TheNewCreationist

Goin' Ape! - this is Genesis Week with Ian Juby

2012-03-16T16:05:00.000-04:00

Uploaded by wazooloo on Mar 15, 2012

http://wazooloo.com
In this episode: Genetics suggest we might have evolved from the gorilla...or....maybe the orangutan? Or... maybe..... More living fossils, and a mailbag stuffed to overflowing.

This is Episode 12 of season 1 of Genesis Week, with a new episode out every Thursday.

Random references:

Gorilla genome:
http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html#/geneti...

Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09687.html

Humans and chimpanzees 4% different:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Base pair counts:
chimpanzee, 3.35 billion:http://sep2011.archive.ensembl.org/Pan_troglodytes/Info/Index
Human: 3.1 billion http://useast.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Info/Index
Gorilla: 3.04 billion (estimated)http://useast.ensembl.org/Gorilla_gorilla/Info/Index

Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry, Ebersberger, et al:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2266.full

Fossil sea cows:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112491611/fossils-show-multiple-seacow-...

Salamanders with preserverd stomach contents:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/48718565g8v13013/

Ticker tape:
Is the battle over? http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i5f.htm

What is the snail evolution project?:http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/snail-evolution-project-in-british-...

Hugenex2000 on the Gorilla genome:http://newcreationist.blogspot.com/2012/03/gorilla-and-human-genomes-analyzed...

Gorilla Genome is bad news for Evolution: http://www.icr.org/article/6723/

Programming Of Life: http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video

Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/wikipedia_and_t055991.html

Darwinism has "reached the end of its rope":http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/has_darwinism_p055941.html

Salamanders have evolved into salamanders: http://www.icr.org/article/6724/

Vestigial legs on whales? Not!
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution
http://creation.com/the-strange-tale-of-the-leg-on-the-whale

Laryngial nerve is not "bad design"
http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/

http://ianjuby.org
http://genesisweek.com

Gorilla and Human Genomes Analyzed

2012-03-13T06:07:00.005-04:00

There has been some recent hoopla about a recent study published March 7, 2012 in the journal Nature and available online at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html

The study is titled, "Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence"

The hoopla begins in the journal Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185

The hoopla spills over into the media
The Bend Bulletin:
http://m.bendbulletin.com/bb/pm_107479/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=se6W5C4i

The L.A. Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/science/la-sci-gorilla-genome-20120308

Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-gorilla-genome-sheds-new-light-human-idUSTRE8261VA20120307

The way it was argued not too long ago:
Based on physical similarities such as bone structure it had been historically argued that chimps and gorillas are each other's closest relatives, and that both are closely related to orangutans to the Exclusion of humans. This is reflected in historical classification schemes.

In the 2003 study "Phylogenomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the ancestry of humans", biologists Morris Goodman and Kirstin N. Sterner of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan argued that Chimps are genetically so similar to Humans that they should be reclassified as Homo troglodytes (as opposed to Pan troglodytes).

But then Other studies in contradiction to the above argument and also in contradiction to the most recent study, "Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence" published last week, showed that Humans and Chimps are NOT as similar after all, such as the following from Caltech:

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12291

"Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows"

The above research at Caltech by the late Roy Britten and published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS), has simply been ignored in this latest study in the journal Nature.

How many times are evolutionists going to contradict one another?
Why must they constantly change their story?

http://io9.com/5892387/the-last-time-we-redefined-what-it-means-to-be-human

Modern version from, "Phylogenomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the ancestry of humans"

What was conspicuously left out of the analysis in the recent Nature article on Human and Gorilla DNA was a comparison of Y chromosome palindromes. According to the study, "[They] did not assemble a gorilla Y chromosme" from the two male gorillas, named Kwanza and Mukisi, which were sequenced. They Did however say something about the Y chromosome in the study about the two male gorillas that were sequenced and specifically about the VCY gene, that there is only one copy of VCY on the Gorilla Y chromosome. However, I did not see where they mentioned anything about the palindrome configurations in which the VCY genes are found in Humans and why it is not in a palindrome configuration in Gorillas. Obviously if only one VCY was found on the Gorilla Y chromosome then there is no palindrome there. (Incidentally, there are loose homologues on the X chromosomes of Human, Chimp and Gorilla but these homologues are in significantly different loci in each respectively.) There is supplemental info to the study listed as "Supplementary Table 7.5".

It is a comparison of the Y chromosome differences between Humans, Chimps and Gorillas, especially the palindrome configurations, that will show that these species have No common ancestor At All but Rather are quite unique, with separate lineages to there own respective unique common ancestors. These Y chromosome configurations, I predict, are each very unique. Why? Because, "God created them male and female" and anything attributed to God directly should prove both brilliant and miraculous. Case in point is the configuration of the Human Y Chromosome as follows:

The Human Y chromosome is configured in a beautiful array of palindromes (some are palindromes within palindromes), the smallest of which in Humans is the VCY/VCY1B sequence which is over 71,000 base pairs long. That's 71,000+ nucleotides which reads exactly the same whether read forwards or backwards beginning and ending with the exact same protein coding sequence, only ending with the sequence in reverse of course. Now, before a cross species comparison is even done, the evolutionists must explain how this configuration arose via ANY Stochastic process! How do random mutations give rise to a palindrome over 71,000bps long??? (And this is the SMALLEST palindrome). Then, when we compare the Human VCY/VCY1B to the Chimp homologue LOC742075 we find that not only is it a substantially different sequence (which defies the mutation rate of 10^-9 mutations per bp per year, given in the paper "Insights into hominid evolution...") but it is in a completely different location on the Chimp Y chromosome. Then there is the perfect balance of this palindrome which is in itself a brilliancy. What level of intelligence would be required to design such a thing?

HUMAN:
Palindrome for VCY
Starting point: Y:16,097,652
Ending point: Y:16,168,838
Total base pairs: 71,187
Mid Loci: Y:16,133,245
VCY1B length: 742bp
VCY1B transcript length: 550bp
Amino acid length: 125aa

Human VCY Protein Amino Acid sequence:

MSPKPRASGPPAKAKETGKRKSSSQPSPSGPKKKTTKVAEKGEAVRGGRRGKKGAATKMA
AVTAPEAESGPAAPGPSDQPSQELPQHELPPEEPVSEGTQHDPLSQESELEEPLSKGRPS
TPLSP

Now Chimpanzee:
Gene: LOC742075 ENSPTRG00000028322 (corresponds to Human VCY1B)
Location: Chromosome Y: 21,572,528-21,573,311 reverse strand.
#28322 Length: 784bp
Amino Acid length: 196aa
Transcript length: 591
reverse protein id: ENSPTRP00000061002
Starting point - Y:21,572,528
Ending point - Y: 21,660,482
Total base pairs: 87,955



Length of internal region: 86,388
Midpoint Loci: Y: 21,616,505


Chimpanzee VCY Protein Amino Acid Sequence:
MSPKPRASGPPAKAEEAGKRKASSQLSPSGPKKKTAKVAKKGKAVRRGRRGKKGAATKMA
AVTAPEAESGPAAPGPSDQPSRELPQHELPPEEPVSEGSQHDPLSQESEVGEPLSQESEV
GEPLSQESEVEEPLSQETEVEEPLSQESKMEEPLSQESEVEEPLSQETEVEEPLSQETEL
EEPLSQESEVEELPSV

Anyway, according to the study they did not assemble the Gorilla Y chromosome, which is most convenient for Evolution because such an assembly would leave them with more contradictions than they could possibly answer. Just the palindromes on the Human Y chromosome alone are problem enough to lock the doors on the Smithsonian Institute's Museum of Natural History in my opinion. Not that they would let that happen because then they would all be out of a job and seeking honest employment.

I also did not see an analysis of mitochondrial dna in the study which I assume should pose another substantial problem for evolutionary common descent.

Clearly and self admittedly they used a model, the CoalHMM's model, which does not fit the data.

What more can I say? They simply can't be serious.

Or as John McEnroe would say,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY

Bonus question:

At what point did Humans evolve the need for shoes?

Evidence of Creation - The Relationships of Life

2012-03-11T22:39:00.001-04:00

The symbiotic nature of living organisms in the delicate balance of life within each of the various environmental habitats on Earth is powerful evidence for creation because these organisms rely on each other in order to survive. In a relationship necessary for their continuing existence one organism depends on another to perform vital functions with it can not do for itself, vital functions necessary for it to live. Here is a video of one example out of many, in this case of the undersea world of a coral reef.

I'm Tho Exthited!

2012-03-09T19:04:00.001-05:00

This is Genesis Week with Ian Juby (Wazooloo), Season 1, Episode 11

Uploaded by wazooloo on Mar 8, 2012

http://wazooloo.com
In this episode: Fossil feet prove tetrapod evolution, meet your ancestor, the worm, and open flagrant bigotry in academia and our mailbag

This is Episode 11 of season 1 of Genesis Week, with a new episode out every Thursday.

Random references:
Scottish fossils: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1117332109

Royal Ontario Museum press release:
http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=nmpthsfgmi

Open, flagrant bigotry: http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/02/publisher-to-print-id-book/

Ticker tape:
Debunked: Objections to Noah's ark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGkbMVCb4Wo

How did Noah fit all the animals on the ark?http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/noahs-ark-how-did-noah-fit-all-the-...

The St. Peters sandstone: http://www.icr.org/article/6540/

The "most productive and influential microbiologist in France" is a furious Darwin doubter:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html

Taking design tips from "undesigned" nature:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html

What sandblasted scorpions can teach us - more design tips from "undesigned" nature: http://www.uncommondescent.com/biomimicry/what-sandblasted-scorpions-can-teac...

The Draining Floodwaters: http://www.icr.org/article/6539/

Baby steps to science (part 1) - Counting:http://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/baby-steps-to-science-pa...

hybrid sharks and evolutionary story telling: http://www.icr.org/article/6632/

Lateral layers of geologic Strata: http://www.icr.org/article/6631/

Numerical simulations of hypercanes:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1#numerical-simulations-hype...

The irreducibly complex genome: designed from the beginning:http://www.icr.org/article/6628/

'Primitive' tribe demonstrates modern social behavior:http://www.icr.org/article/6721/

http://ianjuby.org
http://genesisweek.com

Doctors Doubt Darwin

2012-03-04T14:43:00.002-05:00

ID The Future - Republican Brain?

2012-03-02T20:18:00.001-05:00

Genesis Week - Layers of Time

2012-03-02T19:46:00.000-05:00

Peer Review?

2012-02-28T15:26:00.002-05:00

This podcast episode of ID The Future deals with the subject of peer-review and covers Nobel Prize winning research which was initially rejected by peer-reviewed publications like the journals 'Nature' and 'Science'. What happens when the peer-review system rejects valid research, or conversely publishes flawed research?

Ian Juby Responds to TheLivingDinosaur

2012-02-25T18:48:00.003-05:00

Here is Ian Juby's response to TheLivingDinosaur's insulting video:

And, here is my take on things:

Still a Fishy Story

2012-02-24T10:11:00.000-05:00

Uploaded by wazooloo on Feb 23, 2012

Youtube:
description:
http://wazooloo.com
In this episode: The fishy story of evolution and fishapods takes another fishy twist, once again the design of biology inspires the design of technology, venus is slowing down, and we answer some questions from the mailbag.

This is Episode 9 of season 1 of Genesis Week, with a new episode out every Thursday.

Random references:

Legless amphibians are horrifying:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/newly-discovered-legless-amphibians...

GE announces development of incredible thermal imaging
Their press release:
http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/discovery-of-selective-vapor-response-wit...
Demo video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoaILSCzlTo&feature=youtu.be
and commentary from the ID group:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/ge_brings_life056451.html

Spin of Venus slowing down?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120214-venus-planets-slower-s...

Ticker tape:
Limited-Time Offer! Act Now! Operators Standing By! MagiMold®!http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/limited-time_of056461.html

Is this plant really 30,000 years old? http://crev.info/2012/02/is-this-plant-really-30000-years-old/

Discussing Starlight and Time with Dr. G. Charles Jackson:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRe3DB5BIow&feature=share

Nobel Prize Winner Cites the "Ingeniously Designed" Architecture of the Ribosome: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize_win056541.html

Dinosaurs Display Death in Watery Grave: http://crev.info/2012/02/dinosaurs-drowned/

http://genesisweek.com
http://ianjuby.org

A Fishy Story - Genesis Week

2012-02-18T20:46:00.000-05:00

Uploaded by wazooloo on Feb 16, 2012
http://wazooloo.com

In this episode: We use a collage of news items from the week to show just how convoluted the evolution story has become, and we deal with the alleged evolution of the fishapods. We also dive into the mailbag.

This is Episode 8 of season 1 of Genesis Week, with a new episode out every Thursday.

Broccoli Declares the Glory of God

2012-02-15T04:38:00.002-05:00

The ingenious design of God's creation of living organisms is impressive on so many levels but is not always apparent at first glance. Case in point (as funny as it may sound at first) would be broccoli and cauliflower which it would seem diverged from a common ancestor. Of course, the question would be whether that common ancestor was the original created "kind" but from the spiral design evident in the hybrid of the two, I would say perhaps it is a reflection.

From Wikipedia:

"The vegetable resembles a cauliflower, but is of a light green color and the inflorescence (the bud) has an approximate self-similar character, with the branched meeristems making a logarithmic spiral. In this sense the broccoli's shape approximates a natural fractal; each bud is composed of a series of smaller buds, all arranged in yet another logarithmic spiral. This self-similar pattern continues
at several smaller levels."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_broccoli

So, what we have is a logarithmic spiral within a logarithmic spiral in a precise 3 dimensional mathematical formula known as a "fractal". What may not be readily apparent then on your dinner table becomes an amazing expression of superlative intelligence. Not that broccoli is intelligent but rather the Creator who designed it is.

- from the study:

"Fractal Structure of a White Cauliower"

http://icpr.snu.ac.kr/resource/wop.pdf/J01/2005/046/R02/J012005046R020474.pdf

Now, if you were sitting in a deep space observatory and received a signal from the direction of one of the exoplanets which have been identified and upon analysis of the signal you discovered a mathematical formula, an algorithm in the form of a 3 dimensional fractal.

What would you think?

Would you think it was evidence of an intelligent origin? If not, why not?

Carboniferous peoples - this is Genesis Week with Ian Juby

2012-02-11T19:02:00.003-05:00

Uploaded by wazooloo on Feb 10, 2012

http://wazooloo.com
In this episode: We investigate the fossil human footprints of Berea, Kentucky, we analyse the implications of the extraction of DNA from Neanderthal's cousin, and we dive into the mailbag.

This is Episode 7 of season 1 of Genesis Week, with a new episode out every Thursday.

Random references:
Denisovan DNA:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120207133602.htm

The dataset is here:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/denisova
and here:
http://aws.amazon.com/datasets/2357

Dr. Daniel Criswell, Spring 2009 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly article "Neandertal DNA and Modern Humans."
Dr. Theodore Siek article in Creation Matters:http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2010/CM15%2003%20low%20r...

Ticker tape references:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers like a duck, then it probably is a DINOSAUR."http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i4f.htm

Mouse to Elephant? Just add time: http://crev.info/2012/01/mouse-to-elephant-just-add-time/

Darwin's Sacred Imposter: Answering Questions about the Fallacy of Natural Selection http://www.icr.org/article/6590/

Gaps in the geologic column: http://www.icr.org/article/6591/

The Genetic Decline of Humanity: http://www.icr.org/article/6593/

Stop us if you've heard this one before: "The perfect planet to support life is found" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/stop_us_if_youv055931.html

Geologists 750% wrong in death valley: http://crev.info/2012/01/geologists-750-wrong-in-death-valley/

http://ianjuby.org
http://genesisweek.com

Neural Protein NAV1 Defies Nested Hierarchy

2012-02-08T11:05:00.002-05:00

I have already gone over the neural protein producing gene Reelin here and the NAV3 gene here.
Following is a Ortholog list for another of the Steerin genes, the NAV1 gene.
http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Ortholog?g=ENSG00000134369;r=1:201592411-201796102

Again, after clicking on the link above, scroll down until you see the following list.

Top 10 of 54 species most similar to Humans

From Ensembl Genome Browser

If you check the box for Primates as displayed above you will get the following ortholog list for Primates only.

Notice the percentages of similarity to Human of the species highlighted in yellow and look for these species in the complete list of all species to see where they place in the list. In doing so you should see how many species such as Pandas and Guinea Pigs are more similar to Human than these primates.

Again the question arises, why are these particular gene sequences for Pandas and Guinea Pigs more similar to Humans than other primates?

Conflicting Primate Gene Trees Contradict Evolution

2012-02-07T10:59:00.002-05:00

Gene Trees constructed from different genes render different trees. These gene trees contradict one another so frequently in genetic comparisons that there is absolutely no hope of ever reconciling evolutionary common descent with the data. Why? Because one gene says we Humans are most closely related to Chimps while another gene says we are most closely related to Gorilla. Yet another gene says the primate Gibbons is more closely related to Mice and Rats than other primates. There are literally thousands of examples. Here I provide only six examples because the day is short.

Gene Tree for ACE

The obvious question, Where is Chimp in this gene tree? Or rather,

Why isn't Chimp(Pan troglodytes) where it should be? Also,

Where's Tarsier?

Gene Tree for FOXP2

There is lots to notice here like the Bat (Pteropus vampyrus) in the Primate family tree,
the Tarsier's next of kin being Squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) and the separation of Primates into three groups in which there are non-primate members. And this is the gene that Dawkins used as the single most irrefutable evidence for evolution.

Gene tree for WEE2
Where's Macaque (Macaca mulatta)?
Where's Mouse Lemur (Microcebus murinus)?
Where's Bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii)?

Gene Tree for WNT5A
Bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii) is conspicuously absent and Microcebus murinus is hob-knobbing with a Hyrax(Procavia capensis) which isn't a primate.

Gene Tree for MAP3K3
Notice how Gibbons(Nomascus leucogenys) is most closely related to a Rabbit(Oryctolagus cuniculus) and Hyrax(Procavia capensis). Also notice how by this gene Otolemur gamettii is most closely related to Dipodomys ordii.

Gene Tree DCAF7

Notice in this gene tree the primate Tarsier(Tarsius syrichta) is not even in the primate node at all but rather shown to be most closely related to a Common shrew(Sorex araneus) followed by a Bottlenose Dolphin(Tursiops truncatus)

Neural Protein Sequence Destroys Evolutionary Common Descent

2012-02-06T04:29:00.001-05:00

Someone once asked me to point her to the scientific paper to which I referred concerning a claim that I had made. My claim was actually a part of a question, but it was a claim none-the-less within a question which I asked of someone who said she has a masters degree in microbiology/neuroscience. This discussion is all in the comments section of an article, by Terry Hurlbut, the Creationism Examiner at the National Examiner:

"Question Evolution campaign gains new ally"

____________________________________________

Question Evolution campaign gains new ally

Add a comment

Terry Hurlbut

, Creationism Examiner

August 20, 2011 - Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Question Evolution campaign gains new ally - National creationism | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-national/question-evolution-campaign-gains-new-ally#ixzz1Vqf7GzXF

____________________________________________

My question was,

"Any idea then why so many neural protein amino acid sequences do not show evolutionary pattern? Check Reelin, Steerin and Nenf across the sequenced genomes to see what I mean."

Of course, I asked because these proteins are very important in the formation of brain tissue which would be right up her alley. She eventually replied,

"Eugene-- could you point me to the scientific paper to which you refer? A cursory glance at reelin (on wikipedia, no less) already refutes your claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reelin#Evolutionary_significance"

Now, I did not make any references to any scientific paper but rather asked her to look at the data herself. I find it rather difficult to point her to a paper to which I never referred. Also, the Wiki article to which she referred is highly speculative concerning any possible evolutionary progression. Common ancestry between humans and other species is simply assumed and transferred Onto the data instead of arising From the data. Of course, if speculation is all that is needed to disprove my claims but I need hard data to prove them then there is no way I should win any argument, right!? Let's see how that works:

Reelin Ortholog list
First five species
(Click to enlarge)

For the ortholog list of the gene 'Reelin' click here and scroll down

http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Ortholog?g=ENSG00000189056;r=7:103112231-103629963

Several things should pop out at you right away such as the strong similarity between Human and Megabat, Rabbit, Elephant, Dolphin, Opposum, Horse, Dog, etc. A stronger similarity than some of the other eight Primates on the list;

Why aren't all eight primates at the top of the list of most similar to Human?
Why is the Reelin protein in Humans more similar to that in Chickens than to the primates Bushbaby and Mouse Lemur?
By a 94% similarity rate between Humans and Dolphins and an 80% similarity rate between Humans and Mouse Lemurs for this protein, what does that say about the nested hierarchy?
Is Megabat actually a closely related ancestor of Batman?

Chromosome 2 Fusion Hypothesis Challenged

2012-02-06T03:55:00.000-05:00

It has been argued by Ken Miller and others that human chromosome 2 is the result of a head-to-head fusion of two smaller chromosomes which remain separate in other primates. He dismisses that this is how God designed it. What does he offer as an alternate explanation? He says, "It must have gotten fused". That is supposed to be a scientific explanation? It isn't. In fact it raises a plethora of problems which he has yet to explain and has yet, to my knowledge answered even the most basic of questions concerning this, such as, How and when did this occur? Why the discrepancy in the Macaque genome? How did such a fusion make it through meiosis? How did a sperm with 23 chromosomes fertilize an egg with 24 chromosomes or vice versa? Where is the evidence of the "deactivated" centromere? There are many other questions as well which have gone not only unanswered but completely unmentioned.

Then there is more recent research which calls it into question.

http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-undermines-key-argument/

Here is a video of Ken Miller on the C2 fusion.

Following is an article on UncommonDescent.com by Jonathan M. with citations and links on the subject:

Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash

February 21, 2011

Posted by Jonathan M under Intelligent Design

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/

...and also...

Cytogenet Genome Res. 2009;124(2):128-31. Epub 2009 May 5.

Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.

Farré M, Ponsà M, Bosch M.

Now, let's take a look at how the Chromosome 2 regions map out in comparison from Humans to other primates:

Synteny Map of Human Chromosome 2 to Chimpanzee showing the fusion site
in the middle of Chimp chromosome 2b.

Synteny Map of Human Chromosome 2 to Gorilla.

Synteny Map of Human Chromosome 2 to Macaque.
Notice the proposed fusion point does not line up in Macaque chromosomes 12 and 13 but rather
maps to Human C2:138,508,073 which is 24 million base pairs downstream.

Synteny Map of Human Chromosome 2 to Marmoset.
Notice the proposed fusion site is in the MIDDLE of Marmoset chromosome 6 and there are several
comparative inversions.

Synteny of Human to Orangutan shows several comparatively inverted regions as well as regions mapping to several other chromosomes.

Figure 5 - Locations of several Interstitial Teleomeric Sequences throughout the Human genome yet only one of them is associated with a chromosomal fusion.
Why is that?

Figure 6 - Locations of ITSs in Chimpanzee genome as well.

These are problems that cast more than a shadow of doubt on the Chromosome 2 Fusion hypothesis being evidence for common descent. These are issues which need to be addressed in order to show that this chromosomal configuration is a result of common descent. It is fairly obvious that these issues have been ignored by evolutionists. Why? Because this IS How the Designer Designed IT.

Research Refutes C2 Fusion

2012-02-04T04:13:00.005-05:00

I have mentioned my challenge to the C2 Fusion Hypothesis already on my blog. It has also been addressed by others but I prefer to look at the data myself and draw my own conclusions at which point I have first hand knowledge of the evidence as opposed to only what others have to say about it. I need to know what the evidence says in order to gauge my level of faith in what somebody else says about the evidence and in order to evaluate claims made about it. One person whose opinion I have grown to trust in this respect is Ian Juby because I have found him to be consistently accurate, thorough and informative. For this reason I will be featuring his weekly YouTube broadcast, Genesis Week, here on my blog beginning with his latest episode, Viruses sick of evolution - this is Genesis Week with Ian Juby (Wazooloo), Season 1, Episode 6.
In this episode Ian addresses several topics, one of which is the chromosome 2 fusion hypothesis:

Now, I'd like to point out how cutting edge research refutes the Chromosome 2 fusion hypothesis as follows:

What I would like to bring to your attention is what she says about end to end fusions starting at around time mark 06:54 where she shows an example of what happens when the function of telomers is disrupted. She repeats it again at 40:40

Street Logic

2012-01-31T14:17:00.008-05:00

As I have already explained in various places such as in answers to questions on Yahoo Answers, in my replies to comments on YouTube videos, articles I have written and published here on my blog and in videos I have made and uploaded to my YouTube channel (hugenex2000) the evidence presented by evolutionists in support of common descent as described by Darwinian Evolution is misleading, deceptive and in many cases completely fraudulent. To put it most simply, Evolution is a very clever and convincing deception.

First, let me explain what I call 'street logic'. Street logic is a combination of what most people would call 'common sense' and 'street smarts'. Street logic is what a police officer uses to evaluate crime scenes and question witnesses in order to know what is pertinent as evidence towards solving a crime, something which would require follow up, and what is extraneous and should be ignored. It is tremendously important to know the difference then between what is pertinent and what is extraneous because if you confuse the two you wind up wasting time following a dead lead to a dead end and asking all the wrong questions. Street logic is also important because it makes you look both at the evidence at hand AND what people associated with this evidence have to say about it. If you know that one of ten people must have committed the crime, such as in board game Clue, then why ask everyone, or anyone for that matter, if they did it? The answer to that is quite simply because the one who actually did do it would either have to confess, in which case you have your killer, or the criminal will have to lie. Since there are tell tale signs of lying, an investigator should know how to look for and identify these signs of deception.

This brings us to another element of street logic, namely "faith" which most simply defined is "trust". Trust is also important because it goes to the credibility of witnesses. "What" you believe is paramount to "Who" you believe and why you believe them. It is also very easy to confuse between believing a lie and knowing the truth based on someones credentials (which could easily lead to the fallacy of "argument from authority". Just because someone has credentials or because they are in a position of authority does not mean that what they say is true. So, when you hear someone like Kenneth Miller say, "Listen to the scientists" then an alarm bell should go off in your head because just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they are honest. As I have often heard on the streets of where I grew up, "Jus cus u white dont make you right". Also, the following lines from the movie, Freedom Writers, come to mind:

Erin Gruwell: But to get respect you have to give it.
Andre: Bullshit!!!
Erin Gruwell: What???
Andre: Why should I give my respect to you? Because you're a teacher? I don't know you.
How do I know you're not a liar standing up there? How do I know you're not a bad person standing up there? I'm not just gonna give you my respect because you're called a teacher.
Eva: White people wantin' respect like it's for free.

For the purpose of this investigation we will hear what scientists have to say about what the evidence says but we will not be believing everything they say just because they are called scientists. We will be "Listening" to what the Evidence has to say to see if what the scientists are saying is true because it is Truth we respect and not what a person calls him or her self. Why listen to a scientist who has a vested interest in a certain outcome regardless of what the evidence says? Does his or her career hinge upon a certain proposition being true and if so would he conceal evidence to the contrary? What if a scientist (or any other person) discovers what he believes is false, would he admit that it's false and risk his career? The first question then that we would ask when we hear anyone say anything is, "Is it true?" This is however the taboo question for anyone with something to hide. You will find that someone with something to hide will ask any and every question but that one question.

The statements a person makes tell you what questions a person asks which in turn tells a great deal about their methodology and the effectiveness that methodology has on discovering the truth. If you hear someone say as you have heard scientists say of Intelligent Design for example, "It's not science" then you know the question they asked when evaluating an idea presented to them, "Is it science?" But I ask, "What difference would it make if an idea is 'scientific' if it isn't true?" Like many a Hollywood movie, a theory can be based on facts yet still not be a true story. Likewise many a man in prison, even on death row, were convicted based on the evidence presented at trial yet further investigation such as DNA evidence which was NOT presented at trial showed the man not guilty.

So, in our investigation of the evidence for and against evolutionary common descent we will be looking both at the actual evidence and at what people say about it to see if the two corraborate.

The questions under investigation are,
"Is there a universal common ancestor?" but more specifically,
"Do Humans share a common ancestor with other animals such as other primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc?"

Now, if you watch my videos such as "Dawkins Caught Lying for Darwin" and "Dawkins Best Evidence Refuted" then you will see that what the evidence says and what scientists like Richard Dawkins say about the evidence are two very different things. The evidence says one thing and Dawkins says something entirely different. The questions then arise, Why does Dawkins say something which is not true? Has he not looked? And if he has looked then why does he misrepresent the evidence? Is he hoping that we will believe what he says without any further investigation? He is simply lying to people whom he hopes have neither the time nor expertise to check for themselves to see that what he says is not true hoping they will believe him because he is a scientist.

The Best Evidence for Evolution Refuted

2012-01-15T00:18:00.001-05:00

You may have heard that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, so much evidence in fact that you would have to be completely stupid to disbelieve it. As it turns out, this "mountain of evidence" is a complete fraud. Let's take a look at what Richard Dawkins has said is the "single most irrefutable piece of evidence in support of the theory" A really close look at this evidence reveals the level of deception required to sustain belief in evolution.

How are people stupid enough to deny evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

2012-01-02T07:49:00.003-05:00

How are people stupid enough to deny evolution? - Yahoo! Answers: I don't understand how people can be so stupid as to not believe all the scientific evidence we have for evolution. It's just mind boggling to me that some people still think the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that people magically appeared here one day thanks to God.

My Answer:

It is a matter of facing the facts. There is so much evidence Against evolution, specifically against universal common descent, even more specifically against common ancestry of placental mammals in genomic comparisons that it is neither a matter of denial nor stupidity. The Evolutionary Synthesis completely Fails to explain the data. This is a fact that you either are not aware of, do not understand or are unwilling to accept. Regardless of what you eventually choose to believe (Young Earth, Old Earth, Intelligent Design, or Space Aliens) Evolution as an explanation of the origin of species is No Longer a viable option because it is contradicted by the an emerging body of evidence, a body of evidence so overwhelming that any reasonable person would be forced to abandon Evolution theory.

That life was created is not magic, it is the power of creation, the power of God to create, against which you have no evidence. 6,000 years ago is not too difficult to believe if you believe in the Almighty God. What would be magic is that it all happened without any creator, intelligent designer. Living organisms do not arise from non-living material on their own unless there is some previous life present. You should know that. The god of the Bible is described as the "Living God". Life only comes from Life.

Other answers I find interesting:

mopar Mike:
It's that part of there being absolutely no evidence for it, I just can't get past it. Sorry.

It raining on rocks for millions of years and creating a soup, and the soup came alive and made all we see by random chance is less magical to you than an intelligent designer creating that which is obviously intelligently designed ?

You and I must have two different dictionaries. Either that, or you've simply wasted a lot of time and money on a liberal degree and are to proud to admit you wasted a lot of time and money voluntarily learning about a lie.

Artemis:
People who call others "stupid" are often describing themselves.

Arrogance severely limits your intellectual growth, development and maturity.

If you are not willing to admit that you do not know everything - you will sound like a foolish arrogant presumptuous teenager all your life

Eric: People that believe in evolution always ask people that believe in creation to defend their beliefs. Yet people that believe in evolution have NO proof themselves. So, here is why I believe in creation:

First, people that believe in evolution believe that we evolved from monkeys or other lower lifeforms, yet why don't we today. Many people say "that only happened in old world" or whatever. Well, ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT. There goes their one big piece of proof. But there are many points that you can't deny. First off, Where did the monkeys come from? You think they came from something else? If they did, where did that something else come from. Something had to made at some point. Molecules didn't just DECIDE to make planets, moons, and asteroids in our solar system.

Second, what about our planet? What are the odds that the one planet that we are on is the perfect distance from the sun to sustain us. Our planet's orbit is 93,000,000 miles from the sun. It lies in a limited zone that is habitable because life neither freezes nor fries. Also, our planet is tilted at a 23.4 degree angle. This causes seasons, moderations in temperature, and allows for a wide variety of climate zones. The tilt is exactly the way it should be.

Thirdly, the sun, a perfect powerhouse, is stable, the ideal size to sustain us, and it produces the perfect amount of energy.

Fourthly, our moon. It is also just right for us. When we look at the size comparison between the moons of a planet other than our own, say Jupiter, the difference is pretty big. However, the moon is about 1/4 the size of Earth. Its distance from us and its size are perfect. The moon and our planet are perfect "neighbours" because the moon affects our tides, which plays a vital role in Earth's ecology. Also, without the Moon being the way it is, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, with the potential of tipping over and turning on its side. The resulting climatic, tidal, and other changes would be catastrophic.

Fifthly, our magnetic field. It blocks most of the radiation and meteors in space. The magnetic field is caused by the core of our planet.

Sixthly, there is our atmosphere. It also protects us from stellar debris from space. It also distributes heat throughout the planet. It also slows the escape of heat at night.

Finally, there all the cycles on earth that sustain all life. The water cycle provides a renewable supply of water for both us, but also plants and animals. The carbon cycle provides us with glucose and oxygen, and provides food for plants in the way of CO2. The nitrogen cycle also produces us with organic molecules.

How do you explain evolution when there had to have been a master designer behind all these perfections. These sorts of things don't happen out of nowhere!

-----------------------

I have a question. How could life such as humans, that are so complex, be made randomly?

The human body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells - bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few. In fact, there are over 200 different types of cells in your body. Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells.

So again, how could life such as humans, that are so complex, be made randomly?

---------------------

Well, creation is my belief, and it always will be. If this doesn't convince you, you either don't understand it, or you will never change your beliefs no mater what.

Oh, and here are 2 questions to leave you with that are going to burst your bubble: Could even a "simple" cell really arise from non-living chemicals? And if so, how?

Source(s):

Was Life Created?
The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking
Me

No Chance Without Jesus:

all you have to do is prove it, and the discussion is over.

::tapping feet::

::Humming::

Hmmm

How stupid do you have to be to blindly accept what you cannot prove.....why that's almost......religion

Closed Minded?

2011-12-11T07:26:00.000-05:00

Open Question

Show me another»

Does this study prove the majority of creationists are closeminded?

Over the past few weeks I have asked 2 specific questions, one asking if atheists would go to a creation class or "museum" to see what it is about, and one asking creationists if they would go to a class or museum that educated people on evolution and the big bang.

These are my findings

Out of the 100 atheist answers and 100 creationist answers that I have collected as they were posted (I did not choose which ones to pick, I took them as they came)

Out of the 100 atheist responses a total of 87 said they would indeed go to a creationism class or "museum", to see what it was about, and to end up giggling.

Out of the 100 creationist responses a total of 11 said they would go to a museum or class that taught evolution and the big bang.

Does my study prove the majority of creationists are close-minded? Or does it just prove that out of the 100 creationists only 11 are not close-minded?

_________________________________

My answer:

Did you inquire about how many of the creationists had already been to a museum or class that taught evolution and the big bang? The reason I ask is because evolution and the big bang are taught in public schools in the U.S. and Europe and the majority of people, regardless of their current beliefs on those subjects, have attended such schools. I learned everything they had to teach and got mostly A's in science and there were always trips to museums. Even as an adult I have visited several museums and looked over all the exhibits. So, would I be willing to go? Yes indeed, I have already! I even believed it quite adamantly until just a few years ago. But, would going back to the museums or taking another class change my current position? Probably not because I have since done quite a bit of research on the subject of evolution and have discovered a vast amount of evidence against it, so much evidence that I felt that I had been lied to in school which made me angry at first but now I am what you might call "closed minded" because I know that there is no universal common ancestor.

What is interesting in the atheist response is that of the 87 who said they would go to a creation museum or class would "end up giggling". But, how many of them have already been to such a class or museum as opposed to creationists who as children had to go to school and take such classes on evolution? As a creationist I can say what I would do because I have already done it but by what percentage is that true of the atheists? How would the 87 atheists know what they would do before hearing the case or observing the evidence? How is such prejudice not being closed minded?

But, to the question, "Does this study prove the majority of creationists are closeminded?"
No, I don't think so because it is not made clear if the person won't go, why they won't go. Maybe like me they have already been. Also, it does not distinguish if a person would go, why they would go...to learn or to ridicule.

Besides, what's wrong with being closed minded? If something is true then the subject is closed and so is the mind who believes it true. A closed mind is only bad if that which is believed is false.

Does it stand to reason that a creationist only has faith?

2011-11-20T10:07:00.000-05:00

steven lishman

Open Question

Show me another»

Does it stand to reason that a creationist only has faith because?

Their understanding of science is still no better than that of a bronze age goat herder.

1 day ago
- 3 days left to answer.

________________________________________

My Answer:

Something that I have found in my study of genetics is the huge leap of faith taken by evolutionary biologists. E.coli can adapt to different temperatures therefore humans share a common ancestor with chimps? There is no connection between the two yet by faith in Evolution the connection is made. Other bacteria like the Nylon Bug has adapted to metabolize nylon oligomers therefore organisms evolve But if you look you will see it was not by "random" mutations and the chemical components of nylon are amino acids quite similar to what this organism metabolizes anyway. Evolution then has moved well into the range of 'confirmation bias' because the evidence against it is crushing but you never hear about the evidence against it from evolutionists because that evidence is ignored or insulated from scrutiny by some rescue theory like "convergent evolution" or "punctuated equilibrium" but when you look you will see these ideas directly contradict Darwin's theory as originally stated. Evolution is such a complicated lie that it takes a high level of knowledge to see it, to see what you are NOT being told about it.

To say that species are genetically different because they evolved (as opposed to being created differently from the beginning) requires that evidence should present a pattern of evolutionary common descent such that species which are more closely related to each other by a most recent common ancestor should be genetically more similar to each other than to species not so closely related. More distantly related species should be genetically less similar. But this by itself does not instantly settle the question of whether a species is the result of either evolution or creation because creationists would say different species are different because they were created that way and an evolutionist would say they are different because they evolved from a common ancestor. What I present is an opportunity to test to see if the Darwinian theory is correct or not by looking for a pattern of genetic differences which would either verify or falsify evolution by comparing the same gene in different species. If genetic differences and design features are the result of "slow and gradual changes over time" then we can look at the genetic differences between primates and see which of the other primates are most similar to humans. We can also look to see if any genes are more similar to species other than primates and if say for example there is a gene in humans that is more similar to the same gene in bats, horses, pigs or pandas than it is in other primates then evolution is falsified. This is exactly what I have done by comparing the human genome to other genomes in the available databases. What I found was that a most common ancestor to human can not be determined because one gene says chimps are more similar, another gene says gorillas, another says pigs, another says pandas, another says lemurs, and yet another says bats. I can not then in good conscience accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life because it is contradicted by the data.

Now, when you go into the arguments for evolution you will see how hostile it is towards creation, which you well know. The question then arises, where is all the hostility coming from? Bronze age goat herder? Where's that coming from if not your own prejudice?

Check out this video: http://youtu.be/gwj9h9Zx6Mw

If you want to know why I'm a creationist or what it is exactly I believe then you could ask me. I can give you a comprehensive answer from genetics, microbiology and comparative genomics. I however know very little about goats.

Source(s):

http://newcreationist.blogspot.com/
http://newcreationist.blogspot.com/searc…

Darwinism on Trial (Phillip E. Johnson)

2011-11-20T05:49:00.001-05:00

Lecture by Phillip E. Johnson

In this fairly long video, it is an hour and a half long, Phillip Johnson focuses on certain issues, specifically on the definitions of words used in arguments in the debates over creation and evolution. He discusses the philosophical and metaphysical implications of both evolution and creation and if you are up to a lengthy philosophical argument then this is most certainly worth a listen.

Persuaded by the Evidence, Part 2, Volume I

2011-11-16T14:24:00.000-05:00

Here is Part 2 of the video, "Persuaded by the Evidence".