The Inconsistencies in Genetic Similarity Propaganda

As more scientists come around to the creation side, more and more facts are coming out that destroy the myth of Evolution. Did you know man and Dinosaur walked the earth at the same time? What was the canopy made out of that protected the earth before the deluge??
pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

The Inconsistencies in Genetic Similarity Propaganda

Post#1 » Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:48 am

The Inconsistencies in Genetic Similarity Propaganda

As we have already set out many times, such genetic comparisons constitute no proof of evolution, and merely reveal preconceptions. Some important points which need to be known are:

1) The similarities between man and chimpanzees cannot be generalised to the whole genomes. In other words, it is wrong to say, ‘Man is 99.4% similar to the chimpanzee.’ It would still be wrong to say the figure was 75%. That is because there is no completed chimpanzee genome project. The number of genes Goodman took from chimpanzee DNA and studied was limited to only 97. This represents only 0.3% (three-thousandths) of the at least 30,000 known genes in the human genome. The 94% similarity claim is as illogical as announcing that a thick book, of which only three paragraphs have been read, bears a 99.4% similarity to another book solely because those paragraphs happen to appear in it. In short, the first condition for any judgement to be made on this subject is for the whole book to be read, in other words for the chimpanzee genome to be completed.

2) All genetic comparisons based on partial DNA examples are completely are open to preconceptions. Someone who wishes to portray the similarity as large as possible will tend to select those parts where there is more similarity, and someone wishing to minimise the similarity will tend to select areas where there is less. This opens the door to Goodman’s achieving, if he compares totally identical sections, a 100% similarity even. However, if Goodman does achieve such a result of course he will not claim that ‘Man and the Chimpanzee are 100% Genetically Similar.’ It is clear that figures implying the idea of 100% to mind will find greater room for publication in the Darwinist media, for which reason they will be preferred. In essence, it must always be borne in mind that studies producing similarity levels as high as 99.4% are to a large extent based on evolutionist preconceptions.

3) It is invalid to portray the similarity between man and chimpanzee as proof of the thesis that they descended from a common ancestor. It is wrong to accept that similarities in living things are an indication of a common origin, and that this origin is evolution. That is because the theory of evolution rests on blind chance. The common structures in living things, DNA for instance, are too complex to have emerged by chance. When we see two similar aeroplanes, for instance, we assume that their origin lies in intelligent design, not in sheer coincidence, since the design in them cannot be explained by chance. The DNA molecule is a molecule with a complex design which conceals large quantities of information in a special code. The design in living things is generally very complex, and similar structures need to be considered with the logic that they emerged not by chance but with a common design, in other words by creation.

4) Even if the ‘reading’ of the chimpanzee genome is completed and is shown to be 98% similar to the human genome, it will still be illogical to say that ‘man is 98% chimpanzee.’ Man shares genes, at specific levels, with many other living things. There is a 75% similarity between human and nematode worm genes, but this does not mean that man is 75% worm. Some evolutionists can see the illogicality in these inferences, and duly express it. Professor Steven Jones, for instance, has warned that the demonstration of a 50% similarity between man and the banana will not mean that man is half-banana.(2) That is because even if the genes of two different living things are the same, we know that they can still function in entirely different ways. Furthermore, the fact that individual genes sometimes have more than one function (pleiotropy), or that one function can be directed by several genes (poligeny), widens the mathematical difference considerably.

Since human beings do not only share genes with chimpanzees, contrary to what the evolutionist media would have us believe, a researcher could well take 97 common genes from man and another living thing and say, ‘Man is 100% banana,’ or ‘Man is 100% whale!’
****************************************



Attached link: http://www.darwinism-watch.com/genetic_similarity.php

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest