Results for: genetic-reductionism Search Results
Family Filter:
Transforming Health through Genetics We promote an environment of openness centered on the health of individuals, families, and communities. We bring together diverse stakeholders that create novel partnerships in advocacy. We integrate individual, family, and community perspectives to improve health systems. We revolutionize access to information to enable translation of research into services and individualized decision making.
9:56
Here is the entire Dr. Arthur Jones video: *******edinburghcreationgroup****/fishfossils.xml This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code. Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681/stephen_meyer_functional_proteins_and_information_for_body_plans/ Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)." Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations: ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells *******www.evolutionnews****/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs As well as "cloning" studies: "There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example when an egg's genes (DNA) are removed and replaced with genes (DNA) from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.) The Jurassic Park approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes exciting fiction but ignores scientific fact." The Design of Life - William Dembski, Jonathan Wells Pg. 50 If that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism": DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it." *******www.evolutionnews****/2009/07/dna_the_alphabet_of_life.html Higher Levels Of Information In Life - Stephen Meyer - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050638/the_coding_found_in_dna_surpasses_mans_ability_to_code_stephen_meyer/ Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,, The Coding Found In DNA Surpasses Mans Ability to Code - Stephen Meyer *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050638/the_coding_found_in_dna_surpasses_mans_ability_to_code_stephen_meyer/ Stephen Meyer - Molecular Machines & Information *******www.metacafe****/watch/4146691/stephen_meyer_molecular_machines_information/ Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. *******www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] *******www.apologeticspress****/articles/2070 Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video *******www.metacafe****/watch/3995236/mathematically_defining_functional_information_in_molecular_biology_kirk_durston/ Entire video: *******vimeo****/1775160 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
8 Apr 2011
2390
Share Video

9:59
Entire video: Creation/Evolution: Natural Limits to Biological Change - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video (presentation starts at the 13:00 minute mark of video) *******www.youtube****/watch?v=Dk9wmQP7SdM&feature=bf_prev&list=SP9C519B84FE6C1202 With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, *******www.evolutionnews****/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! *******www.biosignaling****/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf New level of genetic diversity in human RNA sequences uncovered Excerpt: A detailed comparison of DNA and RNA in human cells has uncovered a surprising number of cases where the corresponding sequences are not, as has long been assumed, identical. The RNA-DNA differences generate proteins that do not precisely match the genes that encode them.,,, Nearly half of the RDDs uncovered in the new study cannot be explained by the activity of deaminase enzymes, however, indicating that unknown processes must be modifying the RNA sequence, either during or after transcription. ,,, Although all of the individuals analyzed in the study had a large number of RDDs, there was a great deal of variability in the specific RDDs found in each person's genetic material." *******www.physorg****/news/2011-05-genetic-diversity-human-rna-sequences.html The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, *******www.springerlink****/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - No Evidence For Body Plan Morphogenesis From Embryonic Mutations - Paul Nelson - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/5548184/ In Embryo Development, Non-DNA Information Is at Least as Important as DNA - Jonathan Wells - May 2012 Excerpt: Evidence shows that non-DNA developmental information can be inherited in several ways. For example, it can be inherited through chromatin modifications, which affect gene expression without altering underlying DNA sequences. Another example is cytoplasmic inheritance, which involves cytoskeletal patterns and localization of intracellular molecules. Still another example is cortical inheritance, which involves membrane patterns. *******www.evolutionnews****/2012/05/in_embryo_devel060031.html “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340 Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity ********docs.google****/document/d/1xkW4C7uOE8s98tNx2mzMKmALeV8-348FZNnZmSWY5H8/edit Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." *******www.nature****/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. *******www.metacafe****/watch/5347797/ From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. *******www.evolutionnews****/2012/05/from_jerry_coyn060271.html Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) *******www.evolutionnews****/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? Excerpt: "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." *******www.creationsafaris****/epoi_c10.htm Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Richard Sternberg - May 2009 *******www.evolutionnews****/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think020401.html The Gorilla Who Broke the Tree - Doug Axe PhD. - March 2012 Excerpt: Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic. According to a recent report [1], “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…” That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple. *******www.biologicinstitute****/post/19703401390/the-gorilla-who-broke-the-tree Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. *******cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004 Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. *******www.nature****/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 Further notes: Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information ********docs.google****/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit Let There Be Light - Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2012/02/let-there-be-light.html
2 Jun 2012
2287
Share Video

5:21
Most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this "lack of conclusiveness" is due to concerns with the second law of thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 *******www.youtube****/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY Part 2 *******www.youtube****/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o Steven Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=Ex8Fj8UAxc8 This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code. Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs If all that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism": DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it." *******www.evolutionnews****/2009/07/dna_the_alphabet_of_life.html Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. *******cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. *******www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html The chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is more evolved than us, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical "evolutionary" progression to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the DNA found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
18 Jan 2010
2806
Share Video

8:05
SIGNATURE IN THE CELL by Stephen C. Meyer *******www.signatureinthecell****/ Journey Inside The Cell - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=M4FvdOxIDfU Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Refutation of Szostak's 1 in 10^12 functional protein paper: A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." *******www.plosone****/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the 80s and 90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying lifes order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)." Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, *******behe.uncommondescent****/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 *******www.youtube****/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY Part 2 *******www.youtube****/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=qE3QJMI-ljc The Coding Found In DNA Surpasses Mans Ability to Code - Stephen Meyer - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=vUeCgTN7pOo The malaria parasite, and AIDS virus, due to their comparatively enormous population size, have in 1 year more mutation/duplication/selection events than all mammal lineages have had in the entire +100 million years they have been in the fossil record. What do we see? Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." *******www.evolutionnews****/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
2 Jun 2010
15342
Share Video

9:53
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 This following video is a bit more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information *******www.metacafe****/watch/4798685 Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4187488 This lack of beneficial morphological novelty also includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations: ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells *******www.evolutionnews****/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Many times evolutionists will mention evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology), or HOX genes, to try to support the Darwinian claim that minor changes/mutations to DNA can drive major morphological novelty, yet, in this following comment, from a 2005 Nature review article, evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne expressed strong skepticism at the proposed mechanism of 'gene switches' for evo-devo: "The evidence for the adaptive divergence of gene switches is still thin. The best case involves the loss of protective armor and spines in sticklebacks, both due to changes in regulatory elements. But these elements represent the loss of traits, rather than the origin of evolutionary novelties...We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development - let alone in evolution - remains murky." *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/06/scott_f_gilbert_developmental035931.html Here is a more thorough critique of evo-devo: Nature's "Gems": Microevolution Meets Microevolution - Casey Luskin - August 2010 *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/08/nature_gems_microevolution_mee037171.html#more As well, recent 'cloning studies' give evidence against DNA/Genetic reductionism: "There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example when an egg's genes (DNA) are removed and replaced with genes (DNA) from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.) The Jurassic Park approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes exciting fiction but ignores scientific fact." The Design of Life - William Dembski, Jonathan Wells Pg. 50 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." *******bio-complexity****/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio *******intelligentdesign.podomatic****/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
28 Sep 2010
686
Share Video

8:17
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 This following video is a bit more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information *******www.metacafe****/watch/4798685 Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4187488 This lack of beneficial morphological novelty also includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations: ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells *******www.evolutionnews****/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Many times evolutionists will mention evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology), or HOX genes, to try to support the Darwinian claim that minor changes/mutations to DNA can drive major morphological novelty, yet, in this following comment, from a 2005 Nature review article, evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne expressed strong skepticism at the proposed mechanism of 'gene switches' for evo-devo: "The evidence for the adaptive divergence of gene switches is still thin. The best case involves the loss of protective armor and spines in sticklebacks, both due to changes in regulatory elements. But these elements represent the loss of traits, rather than the origin of evolutionary novelties...We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development - let alone in evolution - remains murky." *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/06/scott_f_gilbert_developmental035931.html Here is a more thorough critique of evo-devo: Nature's "Gems": Microevolution Meets Microevolution - Casey Luskin - August 2010 *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/08/nature_gems_microevolution_mee037171.html#more As well, recent 'cloning studies' give evidence against DNA/Genetic reductionism: "There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example when an egg's genes (DNA) are removed and replaced with genes (DNA) from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.) The Jurassic Park approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes exciting fiction but ignores scientific fact." The Design of Life - William Dembski, Jonathan Wells Pg. 50 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." *******bio-complexity****/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio *******intelligentdesign.podomatic****/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
28 Sep 2010
892
Share Video

8:31
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies - October 2010 Excerpt: "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve".,,, as stated in regards to the 35 year experimental failure to fixate a single beneficial mutation within fruit flies. *******www.arn****/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. *******www.discovery****/a/9461 Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4018222 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 This following video is a bit more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information *******www.metacafe****/watch/4798685 "The evidence for the adaptive divergence of gene switches is still thin. The best case involves the loss of protective armor and spines in sticklebacks, both due to changes in regulatory elements. But these elements represent the loss of traits, rather than the origin of evolutionary novelties...We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development - let alone in evolution - remains murky." *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/06/scott_f_gilbert_developmental035931.html Here is a more thorough critique of evo-devo: Nature's "Gems": Microevolution Meets Microevolution - Casey Luskin - August 2010 *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/08/nature_gems_microevolution_mee037171.html#more Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4187488 Astonishingly, actual motors, which far surpass man-made motors in 'engineering parameters', are now being found inside 'simple cells'. Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors *******docs.google****/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - 2010 - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/5066181 And in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system. "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines *******www.metacafe****/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity *******docs.google****/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4614519 Bio-Complexity *******bio-complexity****/ojs/index.php/main/issue/view/24 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
15 Oct 2010
3433
Share Video

4:54
Whale sounds The ability to produce and perceive sound is important for whales – to navigate, find food, and communicate. Toothed whales can use echolocation to hunt their prey. They send out high frequency clicks then listen for their echo as they bounce back from objects – like the next meal! Baleen whales use low frequency sound to communicate, sometimes over considerable distances. Recent research suggests that they do this with their larynx – the ‘voice box’ in land mammals. Some baleen whales, such as male humpbacks, produce extremely complex ‘songs’. *******collections.tepapa.govt.nz/exhibitions/whales/Segment.aspx?irn=163 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4165203 Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010 Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator. *******www.reasons****/convergence-drives-evolution-batty Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video) *******www.metacafe****/watch/4564682 The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and varieity of all the forms of life on Earth. *******www.scienceagainstevolution****/v12i11f.htm Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism: *******www.thenewatlantis****/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references *******www.vimeo****/17135166 How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010 Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on. *******www.uncommondescent****/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170 Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4032568 Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature's Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal (Dismantling Nature's evolutionary evangelism packet) - Casey Luskin _ November 2010 *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/08/of_whale_and_feather_evolution037221.html This article shows how misleading Darwinists can be with the 'whale' evidence: Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. *******www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned: Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive." *******www.arn****/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out: Investigating Evolution: Homology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18 If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following 'true' statement: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
7 Dec 2010
21704
Share Video

1:58
New Scientist: Darwin Was Wrong! *******edinburghcreationgroup****/blog/?p=116 The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination, says Graham Lawton *******www.thedivineconspiracy****/Z5221S.pdf Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" *******www.newscientist****/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory: Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE’s Claims of “Nested Patterns” Supporting a “Tree of Life” Excerpt: Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” and “one group suggests one biogeographic pattern, and another group suggests another” is because the genes and organisms have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that not all living organisms are ancestrally related, thereby fulfilling a testable prediction of the orchard model. *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/03/testing_the_orchard_model_and.html Botching Evolutionary Science - Casey Luskin - April 2009 Excerpt: The textbook touts the cytochrome C tree, but it ignores the cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: “[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied,, an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.” (See Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular Phylogenies Become Functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14: 177 (1999).) *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/04/the_biggest_problem_in_asking.html#more Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies - Colin Patterson Excerpt: "As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology." *******www.arn****/docs/odesign/od171/sampler171.htm 'The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid and nucleotide sequence studies); we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.' Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum *******www.uncommondescent****/intelligent-design/stephen-meyer-on-ids-scientific-bona-fides/comment-page-8/#comment-359598 Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7 Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated." *******evolution-facts****/Appendix/a21.htm Bones, molecules...or both? Excerpt: Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled?,,, When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging (between Darwinists) within systematics. *******www.nature****/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406230a0.html The universal ancestor - Carl Woese Excerpt: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. *******www.pnas****/content/95/12/6854.full Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics. *******www.uncommondescent****/evolution/shilling-for-darwin-the-wildly-irresponsible-evolutionist/#comments Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking? Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking. *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913459 Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - 2009 Excerpt: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist *******www.guardian******/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford Doolittle Excerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs. *******people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/2_Doolittle_2000.pdf DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. *******www.reasons****/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2 A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased 'only 1.5% of the genome' studies of evolutionists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. *******www.idnet****.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf Moreover, the following 'statistical test' found only a 62% similarity between chimp-human genomes rather than the 95%-98.5% similarity touted by many papers of evolutionists: A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps - September 2010 Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%. *******www.uncommondescent****/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/ Post of interest refuting 98% similarity claim: *******www.uncommondescent****/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/#comment-364779 Moreover, when scientists did a actual Nucleotide by Nucleotide sequence comparison, to find the 'real world' difference between the genomes of chimps and Humans, they found the difference was even more profound than what Dr. Richard Buggs, or the statistical test, had estimated: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] *******www.apologeticspress****/articles/2070 Even this more recent evolution friendly article found the differences in the protein coding genes of the Y chromosome between chimps and Humans to be 'striking': Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: “many of the stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes are due to gene loss in the chimp and gene gain in the human” since “the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans.”,,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,," *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. *******www.physorg****/news182605704.html Many times materialists will try to establish scientific validity for their evolution of man from apes by pointing to mere suggestive genetic similarities, of one type or another, all the while ignoring profound dissimilarities. For prime example of the flimsy 'similarity evidence', used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if it were true which it is not, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this 'lack of conclusiveness' is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded solely by the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance and 'epigenetic' studies. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4187488 entire video: *******edinburghcreationgroup****/fishfossils.xml “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. *******www.sciencedirect****/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-4FJXNG6-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1273117547&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0bfa74d6bb0937402472343daa6bdef8 The Case Against Molecular Reductionism - Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4899469 The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.,,, So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used.,,, Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. *******darwins-god.blogspot****/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code. The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." *******eyedesignbook****/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 This following video and article are much more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information *******www.metacafe****/watch/4798685 Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism: *******www.thenewatlantis****/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action: Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4249713 further notes: Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. *******cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004 Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. *******www.nature****/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." *******arjournals.annualreviews****/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr *******www.y-origins****/index.php?p=home_more4 “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
27 Dec 2010
2022
Share Video