http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/19/1201894109.abstract?etoc
One of the main tubs I kept on thumping in NAC was that the human genome and the chimpanzee genome are not as closely related as most commentators would like us to believe - that the so-called 1.6% difference is a myth. In this PNAS paper, Todd Preuss, whose research is mentioned extensively in my text, expands on precisely that point as well as examining the difficulty extrapolating from genotype to phenotype. As he puts it: "Our knowledge of the genes that underwent expression changes or were targets of positive selection in human evolution is rapidly increasing, as is our knowledge of gene duplications, translocations, and deletions. It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."
I just discovered you from uncommon descent.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting a British tv guy has criticisms of the ape equals us belief.
I am a YEC creationist and welcome likeness with primates but only because it is because man being made in the image of God means our bodies are just of common nature.
So simply seeing such common design in nature it could only be we have like design.
Then it follows we would have the best body type in nature for a being like ourselves.
The primate body is best. what else?
Yet its unrelated to biological reproductive origins from a common heritage.
Its fine with me to find 99% or more likeness in DNA with primates.
i welcome that.
Its irrelevant as evidence for like origin.
Dna comparison is just a line of reasoning in drawing connections.
Even if true it would be just that.
In fact however a common creator would make for a special being,us, a body from existing types. so like body like DNA.
Robert's creationist comments above defy response, so ludicrous and biologically ignorant. He really ought to read up and try and understand molecular taxonomy. The primate body is best. For what?
ReplyDelete