RSR: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit
Download: Dialup / Broadband Stream: Dialup / Broadband Comment: at TheologyOnline
* DNA Doesn't Lie -- and that includes Elephant DNA: If you enjoy our tradition of annual Real Science Radio LIST programs you'll probably love this List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit! For the genomes march on. While of course Darwin's tree of life puts all the shrews on one branch, and animals like giraffes and elephants elsewhere, contradicting that evolutionary requirement, a genetic analysis of a particular species of shrew, the elephant shrew, shows that this rodent is closer to an elephant, genetically, than it is to other shrews! Who knew? So Bob Enyart and Fred Williams explain why on today's program!
* Genomes that Expose the Error of Neo-Darwinism: See below for details and for the many peer-reviewed journal papers and expert sources for this data. And remember, all scientists work for Real Science Radio! So, genetic studies have revealed that:
- An elephant shrew is closer to an elephant than to other shrews
- Horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows
- Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome
- Sponges share 70% of human genes including for nerves and muscles
- Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome
- Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome
- Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp
- The chimp Y chromosome is "horrendously different" from our 'Y'
- The human Y is astoundingly similar all over the world lacking the expected mutational variation
- Mitochondrial Eve "would be a mere 6000 years old" by ignoring chimp DNA and calculating by mutation rates
- Roundworms have far more genes than Darwinist predictions,19,000, compared to our 20,500 genes
- The flatworm man-bug "ancestor" genome has "alarmed" evolutionists and is now dislodged from its place at the base.
- Snake DNA contains a quarter of the cow genome
- The leading evidence for Darwinism, junk DNA, is vanishing, as the journal Nature reports function for 80% of human genome, moving toward "100%"
- Genomes so challenge common descent that PNAS reports horizontal gene transfer must have "transformed vertebrate genomes"
- "Genetic diversity exploded in recent millennia" when "vast number of human DNA variants arose only in the past 5,000 years."
- Whale and bat DNA share identical astounding sequence: Ha! A wonderful discovery has documented the same echolocation genetic sequences existing in both the bat and whale genomes! Wow! wow! Wow! wow!
- The journal Nature reports that the vast majority of the diversity in the human genome has not accumulated over a million years but over only 200 generations. Likewise, the genome-wide diversity of the Dutch is explained in only 70 generations! Researchers also at the Max Planck Institute showed that Australian Aborigines did not require tens of thousands of years for their genetic (and linguistic) diversity, but only 4,000 to 5,000 years! Just like we creationists have been saying all along! Welcome aboard guys! :)
* DNA Doesn't Lie -- and that includes Gorilla DNA: It turns out that 15 percent of the gorilla genome is closer to humans than to chimps! Bob and Fred point out that for many decades Darwinists have claimed that humans are closest to chimpanzees. So this throws yet another monkey wrench into the theory of evolution. The "puzzling surprises..." are reported in Nature. "The standard view of the great-ape family tree is that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla — because chimps and humans diverged more recently. But, 15% of human genes look more like the gorilla version than the chimp version." The guys also review the enormous and unpredicted difference between the human Y chromosome and the chimp Y, and the human genome generally with the published comparisons of the sponge genome, a worm, and the kangaroo genome!
* Jerry Coyne 0, Real Science Radio 1: Infamous evolutionist Jerry Coyne criticized RSR claiming that virtually all nonconforming genetic sequences (such as those described in the New Scientist article, Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life) are a result of horizontal gene transfer and that such sequences therefore occur almost exclusively in single-celled organisms. Ha!
Atheist AronRa debating RSR claims none of the above contradicts evolutionary assumptions: AronRa's 10th Foundational Falsehood video script says "Everything we see in nature consistently adheres to everything we would expect of a chain of inherited variations carried down through flowering lines of descent…" [hear it] How so? "Because the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just as objectively doubly confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically." [hear it] Asked by Bob Enyart if the above unexpected genetic discoveries required a correction on this from AronRa, he replied, "No." Yet, the scientific truth marches on...
* Holy Cow Batman! Saddle Up: Evolutionists for 150 years, based on their story, would draw Darwin's tree of life showing a cow and a horse somewhat closely related, with bats flittering about elsewhere on the tree. Now though, after prokaryote studies took a stump grinder to the base of the tree, study after study, as in this peer-reviewed paper in the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, is taking a wood chipper to the eukaryotes throughout the branches. As explained by New Scientist, disregarding anatomy and drawing a tree of life based on genetic sequencing, evolutionists are now claiming that horses are more closely related to bats than to cows. Really.
* Gorilla Ears, Octopus Eyes, and the Platypus: Evolutionists easily change their selection of what kind of evidence to use to allegedly "document" lineage, from genes, to fossils, to anatomy, to proteins, to RNA, etc., including to a combination of such, as they arbitrarily select the evidence that best matches whichever trial balloon has suggested which Darwinian story du jour is voted most likely to be believed. Regarding the gorilla, by Darwinian theory hundreds of millions of the gorilla's nucleotides (genetic letters) should not be ordered the way that they actually are, in that they more closely match the human genome rather than the chimpanzee genome. Why not, because allegedly, as repeated ten thousand times, including in Nature in 2011, "chimpanzees [are] the closest living relatives of Homo sapiens." (Remember though, Science Daily reports that "[I]n about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees..." whereas in the Journal of Biogeography, forget one-half of one percent, the authors there claim that anatomy trumps genetics as they showed that, actually, i.e., allegedly, our closest living relatives are orangutans!) So watch for diversions to distract from the falsified Darwinian predictions. For now we'll now hear that gorilla ears, etc., are more human-like than chimp-like, and also that the orangutans, the gorillas, and chimpanzees, are all our closest living relatives. Ha! Such tactics help to maintain the evolutionary illusion even in the face of strongly falsified evolutionary prediction.
* "CAVEMAN" -- Neanderthal DNA Falsifies Another Darwinian Prediction: Neanderthals are human. How do we know that? Because DNA doesn't lie and while exhibiting unique characteristics, Neanderthal DNA is closer to the genome of living humans than two chimps, of the same species no less, are to one another (Carter, R. 2009. The Neanderthal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution. Journal of Creation). For related journal and science news references, and for Ian Tattersall's now falsified claim that Neanderthal was a separate species, see our RSR Caveman Show!
* KANGAROO: As previously on RSR, the director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, says that, "there are great chunks of the [human] genome sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that, "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" Evolutionists are not much like kangaroos, regardless of what they might think. But they should consider that:
- claiming (while exaggerating) that humans were 98% similar to chimps doesn't mean what it was meant to convey
- percent of genetic similarity simply doesn't imply evolutionary descent nor relationship
- CMI: "organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are 'built' using the same developmental genes."
- So with the death of Darwin's Tree of Life, and
- with the regulatory gene blueprint throughout the animal kingdom (including in sponges), and
- with kangaroo genes showing such extraordinary similarity to humans,
the bottom line is that Darwinists were wrong to use that kind of genetic similarity as evidence of a developmental pathway from apes to humans. Post-show update: There is enough similarity in pig DNA to convince one geneticist that humans are hybrids between apes and pigs! :)
* CHIMP -- Shock Chimp Y Chromosome Report, 30% Different: Evolutionary geneticists were lobbying for careful sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome expecting of course that it would confirm their neo-Darwinian expectations. Now that the data is in, the evolutionists are in "shock" once again. See the April 2011 Creation Magazine article and CMI's 2010 report about team leader Dr. David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., who said in the journal Nature (1-14-2010), that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other." Horrendously? Is that a scientific term? Why not just, "different?" Why horrendously so? Because for modern Darwinism to not lose face, chimps have to be shown to be our closest relatives. Yet 15% of the gorilla genome is closer to us, and the chimp's Y chromosome (that which makes us males... well, males...):
- has only 66% of the genes that we do
- codes for only half the proteins ours does
- has 30% of the entire Y that can't be aligned to our human Y!
And as for the overall differences between the entire human and chimp genomes (not just the Y or the protein-coding regions), see the RSR debate with AronRa and search for: Chimp/Human Similarity. (UPDATE: For example, still in 2012, a month after this program aired, the science magazine Cosmos wrote that "Humans differ by 1.3% from chimps...") That debate post exposes the 30-year bigotry against indels which still helps to maintain the popular evolutionary illusion of the claimed 98.5% similarity. Evolutionists still repeat the falsehood that human and chimp "genomes are 'almost 99 percent identical'" even though in the same breath they'll now admit to the more honest (but still exaggerated) 96% similarity. Every tenth of one percent difference is another 3 million base pairs that would somehow have to be modified and then propagated throughout the species in an impossibly brief period of evolutionary time. So Darwinists intuitively try to maintain the illusion that the differences are minimal. But when we realize that bananas and sponge genes, respectively, are 50% and 70% similar to humans, and that the chimp/human Y-chromosome difference is a "horrendous" 30% (half-a-percent of the entire genome, and not realized until 2010), we see that decades of Darwinist interpretations of percentages of genetic similarity were unjustified "stories" now seen to be superficial.
* 100 Million Different Base Pairs between Chimps and Humans: Rather than the much repeated false 98.5% similarity, the most carefully quantified comparison shows a 95.2% similarity, with the divergence from human DNA resulting in 100 million different base pairs. That difference includes nearly 700 human genes that don't even exist in chimp DNA. So do the math. If in fact evolution could even produce any new genetic information whatsoever, with the average "gene" being a couple hundred amino acids in length, and with the amount of time needed for a single base pair of DNA to be promulgated throughout a species, how long would it take neo-Darwinism to introduce those new genes? (All the science on this page is merely reported by RSR, but here's something that we're claiming, that we haven't seen elsewhere: The 100 million base pair difference between us and chimps is not even counting the nearly 400 million base pairs resulting from their genome being 13% longer than ours).
* MARINE WORM -- Sequencing of Marine Worm Kills Common Ancestor of Man and Insects: As previously on RSR, falsifying the general expectations of neo-Darwinism, a typical roundworm, C. elegans, and a human have about the same number of genes, 19,000 as compared to 20,500. Also, about forty percent of those genes, "match those of other organisms, including humans", according to the U.S. Human Genome Program, C. elegans Sequence Whole-Genome View of a Multicellular Animal. Further, also as previously on RSR, molecular biology has removed from its perch the long-alleged common ancestor of insects and humans, the marine worm acoelomorphs. According to LiveScience, "the missing link has gone missing"! For as reported in the Jan/Feb 2011 Creation Matters:
- marine worms are more closely related to humans than are mollusks and insects - Nature 2-9-11
- Acoelomorpha Flatworm formerly known as common man-bug ancestor
- Evolution: A can of worms. Nature 2-9-11
- "the missing link has gone missing" Dept. of Genetics & Evolution's Max Telford, Univ. College, London
- evolutionists "alarmed" with "vehemence" - Nature magazine
- shows how important these worm props were to the evolutionary story-telling
- "the most politically fraught paper I've ever written" -Genetic researcher Max Telford. Political? Exactly!
* SPONGE -- If Chimps Were 98% Human, Then Sponges are 70%: According to the peer-reviewed journal Nature, the sequencing of a Great Barrier Reef sponge genome shows that this sponge "is remarkably similar to other animal genomes in content, structure and organization." Project lead, Dr. Bernard Degnan of the University of Queensland, reported, "We have found that sponges and humans, and their common ancient ancestor, share an amazing number of genes. Given how simple sea sponges are, this was completely unexpected.” As reported by the AFP in Scientists find sea sponges share human genes, "sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes!" The Nature paper, Sponge genome goes deep, goes beyond it's factual findings of human-to-sponge overlap to speculate on a period of evolution after sponges that, "Nearly one-third of the genetic alterations that distinguish humans from their last common ancestor with single-celled organisms took place during this period." And while humans have 20,500 genes, the lowly sponge according to Nature, has "more than 18,000 individual genes." Thus "the sponge genome represents a diverse toolkit." Exactly says RSR!! As Nature reports, "according to Douglas Erwin, a palaeobiologist at the Smithsonian, such complexity indicates that sponges must have descended from a more advanced ancestor than previously suspected. 'This flies in the face of what we think of early metazoan evolution,' says Erwin. "Nature also says about sponge DNA: "The genome also includes analogues of genes that, in organisms with a neuromuscular system, code for muscle tissue and neurons." Those Darwinists who hold to the circular logic of methodological naturalism do not have the intellectual liberty to consider that perhaps the Intelligent Designer devised a genetic toolbox from which He could pull out of the same basic blueprint tools for making sponges, kangaroos, and people. And from Science Daily about "the sponge, which was not recognized as an animal until the 19th century," Science Daily reports that, "the team looked in the sponge genome for more than 100 genes that have been implicated in human cancers and found about 90 percent of them." And from a researcher with the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., "Though we think of a sponge as a simple creature whose skeleton we take to the bathtub, it has a lot of the major biochemical and developmental pathways we associate with complex functions in humans and other more complex animals," she said. (More from RSR on sponges...)
* EVE -- "6,000 year-old" Mitochondrial Eve: As the Bible calls "Eve... the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), genetic researchers have named the one woman from whom all humans have descended "Mitochondrial Eve." But in a scientific attempt to date her existence, they openly admit that they included chimpanzee DNA in their analysis in order to get what they viewed as a reasonably old date of 200,000 years ago (which is still surprisingly recent from their perspective, but old enough not to strain Darwinian theory too much). But then as widely reported including by Science magazine, when they dropped the chimp data and used only actual human mutation rates, that process determined that Eve lived only six thousand years ago! In Ann Gibbon's Science article, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," rather than again using circular reasoning by assuming their conclusion (that humans evolved from ape-like creatures), they performed their calculations using actual measured mutation rates. This peer-reviewed journal then reported that if these rates have been constant, "mitochondrial Eve… would be a mere 6000 years old." See also the journal Nature and creation.com's "A shrinking date for Eve," and Walt Brown's assessment. So here comes bias and confusion to Darwin's rescue. For, according to an international team of evolutionists from leading institutions, there is tremendous and unpredictable variation in mutation rates, and unexpected inconsistencies between short-term and alleged long-term evolution. Thus of course this gives evolutionists wide interpretive latitude. And expectedly though, evolutionists have found a way to reject their own unbiased finding (the conclusion contrary to their self-interest) by returning to their original method of using circular reasoning, as reported in the American Journal of Human Genetics, "calibrating against recent evidence for the divergence time of humans and chimpanzees," to reset their mitochondrial clock back to 200,000 years.
* ADAM -- Mankind Descend from Y-Chromosomal Adam: (Although he should be called, "Y-Chromosomal Noah.") While we inherit our mtDNA only from our mothers, only men have a Y chromosome (which incidentally genetically disproves the claim that the fetus is "part of the woman's body," since the little boy's Y chromosome could never be part of mom's body). Based on the extraordinary lack of mutational differences in this specifically male DNA, the Y-chromosomal Adam would have lived only a few thousand years ago. (He's significantly younger than mtEve because of the genetic bottleneck of the global flood.) Yet while the Darwinian camp wrongly claimed for decades that humans were nearly 99% genetically similar to chimps, secular scientists today, using the same type of calculation only more accurately, have unintentionally documented that chimps are about as far genetically from what makes a human being a male, as mankind itself is from sponges! Geneticists have found now that sponges are 70% the same as humans genetically, and separately, that human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously" 30% different. (See also Why Was Canaan Cursed? and Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man!)
* THE WHOLE TREE OF LIFE IS EVOLUTIONARILY MESSED UP
-- Famed Evolutionary Microbiologist Says Incongruities Everywhere: The evolutionary biophysicist Carl Woese, famous for defining a new domain of life, Archaea, admitted in PNAS that, "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."
-- New Scientist Says Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life: Recall the historic cover story, Darwin was Wrong about the Tree of Life! Darwin's theory of the tree of life (named after the real tree described in Genesis), according to New Scientist was as important as his theory of natural selection. However, of the thousands of species evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a genetic biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). And as reported on RSR, the remains of Darwin's tree, the branches now laying around on the ground, have been thrown into the shredder with the completed sequencing of gorilla, kangaroos, sponges, and worms! See also the excerpts from the New Scientist article in the RSR debate with AronRa.
* Also Mentioned on Today's RSR Program: Fred mentioned that Bob was recently on assignment in Kentucky with Dr. Don Patton and that RSR is happily giving Dr. Patton the courtesy of first publishing their findings! Also, the guys discussed the Science Daily article about a new treatment for muscular dystrophy using, of course, not embryonic but adult stem cells!
* Cows, Snakes, and... Dolphins? "The cow genome contains a piece of snake DNA..." according to that New Scientist Darwin was Wrong about the Tree of Life article, p. 38 with Ed Yong at National Geographic writing about "How a quarter of the cow genome came from snakes." Of course as evolutionists do, New Scientist merely comes up with a story that accounts for this and for any and all contradictory evidence. Darwinists are like Star Wars trivia buffs, able to distinguish between a juvenile Wookiee and a mature Ewok, and explain from geology what froze the oceans on Hoth and how Tatooine was covered by desert, and when a contradiction surfaces, they merely rewrite the story. Falsification not allowed. Formerly, New Scientist had reported that cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses.
* Elephants and Moles: Known from way, way back, in 1998 (and from continuing research), the elephant shrew is genetically closer to an actual elephant than it is to other shrews, as reported by Roger Lewin in New Scientist.
* MOUSE & BANANA -- Topics for Next Year's List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit: Evolutionist AronRa, who is currently debating Bob Enyart, quoted geneticist Carrie Metzinger from this Stanford website: "Despite the fact that there is so much junk, we still share 95-98% of our DNA with a chimp. And 80% with a mouse." Reminds us of our RealScienceRadio.com/mickey-mouse-evolution show. And then... there's the banana! And see also, "Dobzhansky: 40 Years Later Nothing Makes Sense" CRSQ, in press, Spring 2013.
* RELATED: MicroRNA Chopping Down Darwin's Tree: From Nature, June 2012, "Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree." The Dartmouth biologist "had originally intended to validate the traditional mammal tree, not chop it down. As he was experimenting with his growing microRNA library, he applied it to mammals because their tree was so well established that they seemed an ideal test. Alas, the data didn't cooperate. If the traditional tree was correct, then an unprecedented number of microRNA genes would have to have been lost, and Peterson considers that highly unlikely. 'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.'"
* RELATED: Phylogenetic Incongruence: From the Nov. 2012 paper in the Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, titled Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from... bats, the authors, while putting the best Darwinist face possible on their findings, admit: "Incongruence among phylogenies [i.e., assumed evolutionary family trees] estimated from different sets of [genetic] characters is pervasive… Phylogenetic conflict has become a more acute problem with the advent of genome-scale data sets. These large data sets have confirmed that phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception…" Also, "Our analyses have shown that… there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."
* Articles on the Chimp Genome Never Report its Size: How many base pairs does the chimpanzee genome contain? We've noticed that popular science articles regularly mention the size of the human DNA molecule but that they never report that same information for chimpanzees? Why not? It could be as simple as they don't know. After all, the chimp genome sequence was created by pasting small sections of chimp DNA onto the framework of the human genome. Of course that process is itself biased toward excess similarity. Then, in addition to that systemic problem, there is the commitment of Darwinists to maintain the illusion that human and chimp DNA is nearly identical, or about 99% the same. However, the most authoritative sources that RSR can find for these two statistics is for the chimp genome, 2.99 billion base pairs from Ensembl, and 3.2 billion from the Human Genome Project Consortium. (To find out why estimates of the human genome size have varied but are narrowing, see this article from Dr. Laurence Moran, a Toronto biochemistry professor.) So, based on length alone, if chimp and human DNA overlapped with only 100% identical sequences, the raw size differences of the genomes would still show them to be 6.25% different.
Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! (By buying it here, you'll also help keep Real Science Radio on the air, and you'll get Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!) Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems! For after all, most fundamentally, rather than being carbon based, life in information based! (And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!)