A lot of very misleading stuff there. And some simply wrong. I'll take a sampling.
Like, for example...
- Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome
Kinda true, but it's not specific to mouse DNA at all. A lot of both our DNA is simply mammal DNA, and a lot of that is the DNA in common to all animals.
A lot of our genome is how cells work. Past that, it's how tissues work, and past that, how things like lungs work. All mammals have the same root lungs- heck, all vertebrates, even if we have variations.
- Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome
This is simply false, or at the least trying to phrase something much more sane-sounding (i.e. 'marsupials and placental mammals are more similar than expected,' without humans being any closer than any others) in a deeply misleading way.
- Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome
Note how this is oddly phrased. We are closer to chimps than Gorillas, but all it's saying is that some *specific* parts are more similar between gorilla and us.
And if you think about it, this is no surprise- We didn't evolve from modern chimps, we evolved from a chimp-like ancestor that Gorillas were closest related to.
As we changed in specific ways, chimps also changed. In some areas, chimps changed where we and gorillas didn't. In more areas, both us and chimps changed in similar ways after the gorilla split but before the human one. And in yet other areas, all three of us went into our own direction.
- Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp
See, that's basically true. Humans hit a genetic bottleneck at two points (i.e. most of us died, and thus the remainder are closer related), so we're closer to each other genetically than most species, Chimps are genetically a lot more diverse than us, as is, well, almost every species (though, say, Cheetahs are in a genetic bottleneck situation and thus also like us, low on diversity). Neanderthals are a close and recent branch off with a few distinct traits, but easily close enough to interbeed- as they did. They aren't the only ones either.
If there was a whole spectrum of stuff in between us and neanderthals, a mixed population that shifted in a spectrum between us on one end and neanderthals on the other, they'd be fairly easy to consider the same species.
As, aside from a bit of interbreeding, they *mostly* stayed a distinct population, we count them separately, but if the population mixed and blended more we wouldn't.
Species boundaries are a lot more blurry than a lot of people realize. When species diverge, it's a gradual process, it's not 'one day you're the same, the next you're different and can't interbreed'.
- The chimp Y chromosome is "horrendously different" from our 'Y'
Y chromosomes can and do change. Dunno what's 'horrendous' about that.
Note that it's only the second one fully sequenced- so before we tested it we actually had no baseline on how different we should expect- and the article concludes that due to high competition of Y-linked traits (namely, sperm racing with each other, a product of the Chimp reproductive strategy), and because the Y chromosome can't swap genes with other chromosomes like most chromosomes can (since they come paired), it has it's own way of adapting rapidly.
And the scientists, upon seeing this, immediately went, "Hmmm... is this an artifact of the chimp method specifically," in which case it'd mean that Chimpanzees actually have specific evolutionary pressures and adaptations to encourage Y-chromosome change, "or is it representative of other primates as well?"- in which case it's a common evolutionary trait. And thus, went on the course for more knowledge!
Or to put it another way, the article took a recent discovering that made actual evolutionary biologists go, "Oh, that's cool! Evolution is so neat," and is trying to wave it around and say, "See how wroooong evolution is!".
And they probably only knew about it in the first place from *that* specific article.
- The human Y is astoundingly similar all over the world lacking the expected mutational variation
Again, recent genetic bottlenecks, plural, this is no shock- except, apparently, to the article writer.
- Mitochondrial Eve "would be a mere 6000 years old" by ignoring chimp DNA and calculating by mutation rates
Now this is a nonsense phrasing meant to say something out of nothing. "Ignoring chimp DNA"- If this means that it's ignoring the parts of the genome we and chimps have in common, it's saying it's trying to judge by mutation rate while also tossing out a lot of the genome.
Additionally, mutation rate can vary based on a variety of things. Any fatal mutations can be ignored, for example (if your mitochondrial DNA doesn't work, then it doesn't get passed on). And I just posted an article on how it's possible that Chimps may adaptations that cause Y-chromosome DNA to change unusually fast.
- Roundworms have far more genes than Darwinist predictions,19,000, compared to our 20,500 genes
Darwin was centuries ago and worked without any modern knowledge of DNA. Early study of genes also worked with fewer tools than we have now. They made guesses, tested them, in some cases were right, in some cases were not, and where they were wrong, that allowed them to adjust and improve their understanding.
That evolution exists is, obviously, not reliant on them being right about everything. Quite the opposite- If you're looking for one change and find a different one, that still shows evidence that change is happening, just that you don't know all the factors that lead to it. That's evidence against a single predictive guess, while supporting evolutionary existing.
Note that non-evolutionary types have... no predictions for how many genes things have.
- The leading evidence for Darwinism, junk DNA, is vanishing, as the journal Nature reports function for 80% of human genome, moving toward "100%"-
Note how absurd this is even on the face of it. "Junk DNA" is the leading evidence? The leading evidence is, depending on how you view it, the complete fossil record, the fact we've seen it happen live, the complete living diversity of species, or the analysis of the *rest* of the genome- functional DNA tells us of the passing on of traits which, like I've been telling you before reading this article, is the fundamental aspect of evolution.
Basically this article is saying "This disproves evolution/is something that goes against evolution!" without actually presenting any evidence that this stuff is crucial, or often that it's claims are even true, and uses misleading phrasing left and right.
And additionally, there is the total lack of evidence for the 'stuff doesn't change' hypothesis. No mechanism has been presented for how species are supported to not evolve and diverge.
Our knowledge of what causes changes, the forms the changes take, the timeframes involved, and so on grows and changes, but to say this disproves evolution is like saying a better telescope showing that some stars are really galaxies and others are planets disproves astronomy.
I'm not even a professional scientist or anything, I'm a hobbyist who loves ancient animals, yet I find most of that list laughably silly in the things it tries to paint as flaws, including ones that are actually reliant on evolution to exist. The writer doesn't have a good view of what evolution is, and thus the attempts to debunk it are pretty bad- before one even gets into the obviously phrased to be purposefully misleading stuff.
No it hasn't. It's still the most accepted theory for human origination.
Citations please.
Your second claim needs a lot of support. If Aboriginal Australians evolved from a separate species, they'd be sufficiently different as to make normal interbreeding with other humans difficult or impossible, yet it happens all the time.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Last edited by Omega Vision on Sep 15th, 2015 at 01:53 PM
One, some leaving Africa doesn't mean everyone left, to state the obvious, but we did still come from there.
Two, we all came from the same ape ancestors. That's how species work.
Aboriginal people have the same ancestors as everyone else up to their divergence point.
To quote wikipedia:
"It is generally believed that Aboriginal people are the descendants of a single migration into the continent, a people that split from the first modern human populations to leave Africa 64,000 to 75,000 years ago,[34] although a minority propose that there were three waves of migration,[35] most likely island hopping by boat during periods of low sea levels"
So, they'd come from the group that left Africa, went through Asia, and then came South.
It's an older divergence point than most, but there's lots of divergence points.
"his argues that we had a recent African origin, that we came out of Africa, and that we replaced all of the other human forms that were outside of Africa. But we're having to re-evaluate that now because genetic data suggest that the modern humans who came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago probably interbred with Neanderthals, first of all, and then some of them later on interbred with another group of people called the Denisovans, over in south eastern Asia.
If this is so, then we are not purely of recent African origin. We're mostly of recent African origin, but there was contact with these other so-called species. "
Or in others words, every last one of us had most of our ancestors come from Africa, but we have had a smaller group of ancestors (or at least some of us) that developed elsewhere.
In short, we came from Africa, but there's some detail in there, and more nuance in how the different types of homo-genus interacted and how close they were. As the story itself says, "We end up with quite a complex story, with even some of this ancient DNA coming back into modern humans within Africa. So our evolutionary story is mostly, but not absolutely, a Recent African Origin."
Quite an interesting article.
Especially the bits on Neanderthal / human breeding- how it might've been quite limited in scope, *or* wider in scope, but only rarely producing viable children. In short, if the latter is true, the groups were getting near the edge of interbreedability, and much longer before meeting and it wouldn't have been possible.
Says a lot about species divergence.
I do recommend reading through that one to others.
Truth be told a monkey would probably rip the dick off of anyone who tried to bang it. Or so I've heard. You ever see the movie Congo? These things do not f*ck around. You need a lasergun powered by a diamond to even stand a chance and most people don't carry those around with them, especially when attempting the sexual conquest of an animal.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 13th, 2015 12:07 PM
