Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
Source:
http://www.icr.org/article/new-chromosome-research-undermine
URL Source: http://www.icr.org/article/new-chromosome-research-undermines/
Published: Aug 5, 2010
Author: icr.org
Post Date: 2010-08-05 17:34:54 by WhiteSands
Keywords: evolution, creatioon, religion
Views: 19784
Comments: 25
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims 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. References * Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate and Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Cite this article: Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5.
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
For the enjoyment of our religious. -----------------------------------------------------------
Well, well, well... Let's get back to my assertion on another thread that humans and apes did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. More generally that there isn't any evidence that one species can evolve into an entirely new species (where "species" is defined as a breading boundary.) There is no evidence anywhere of parents having children which are incapable of breeding with the parents (but are capable of breeding with each other). NONE. Yes, dogs, wolves and coyotes are part of the same family and their differences are the result of mutation, so they can still breed with each other. Humans and chimps cannot breed with each other. We are not part of the same family and there is no evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. "Evolution" is a belief system, not a science, just like man-made global warming.
Well, well, well... Let's get back to my assertion on another thread that humans and apes did NOT evolve from a common ancestor. More generally, that there isn't any evidence that one species can evolve into an entirely new species (where "species" is defined as a breading boundary.) There is no evidence anywhere of parents having children which are incapable of breeding with the parents (but are capable of breeding with each other). NONE. Yes, dogs, wolves and coyotes are part of the same family and their differences are the result of mutation, so they can still breed with each other. Humans and chimps cannot breed with each other. We are not part of the same family and there is no evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. "Evolution" is a belief system, not a science, just like man-made global warming.
There you go claiming biology isn't science again.
Of course that is not what I said at all. In fact, this article which disproves that chimps and humans are close relatives is completely based on biology. There is a huge difference between modern biology and 150 year old ideology. I will side with modern science, which discovers new evidence all of the time that invalidates old theories and beliefs.
Stuff like this happens all the time. Then the evolution cult thinks of a new story. Same with the old age theory/gap theory. The earth is young.
Hey, WAR, hope you don't mind the thread-hijacking, but I wanted to see how things are going for you on the triathlon front? I wish you the best. It was odd for me to not ride in this year’s MS 150, but there just wasn’t enough time to train properly and I don’t “do” the SAG wagon. Here’s wishing you good running/biking/swimming
It does. It's called "science". You should look into it sometime.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
And when it happens. The ball always moves towards creationism and what the intelligent people in our society always knew. Then you folks are left scrambling for another theory, any except that God created us. Evolution is an insane proposition. Tell us how a person could be born without two parents. Or how the bees need the flowers. It is so obvious except to those who have ear plugs in their ears and welding glasses on their head with duct tape wrapped all around their head.
It's beyond you, Stone. Since you think the world is static, superstition was created for people like you.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
That is what your dating of the earth mumbo jumbo is. Tell me how you can prove the age of the earth. Tell me there are no assumptions and I will call you a liar. Proving my point that you can't date the earth.
So true. When I was in school , prior to DNA testing, Neanderthal man was in the line of ape to man. If we evolve , there should be millions of mssing links found from every species that exists. There should be hundreds of thousands of "missing links" for each species. None for any species have been found.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Look, instead of wasting my time on issues you're incapable of understanding, why not head over to 4um where your input in urgently needed on this thread: "Are Jews Today Guilty For The Crucifixion?" BTW, the Jews are losing.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
And where would you find all of them?
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Thanks for the heads up. But you implying that you are more intelligent them I am is laughable. I mean you believe that seeds can come from nothing. Or that trees can sprout without seeds. You believe that if you get a woman pregnant some other creature may come out. You believe that a chicken came before an egg or that an egg came before the chicken, both equally laughable. You believe foolish things. Borderline insane.
All over the place if they existed. But they don't. You guys have been waiting over a hundred and whatever years for some proof, any proof. But it never comes.
Of course, you and whitey have looked everywhere on earth for these remains, right? What makes you "think" that they'd all get preserved, since preservation of remains is incredibly rare? Of course, to understand the problem you'd have to have an elementary understanding of earth processes. I guess that since the earth is only six thousand years old, you don't think there's any point in that, right?
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Yeah, like when global floods happen. They even say there was a sea right here in Ohio. Lots of sea creature fossils. More proof of a global flood and that the Bible is true and reliable.
Tell me which is the "true" story of Adam and Eve, the one where they're both made at the same time or the one where Eve is made from Adam's rib.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
There are no contradictions. The first part is an overview. The second part contains more details. That is it in a nutshell.
If you believe some verses are in congradiction. Post the specific verses and tell me why you think they contradict.
No, Stone. They were written by different people at different times, then someone else combined them together onto a single scroll. The whole bible was created that way.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Whose fingers penned them is irrelevant. All scripture is given by God. HE used different people throughout history. If you study it you will see that there aren't contradictions and that it is true. For example in Genesis it says that things reproduce like things. That has never been shown to be false. If evolution were true that would have to be proven wrong for starters. It hasn't
An article doesn't disprove science.
I took some time off to heal. Had ankle and knee issues - nothing fatal just overuse. I did one race this year back in April and then shut down. I just started training again within the last two weeks and I am doing Ironman again next year.
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#2. To: WhiteSands, A K A Stone, War, Skip Intro (#0)
Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content
#3. To: WhiteSands, A K A Stone, War, Skip Intro (#0)
(Edited)
Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content
#4. To: jwpegler (#2)
#5. To: war (#4)
(Edited)
There you go claiming biology isn't science again.
#6. To: jwpegler (#3)
#7. To: war (#4)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Stuff like this happens all the time.
#9. To: Skip Intro (#8)
It does. It's called "science". You should look into it sometime.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
Tell us how a person could be born without two parents.
#11. To: Skip Intro (#10)
Since you think the world is static
#12. To: jwpegler (#5)
(Edited)
I will side with modern science, which discovers new evidence all of the time that invalidates old theories and beliefs.
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#14. To: WhiteSands (#12)
If we evolve , there should be millions of mssing links found from every species that exists.
#15. To: Skip Intro (#13)
#16. To: Skip Intro (#14)
And where would you find all of them?
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
All over the place if they existed.
#18. To: Skip Intro (#17)
What makes you "think" that they'd all get preserved, since preservation of remains is incredibly rare?
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
More proof of a global flood and that the Bible is true and reliable.
#20. To: Skip Intro (#19)
#21. To: Skip Intro (#19)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)
here are no contradictions. The first part is an overview. The second part contains more details.
#23. To: Skip Intro (#22)
They were written by different people at different times, then someone else combined them together onto a single scroll. The whole bible was created that way.
#24. To: jwpegler (#5)
In fact, this article which disproves that chimps and humans are close relatives is completely based on biology.
#25. To: Suzanne (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]