, like "we use 10% of our brains," that's just right enough to be said aloud by someone who knows better but contains enough caveats to be misleading if you're trying to build from it. We share 99% of our coding sequences -- the bits of our genetic code actually responsible for producing proteins to a certain spec -- with chimps, but less than 10% of the total actually codes. As recently as fifteen years ago, people thought the remainder of the DNA was "junk," perhaps a buffer zone for harmless mutations; it's only recently that we've discovered that some of those non-coding sequences perform other functions (many of which are still unknown, and almost certainly vary by species).
So, yes, taking all our genetic material into account, we're considerably less similar to chimps; I don't think a full chimpanzee sequencing has actually been performed, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that we're closer to 80-84% similar.
But.
We are still far, far closer to chimpanzees than to any other primate, and IIRC they're far closer to us than to any other. The same science that gives you the "mutation clock" you're somewhat haphazardly referencing in your post strongly implies that we and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor. I can't imagine that the argument "we and chimpanzees share so many genes; we're almost certainly related" is suddenly invalidated if, once we start including non-coding sequences, we and chimpanzees continue to share a remarkable number of genes, far more than we share with other species.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your accuracy in reading is questionable, Tom. First of all, it was not MY first sentence, but the author's. The whole thing was excerpted from the published article.
Your interpretation of Lynch's real point may satisfy you, and maybe you faithfully reflect Lynch's attempt to explain away the logical implications of his findings. But the fact remains that mutations in the human genome are accumulating. Do you or Lynch dispute that?
Then if mutations in the human genome are accummulating, how long can the human species remain viable, able to reproduce itself?
It does not matter if Lynch's intention was to attempt to set an upper bound on the age of humanity. Whether he intended it or not, that is the logical implication. Can you or Lynch deny it--by any means other than merely asserting what you want to believe is the case?
The problem with the genetic comparisons of humans and chimpanzees is that what used to be claimed to be no more different than about 2%, is now ten or twenty times more. In the study referenced, only the "Y" chromosomes were studied. But the basic differences in structure and whole lengthy sequences are so great, that even saying they are 80% alike is grossly exaggerated.
By all means, let's see what the results are when all the chromosomes are sequenced in detail. It is obvious that you want humans and chimpanzees to be closely related genetically, so the theory of the two species evolving from some common ancestor would seem more likely. But what real evidence do you have?
There are lots of different species of ape-like/monkey-like primates on earth. But where are all the human-like similar species? Unless you want to venture onto the mine field of claiming that African blacks and European whites represent different species, or some such thing, there are some branches of your supposed evolutionary tree that are conspicuously missing.
[ January 12, 2011, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, yes, taking all our genetic material into account, we're considerably less similar to chimps; I don't think a full chimpanzee sequencing has actually been performed, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that we're closer to 80-84% similar.
The particular factoid I'd like to know is, whatever standard we're using to establish similarity to Chimpanzees, what does that standard say about Horses and Zebras? Back when I was doing a lot of arguing about this, I told my creationist friend (who believed in "microevolution", with horses to zebras as his example) that we were more similar to chimps than horses are to zebras. Does that end up staying true?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond, I don't know about horses and zebras, but donkeys and horses are routinely crossed, and produce live offspring--mules. Usually mules are sterile, but on rare occasions there have been a few that were fertile.
Now, the real question is whether humans and chimpanzees can cross. Most evolutionists, I am guessing, would be inclined to believe it would be possible. Outside of urban legends, I have not heard of it ever happening.
Getting back to horses and donkeys, I have read estimates in the past that they were 5% different--which sounded like they were further apart than chimpanzees and humans. But what has been established in the past couple of years, is that both those early estimates were completely in error, totally unreliable, because they surveyed only a few selected portions of a chromosome, thus skipping over the actual structre and detailed sequencing. It is now known that the early estimates of genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees was grossly in error, by at least an order of magnitude. The same may be true of the early estimates of the differenced between donkeys and horses. Since the comparisons were made of a few selected portions, the differences between donkeys and horses could be greater, OR LESSER. We have no way of knowing until the blanks are filled in by a complete sequencing of a chromosome, including taking cognizance of the structure.
So basically, the whole idea of genetic similarities between different species being close, within a few percentage points for any two species, is pretty much out the window. Those early estimates were based on defective methods. Perhaps it is not too extreme to say those methods were fraudulent.
[ January 12, 2011, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be astonished if a complete sequencing has been done on zebras. A quick Google shows that horses have nearly twice the chromosome count of a zebra, and that the coded DNA is about 92% similar; by contrast, a zebra and a donkey show 98% similarity, and a horse and a donkey show about 93%. If we assume substantial uncoded sequences on par with the human/chimpanzee studies -- which may not be a safe assumption, but which given the difference in chromosome count is not, I believe, unlikely -- we're probably looking at 75-80% overall.
quote:Perhaps it is not too extreme to say those methods were fraudulent.
Well, no, it is too extreme. Remember, it's only recently that we had any idea that "junk" DNA did anything at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, I merely meant that is what they would probably want to believe, since donkeys and horses can cross with an estimated 5% difference, and chimpanzees and humans were previously (falsely) estimated to be 2% different. Surely you can see the implication there.
Tom, you say that horses have twice the chromosome count of zebras, but then claim the coded DNA is about 92% similar. So you are going to ignore half the chromosomes in the horse, and claim they do not consist of coded DNA? That is part of the problem--those estimates ignore the STRUCTURE.
I believe that no such estimates can be given any credence anymore. They need to be replaced by actual, complete sequencing of at least one chromosome, like the Y chromosome. Even better, of course, would be sequencing the entire genome. That is really the only comparison we could have confidence was accurate.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven--are you referring to the late George McReady Price (1870-1963)? He's been dead for 48 years.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Tom, maybe I should not say the early estimates of the genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees was fraudulent. But clearly the methods followed were seriously flawed.
And yet, don't forget, it was not merely the fact that some DNA sequences were skipped over because it was wrongly thought they were just "junk DNA." Part of the problem that has now been identified was ignoring differences in structure.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you are going to ignore half the chromosomes in the horse, and claim they do not consist of coded DNA?
Well, I'm not going to claim it, but that's certainly the logical conclusion to draw from the couple of papers I found via Google. I wouldn't be surprised, though; a huge percentage of most DNA is non-coding.
And, yes, you are correct in concluding that this means estimates like "chimpanzees are X% different from gorillas" are, on the face of it, downright silly.
But.
Coded DNA is still pretty darn important, so it's not like we're suddenly left without any way of comparing species. It's almost certainly true that we'll have to rejigger some evolutionary trees here and there, as non-coding sequences are compared, but it's not likely that we're going to suddenly discover that, based on our non-coding genes, we're almost identical to frogs. Worrying too much about the exact numbers being bastardized by pop culture/media reporting is missing the forest for the trees; not being able to authoritatively say that we're only one percentage point removed from chimps is not something that's going to turn the scientific community upside down.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I have a very straightforward question, and request that you provide a straightforward answer in the form of an integer between 0 and 6.
Between the article you link to and its 5 references how many would be acceptable references in a scholarly article in minimally respectable journal or a high school science report?
(I'm assuming the answer to both is the same - if you disagree please provide 2 integers instead of 1.)
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does not matter if Lynch's intention was to attempt to set an upper bound on the age of humanity. Whether he intended it or not, that is the logical implication. Can you or Lynch deny it--by any means other than merely asserting what you want to believe is the case?
Well, for one thing, in order for this assertion to make much sense, it requires that one completely misunderstand natural selection. Firstly, it implicitly assumes that there was at some point in the distant past some perfect ur-human, one sans any "mutations" at all, and that all our various mutations and deviations since then have somehow been introduced.
This is, of course, a silly way to look at it.
In reality, what we choose to call the first "human" was a heavily mutated primate. And that primate continued to mutate, in both beneficial and neutral ways; the primates that mutated in harmful ways usually but not always died out. How long do you think Lynch's research would estimate that a non-industrial species of heavily mutated primate might exist before its genome simply became too "corrupted" to produce viable offspring?
(Answer: Lynch's research doesn't speak to that question at all.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I think the main issue is that someone convinced you that DNA is like a personal hard-drive, with all the information you need to be you is written on it. You view mutations as simply corruptions of those files--so as the files get more corrupted there is less chance of the data stored there being viable.
DNA does not work like that.
How it works is extremely complex (no--that is not an excuse to force belief) and beyond my skill to explain, but I will try. Mutation does not destroy information--it changes it. Some small percentage of that change will be useful. The rest dies off.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If only the neanderthal's could have made it this far... In creatures that would have shred a path to becoming something like us, was probably killed by us. Though I think disease is what did the neanderthal's in.
Yep that seems right, not the most scientific chart, but I don't have a scanner for my psychology book so no luck there.. assuming you share the same father and mother and you're not an identical twin the both of you only share about 50% in genetic relationship, which would mean you're more related to a monkey than your sibling.........or something like that XD
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: If only the neanderthal's could have made it this far... In creatures that would have shred a path to becoming something like us, was probably killed by us. Though I think disease is what did the neanderthal's in.
Yep that seems right, not the most scientific chart, but I don't have a scanner for my psychology book so no luck there.. assuming you share the same father and mother and you're not an identical twin the both of you only share about 50% in genetic relationship, which would mean you're more related to a monkey than your sibling.........or something like that XD
Those percentages are relative. When someone says you are 50% more like a sibling genetically, that is in comparison to the rest of the human race. When someone says we share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees, that is in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom.
posted
Did you know that if you take the rate of human population growth in the year 2000, assume it has been constant since the dawn of man, and extrapolate backwards in time in a linear fashion, you can show that the human population was at zero at some point around 1850? This demonstrates either (1) mankind is only 150 years old, or (2) you will reach false conclusions if you take something with a variable rate and extrapolate back in time with the assumption that it is a constant rate.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
just_me, your question is not really fair, since the article I linked to was a popular-style article written for everyone, not a formal submission to a peer-reviewed journal. It's like comparing Popular Science to Reviews of Geophysics. That is not to say that Popular Science is necessarily inaccurate. It is a matter of couching terms in a manner accessible to the target audience.
Let's not play games, here. The only question is truth or falsehood. If you think that what the article I linked to is not true in any of its points, then please explain why--as some others here have attempted to do. That makes it possible to engage in a reasoned discussion/debate.
I like your answer, Raymond!
Xavier--is evolution something to "believe in," as you said? That makes it sound like a religion, you know. Which may be the problem with some people. As for me, I believe in Truth. Science is only science if it is true. And whatever is true is science.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: just_me, your question is not really fair, since the article I linked to was a popular-style article written for everyone, not a formal submission to a peer-reviewed journal. It's like comparing Popular Science to Reviews of Geophysics. That is not to say that Popular Science is necessarily inaccurate. It is a matter of couching terms in a manner accessible to the target audience.
How about instead of assuming anything about why I asked or what I was going to say next you just answer the question? Sure, my question implied a certain train of thought but you have no way of knowing where I was going. Before I embark on trying to make a point and have you dodge and deflect it per your usual "debate" style I wanted to see if you could answer one simple question.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Did you know that if you take the rate of human population growth in the year 2000, assume it has been constant since the dawn of man, and extrapolate backwards in time in a linear fashion, you can show that the human population was at zero at some point around 1850? This demonstrates either (1) mankind is only 150 years old, or (2) you will reach false conclusions if you take something with a variable rate and extrapolate back in time with the assumption that it is a constant rate.
quote:Xavier--is evolution something to "believe in," as you said? That makes it sound like a religion, you know.
Well of course. When I am in trouble, I pray that Charles Darwin will send one of his finches to come and help me. I once found a 20 dollar bill in my pocket, I'm sure it was a monkey ancestor that put it there (knowing I'd want to go out to eat). When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
But that's all changed now.
quote:Spontaneous Complexity (Occam's Razor says its the most likely)
I like the sound of that. Where can I send my checks to?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great! Just send me your bank account information along with your SSN and birthdate. I'll set up automatic deposits. I'm feeling generous, so will give this new religion TWICE my current tithing.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Well of course. When I am in trouble, I pray that Charles Darwin will send one of his finches to come and help me. I once found a 20 dollar bill in my pocket, I'm sure it was a monkey ancestor that put it there (knowing I'd want to go out to eat). When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
posted
I think it's amazing how evolution created the Earth so that it would be a perfect fit for human beings after eons of beneficial genetic mutations being selected for and passed on. I mean, how did evolution know the conditions that would be a good fit for organisms whose traits were selected based on how well they conferred reproductive fitness in the environment they were expressed in?
I dare anyone to say that this is not a miracle that proves the divinity of evolution.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I am playing in a sporting event, I pray that evolution will give one of our players a mutation, so that we may win the game.
Depending on your choice of words, one could say I am a mutant but I would do poorly in most sports I am afraid to say. Running with my clubfoot is... well it argues against intelligent design.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Great! Just send me your bank account information along with your SSN and birthdate. I'll set up automatic deposits. I'm feeling generous, so will give this new religion TWICE my current tithing.
posted
AchillesHeel, you are aware, aren't you, that there has been a Fall, which resulted in nature becoming corrupted (including our own physical bodies)? God never intended for anyone to die, let alone have any genetic defects. When the universe has become sufficiently proof against sin, so it will never arise again, and all of us have made our final choice for or gainst God, He has promised to restore the perfect creation of Paradise. As the Apostle Paul said:
quote:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.--Romans 8:19-23; NIV
As for nipples, they merely demonstrate that men and women are both built upon the basic plan of mammals. By the way, MattP, according to the Bible, woman came from man, not vice versa. If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, so a woman could be made from a man simply by taking two X chromosomes, one from each of two male cells.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for nipples, they merely demonstrate that men and women are both built upon the basic plan of mammals. By the way, according to the Bible, woman came from man, not vice versa. If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, so a woman could be made from a man simply by taking two X chromosomes, one from each of two male cells.
But that makes no sense. Male mammals having nipples makes no more sense than male humans having them. That just pushes the barely intelligent design back a little bit. "Men have to have nipples because they are based on God's stupid design for mammals." doesn't make the design any less stupid.
As for God being forced to work that way with men and women, I've expressed before Ron that I really can't get behind your God because he seems sort of powerless and, honestly, kind of a wuss.
I like my omnipotent entities to be a little more omnipotent and not so much like a whiny teenager. But, hey, if it works for you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for me, I believe in Truth. Science is only science if it is true. And whatever is true is science.
I was under the impression that science is neither true nor false- it is simply a method for invalidating hypotheses. What I've been taught in college so far is that science, as a general rule, never proves anything--it simply narrows down the possible explanations by eliminating those that can't be shown via the scientific method. Personally, I tread on the side of logic--and it seems to me, the more we learn, the more we discover we have yet to learn.
Monday, my evolutionary psychology class and I will be taking a "field trip" up a couple floors in our building to handle plaster molds of both the Lucy and Ardi skeletons. I'm greatly looking forward to that.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: God absolutely intended for us to die, it's the entire reason a savior was provided in the first place, to save us from both physical death brought on by our natural condition, and spiritual death, brought on by our sins.
It sounds to me Ron, like you are saying that because death did not exist before the fall, that evolution is then impossible. Is that correct?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Death most certainly existed before expulsion from Eden, it was called being turned into ash.
I'm trying to find out if that is what Ron is saying. Personally I lean towards the belief that there was certainly death before Adam and Eve showed up.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
His argument seems to be that my foot and all other "imperfect" factors of the human condition including death were brought about by the dissobediance of Adam and Eve while it did not exist before.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If God had started with a woman, He would have had to create an entire new chromosome, the Y chromosome, for the man. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, so a woman could be made from a man simply by taking two X chromosomes, one from each of two male cells.
Well, now, this is interesting, because this is a reproducible experiment.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
