Hu-Man aka God-Man did not descend from the apes

The Freemason ,Darwin and his foolish and non factual theory is debunked ..



http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=801

Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee

by      Will Brooks, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Will Brooks, who holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.]

“The Evolution of Creationism.” No, you did not misread the statement. This was the title of a symposium that I recently attended at the Experimental Biology 2009 National Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana (Forrest and Miller, 2009). At this symposium, a couple of the more vocal evolutionists gave a detailed account of how creationists’ thinking has allegedly “evolved” over the last 20 years. The speakers gave a chronological history of landmark court cases regarding the creation/evolution debate and marked how creationists have repeatedly changed their strategies for battling evolutionary thought. (Answering this historical interpretation is beyond the scope of this article, though much could be said in response to this claim.) One of the speakers at this symposium was Dr. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University. Miller is a researcher and author, but is well known in large part for his testimony at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover..., 2005). In this well-publicized court case, parents battled the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board over a statement that the school board developed to be read in 9th grade science class when evolution was taught. Led by Kitzmiller, these parents fought to have the statement removed, because it posited intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin’s theory. Within those courts, Miller gave testimony which was designed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution was the only explanation for the origin of life. One of the key points of Miller’s testimony, which he kindly recounted at the symposium, regarded the then-recent report that human chromosome 2 looks like it is a fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes (Wienberg, et al., 1994).

Humans (Homo sapiens) have 46 chromosomes which make up their nuclear DNA genome; this number is known as the diploid number. Half of these 46 chromosomes are always donated by the mother and half by the father. So, mom and dad each contribute 23 chromosomes—the haploid number—to their offspring. Therefore, the 46 nuclear chromosomes, that all humans possess within their cells, are actually 23 pairs of identical chromosomes. (To be more precise, females have 23 identical pairs, while males have 22 pairs that are identical and the sex chromosomes, X and Y, are paired but not identical.) This diploid number of 46 (23 pairs) is, however, unique to humans among their alleged primate relatives. Genetically speaking, those species which have DNA sequences most similar to that of humans are the great apes. Each of the four species of ape (chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, and orangutan) possesses 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs, compared to the 46 chromosomes of humans. However, the genetic difference between Homo sapiens and their alleged primate relatives is significant.

Of the four species of great apes, also known as hominids, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) harbors the most similar DNA sequence to humans, making it genetically the closest to Homo sapiens. As was discussed by Miller in his court testimony, interestingly, if one takes a close look at the gross physical appearance (karyotype) of both human and chimpanzee chromosomes, one finds that all of the chromosomes can be matched between species, except the human chromosome 2. This chromosome is unique in that it looks like a hybrid or fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes known now as chromosomes 2A and 2B. The similarities are striking and quite convincing that Homo sapiens chromosome 2 is the counterpart of the chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. This accounts for the difference in diploid numbers between humans and four species of great ape. Humans have 23 pairs including a single chromosome 2 (46 total), while the great apes have 24 pairs including the distinct chromosomes 2A and 2B (48 total). Miller and a host of evolutionists have jumped on this alleged chromosomal fusion as evidence that humans, the chimpanzee, and other hominids all descended from one common ancestor.

Three explanations could account for this proposed chromosomal fusion. One lends itself to an evolutionist’s view and two to the viewpoint of intelligent design. First, consider the evolutionist’s explanation. Most modern evolutionary biologists do not claim that humans evolved from chimpanzees or any of the other living apes. Instead, it is proposed that humans and the great apes all evolved separately from one now extinct common ancestor through independent evolutionary lines (Figure 1). Allegedly, that one common ancestor of man and the hominids possessed a diploid number of 48. As this species evolved into the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, the total chromosomal number remained constant at 48.

Figure 2: Evolutionary Map of Human Divergence Following Chromosome 2 Fusion.


So, if humans were not a split from the ape lineage in evolutionary theory, there are two other explanations for the appearance of human chromosome 2. The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes, but they underwent the fusion sometime following Creation. At first glance, this explanation might appear to be a combination of creation and evolution—but only if “evolution” is defined as microevolution. Let us assume that God created humans with a diploid number of 48 chromosomes, and that they were in all respects the same as humans today except in chromosome number. Later, a fusion occurred between two chromosomes to give humans 46 chromosomes just like ourselves. This would be an example of microevolution. A genetic change occurred, but did not alter the species by creating a new distinct species. Unfortunately, this explanation holds up no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory. As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that Noah or his wife (Genesis 6) contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If Noah or his wife contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. These genetic frequencies of passage to offspring, coupled with the likelihood of infertility and genetic syndromes, make the Noah hypothesis unlikely as well.

The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup.

Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, ESV). Eliphaz rightly stated: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” (Job 5:13, ESV). We cannot know God’s intentions for creating us as we exist, nor can we know why He created chimpanzees with such close genetic similarities to humans. We can know, however, that despite the close similarities in genetics, anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, man can think and reason far beyond the chimpanzee or any other living organism. (It is doubtful that genetics will ever solely explain that difference.) But, the greatest difference will always be that man alone has an immortal soul which is yet another created gift from God.

We will continue to learn as we delve deeper into our studies of biology and the living world. We may well discover an explanation. But, there will always be questions which cannot be answered, puzzles which cannot be solved. While God has placed some of His creation beyond our ability to discover, He has left other parts of it for us to ponder. What we can know is that the evolutionists’ “argument” regarding chromosome 2 in no way proves that humans evolved from apes.

REFERENCES

Bowers, Evelyn J. (2003), “Chromosomal Speciation,” Science, 301[5634]: 764-5.

Forrest, Barbara and Kenneth R. Miller (2009), “The Evolution of Creationism,” Experimental Biology 2009, [On-line], URL: http://www.eb2009.org/.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005), Case No. 04cv2688, [On-line], URL: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.

Weinberg Johannes, et al. (1994), “The Origin of Human Chromosome 2 Analyzed by Comparative Chromo-some Mapping with a DNA Micro-library,” Chromosome Research, 2:405-410.

And then we learned Orangutans are being prostituted

That's right.  People travel overseas to indulge in bestiality with captive animals

Time to pack this experiment up and consign all humans to the tip

rabbitoh08 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:


many blessings rabbitoh08

pls provide proof of your abstract claims

yet either way be at peace

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:


actually, you were the one who first claimed he said we came from apes, it's up there in your thread title ... it's up to you to provide proof.

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 1:03pm:


many blessings

incorrect = john smith

this illusion is mainstream thought brought about by disinformationalistical teachings ..and so ,

you are forgiven for blaming one such as I am for mass retardations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Human evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of anatomically modern humans. The topic typically focuses on the evolutionary history of the primates—in particular the genus Homo, and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominids (or "great apes")—rather than studying the earlier history that led to the primates. The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.[1] Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[2] Within the Hominoidea (apes) superfamily, the Hominidae family diverged from the Hylobatidae (gibbon) family some 15–20 million years ago; African great apes (subfamily Homininae) diverged from orangutans (Ponginae) about 14 million years ago; the Hominini tribe (humans, Australopithecines and other extinct biped genera, and chimpanzees) parted from the Gorillini tribe (gorillas) about 8 million years ago; and, in turn, the subtribes Hominina (humans and biped ancestors) and Panina (chimps) separated about 7.5 million years ago to 5.6 million years ago.[3]

The basic adaptation of the hominin line is bipedalism. The earliest bipedal hominin is considered to be either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin; alternatively, either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin may instead be the last shared ancestor between chimps and humans. Ardipithecus, a full biped, arose somewhat later, and the early bipeds eventually evolved into the australopithecines, and later into the genus Homo.

The earliest documented representative of the genus Homo is Homo habilis, which evolved around 2.8 million years ago,[4] and is arguably the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of the use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, although it has been suggested that this was the time in which the human SRGAP2 gene doubled, producing a more rapid wiring of the frontal cortex. During the next million years a process of rapid encephalization occurred, and with the arrival of Homo erectus and Homo ergaster in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850 cm3.[5] (Such an increase in human brain size is equivalent to each generation having 125,000 more neurons than their parents.) It is believed that Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first to use fire and complex tools, and were the first of the hominin line to leave Africa, spreading throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.

According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, gradually replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Denisova hominins, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis.[6][7][8][9][10] Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved in the Middle Paleolithic between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.[11][12][13] Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominins, such as Denisovans, may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans, suggestive of a limited inter-breeding between these species.[14][15][16] The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists[17] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.[18]

Contents
1      History of study
1.1      Before Darwin
1.2      Darwin

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

errrr....perhaps you should read Darwin's "Descent of Man"?

If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Darwin/Descent/descent6.htm

He did not say that human evolved from apes (which, given that humans are apes, is actually a meaningless thing to say).  He said man and other apes shared a common ancestor.

lets explore the global myth taught to your children in your schools shall we ...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/human_evolution.aspx

Human Evolution

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors starting nearly five million years ago. The modern scientific study of human evolution is called paleoanthropology. A subfield of anthropology, this discipline searches for the roots of human physical traits, culture, and behavior. It attempts to answer questions: What makes us human? When and why did we begin to walk upright? How did our brains, language, art, music, and religion develop? By approaching these questions from a variety of directions, using information learned from other disciplines such as molecular biology, paleontology, archaeology, sociology, and biology, we continue to increase knowledge of our evolutionary origins.

Most cultures throughout human history have myths, stories, and ideas about how life and culture came into existence. Although the current theory of evolution, based on the ideas of Charles Darwin, is accepted by a majority of scientists in our time, it is important to remember that many earlier ideas were recognized as well.

Darwin's books, On the Origins of the Species by Natural Selection (1859) and The Descent of Man (1872), expressed his theory of evolution and revolutionized the study of life and human origins.

Darwin presented evidence showing that natural species including humans have changed, or evolved, over long spans of time. He also argued that radically new forms of life develop from existing species. He noted that all organisms compete with one another for food, space, mates, and other things needed for survival and reproduction. The most successful individuals in this competition have the greatest chance of reproducing and passing these characteristics on to offspring. Over hundreds of thousands of generations, one form of life can evolve into one or more other forms. Darwin called this process natural selection.

Modern science now understands that the mechanism for evolutionary change resides in genes , the basic building block of heredity . Genes determine how the body, and often the behavior, of an organism will develop over the course of its life. Certain information in genes can change, and over time this genetic change can actually alter a species' overall way of life.

In recent decades, biological and social scientists have made impressive strides in understanding our complex physical and cultural origins. Their research has revealed gradual alterations in our genetic structure, as well as shifts in culture and behavior, that have transformed humankind into the planet-dominant species.

Scientists estimate that our human ancestors began to diverge from the African primates between eight million and five million years ago. This figure is the result of studying the genetic makeup of humans and apes, and then calculating approximately how long it took for those differences to develop. Using similar methods of comparing genetic variation among human populations around the world, it is thought that all people living today share a common genetic ancestor.

Early Life in Africa

The human story begins in one of the most geologically fascinating areas on Earth, the Great Rift Valley of Africa. It is an enormous split torn into Earth's crust that runs from the forests in Tanzania to the deserts of Ethiopia. In some places the rift is thousands of feet deep and exposes the last fifteen million years of the earth's history. Here, fossil remains of our earliest ancestors can be found. Humankind appears to have first evolved in Africa, and the fossils of early humans, or hominids, who lived between five million and two million years ago, come entirely from Africa.

Starting with the modern human skull, it is possible to trace our ancestry back millions of years. As we travel back in time, our ancestors look less and less like us and begin to resemble our closest relatives, the African apes. Because our physical and genetic characteristics are similar, evolutionary theory offers evidence that ancestral humans had a very close relationship to a group of primates, the apes. Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and the large apes of Africa share a common ancestor that lived between eight million and five million years ago.

Humans, or hominids, belong to the scientific order named Primates, a group of more than 230 species of animals that includes the monkeys, lemurs, and apes. Modern humans have a number of physical characteristics resembling our ape ancestry. The social systems of humans also share similarities with the African apes and other primates, such as baboons, chimpanzees, and rhesus monkeys. Chimps live, groom, feed, and hunt together and form strong family bonds. Early humankind probably had a similar lifestyle.

Scientists now know that nearly 98 percent of the genes in humans and chimpanzees are identical, making chimps the closest living biological relative of humans. However, there are fundamental differences between modern humans and their primate relatives.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 11:08pm:


many blessings rabbitoh08 ,

one such as I am will never stand under/understand  your illusionary mesmerisms

and how you distinctly include " modern " into your semantic proposals ..

your contribution is observed as I actually overstand your supposition with ease and grace

as we continue without your semantic retardationalisms,

here is some more stupidity and mainstream teachings ,

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

Human evolution

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.

One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.

Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.

Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.

Paleoanthropology
Paleoanthropology is the scientific study of human evolution. Paleoanthropology is a subfield of anthropology, the study of human culture, society, and biology. The field involves an understanding of the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior. Paleoanthropologists search for the roots of human physical traits and behavior. They seek to discover how evolution has shaped the potentials, tendencies, and limitations of all people. For many people, paleoanthropology is an exciting scientific field because it investigates the origin, over millions of years, of the universal and defining traits of our species. However, some people find the concept of human evolution troubling because it can seem not to fit with religious and other traditional beliefs about how people, other living things, and the world came to be. Nevertheless, many people have come to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific evidence.

Early human fossils and archeological remains offer the most important clues about this ancient past. These remains include bones, tools and any other evidence (such as footprints, evidence of hearths, or butchery marks on animal bones) left by earlier people. Usually, the remains were buried and preserved naturally. They are then found either on the surface (exposed by rain, rivers, and wind erosion) or by digging in the ground. By studying fossilized bones, scientists learn about the physical appearance of earlier humans and how it changed. Bone size, shape, and markings left by muscles tell us how those predecessors moved around, held tools, and how the size of their brains changed over a long time. Archeological evidence refers to the things earlier people made and the places where scientists find them. By studying this type of evidence, archeologists can understand how early humans made and used tools and lived in their environments.

The process of evolution
The process of evolution involves a series of natural changes that cause species (populations of different organisms) to arise, adapt to the environment, and become extinct. All species or organisms have originated through the process of biological evolution.

Humans did Not Descend from Apes but

we had a common ancestor.

That's why our DNA is 99% the same as Chimps.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 7:09am:


many blessings sir bobby ,

if you propose to be an authority upon this topic ,

and not simply regurgitating false and retarded teachings from despotic freemasons

please explain the missing chromosomes



Figure 2: Evolutionary Map of Human Divergence Following Chromosome 2 Fusion.


So, if humans were not a split from the ape lineage in evolutionary theory, there are two other explanations for the appearance of human chromosome 2. The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes, but they underwent the fusion sometime following Creation. At first glance, this explanation might appear to be a combination of creation and evolution—but only if “evolution” is defined as microevolution. Let us assume that God created humans with a diploid number of 48 chromosomes, and that they were in all respects the same as humans today except in chromosome number. Later, a fusion occurred between two chromosomes to give humans 46 chromosomes just like ourselves. This would be an example of microevolution. A genetic change occurred, but did not alter the species by creating a new distinct species. Unfortunately, this explanation holds up no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory. As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that Noah or his wife (Genesis 6) contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If Noah or his wife contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. These genetic frequencies of passage to offspring, coupled with the likelihood of infertility and genetic syndromes, make the Noah hypothesis unlikely as well.

The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup.

Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, ESV). Eliphaz rightly stated: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” (Job 5:13, ESV). We cannot know God’s intentions for creating us as we exist, nor can we know why He created chimpanzees with such close genetic similarities to humans. We can know, however, that despite the close similarities in genetics, anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, man can think and reason far beyond the chimpanzee or any other living organism. (It is doubtful that genetics will ever solely explain that difference.) But, the greatest difference will always be that man alone has an immortal soul which is yet another created gift from God.

We will continue to learn as we delve deeper into our studies of biology and the living world. We may well discover an explanation. But, there will always be questions which cannot be answered, puzzles which cannot be solved. While God has placed some of His creation beyond our ability to discover, He has left other parts of it for us to ponder. What we can know is that the evolutionists’ “argument” regarding chromosome 2 in no way proves that humans evolved from apes.

REFERENCES

Bowers, Evelyn J. (2003), “Chromosomal Speciation,” Science, 301[5634]: 764-5.

Forrest, Barbara and Kenneth R. Miller (2009), “The Evolution of Creationism,” Experimental Biology 2009, [On-line], URL: http://www.eb2009.org/.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005), Case No. 04cv2688, [On-line], URL: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.

Weinberg Johannes, et al. (1994), “The Origin of Human Chromosome 2 Analyzed by Comparative Chromo-some Mapping with a DNA Micro-library,” Chromosome Research, 2:405-410.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 7:31am:


many blessings sir bobby ,

it does not suprise one such as I am that you think your link comprises evidence ...

you are way out of your depth here now please provide scientific evidence to refute this established fact

http://creation.com/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more

Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.

by David DeWitt

A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

References
Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241–246.
Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633–13635.
Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., dam you, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131–134.
Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2–13.
Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432–1434.
Heyer, E., Zietkeiwicz, E., Rochowski, A., Yotova, V., Puymirat, J., and Labuda D. 2001. ‘Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutation in deep-rooting pedigrees.’ Am J Hum Genet 69:1113–1126.
Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308–314.
Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J., and Deninger, P.L. 1996. ‘DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement.’ Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4360–4364.
Parsons T.J., Muniec, D.S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, N., Alliston-Greiner, R., Wilson, M.R., Berry, D.L., Holland, K.A., Weedn, V.W., Gill, P., ....

I tend to trust David Attenborough.

namaste

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 11:09am:


this does not make any sense pastafarian ..

for if you did you would not let mad scientists inject mercury and squalene into your system through vaccines however yes

you are correct rather than the idiocy taught that you use 16 or so % ... and yet

why do you not teach this to your students rather than the scientific narrative ?

further I would suggest you start using as much and cleanse your system of toxic heavy metals , yet either way

be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

Ten percent of the brain myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The 10 percent of the brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 10 percent (or some other small percentage) of their brains. It has been misattributed to many people, including Albert Einstein.[1] By extrapolation, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence.

Changes in grey and white matter following new experiences and learning have been shown, but it has not yet been proven what the changes are.[2] The popular notion that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated", rests in popular folklore and not science. Though mysteries regarding brain function remain—e.g. memory, consciousness—the physiology of brain mapping suggests that all areas of the brain have a function.[3][4]

Origin[edit]
One possible origin is the reserve energy theories by Harvard psychologists William James and Boris Sidis in the 1890s who tested the theory in the accelerated raising of child prodigy William Sidis; thereafter, James told audiences that people only meet a fraction of their full mental potential, which is a plausible claim.[5] In 1936, American writer Lowell Thomas summarized this idea (in a foreword to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People) by adding a falsely precise percentage: "Professor William James of Harvard used to say that the average man develops only ten percent of his latent mental ability".[6] This book was not the first to use the 10 percent figure, which was already circulating within the self-help movement before then; for example, the book Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain includes a chapter on the ten percent myth which shows a self-help advertisement from the 1929 World Almanac containing the line "There is NO LIMIT to what the human brain can accomplish. Scientists and psychologists tell us we use only about TEN PERCENT of our brain power."[7]

In the 1970s, psychologist and educator Georgi Lozanov proposed the teaching method of suggestopedia believing "that we might be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity".[8][9] The origin of the myth has also been attributed to Wilder Penfield, the U.S.-born neurosurgeon who was the first director of Montreal Neurological Institute of McGill University.[10]

According to a related origin story, the ten percent myth most likely arose from a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of neurological research in the late 19th century or early 20th century. For example, the functions of many brain regions (especially in the cerebral cortex) are complex enough that the effects of damage are subtle, leading early neurologists to wonder what these regions did.[11] The brain was also discovered to consist mostly of glial cells, which seemed to have very minor functions. Dr. James W. Kalat, author of the textbook Biological Psychology, points out that neuroscientists in the 1930s knew about the large number of "local" neurons in the brain. The misunderstanding of the function of local neurons may have led to the ten percent myth.[12] The myth might have been propagated simply by a truncation of the idea that some use a small percentage of their brains at any given time.[1] In the same article in Scientific American, John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota states: "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain".[1]

Although parts of the brain have broadly understood functions, many mysteries remain about how brain cells (i.e., neurons and glia) work together to produce complex behaviors and disorders. Perhaps the broadest, most mysterious question is how diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form conscious experiences. So far, there is no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Therefore, as with James's idea that humans have untapped cognitive potential, it may be that a large number of questions about the brain have not been fully answered.[1]

If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place; given the historical risk of death in childbirth associated with the large brain size (and therefore skull size) of humans,[16] there would be a strong selection pressure against such a large brain size if only 10 percent was actually in use.


I thought you thought evolution was false.

A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2 (Figure 2). The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion.



Figure 2: Evolutionary Map of Human Divergence Following Chromosome 2 Fusion.


So, if humans were not a split from the ape lineage in evolutionary theory, there are two other explanations for the appearance of human chromosome 2. The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes, but they underwent the fusion sometime following Creation. At first glance, this explanation might appear to be a combination of creation and evolution—but only if “evolution” is defined as microevolution. Let us assume that God created humans with a diploid number of 48 chromosomes, and that they were in all respects the same as humans today except in chromosome number. Later, a fusion occurred between two chromosomes to give humans 46 chromosomes just like ourselves. This would be an example of microevolution. A genetic change occurred, but did not alter the species by creating a new distinct species. Unfortunately, this explanation holds up no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory. As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that Noah or his wife (Genesis 6) contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If Noah or his wife contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. These genetic frequencies of passage to offspring, coupled with the likelihood of infertility and genetic syndromes, make the Noah hypothesis unlikely as well.

The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup.

Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, ESV). Eliphaz rightly stated: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” (Job 5:13, ESV). We cannot know God’s intentions for creating us as we exist, nor can we know why He created chimpanzees with such close genetic similarities to humans. We can know, however, that despite the close similarities in genetics, anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, man can think and reason far beyond the chimpanzee or any other living organism. (It is doubtful that genetics will ever solely explain that difference.) But, the greatest difference will always be that man alone has an immortal soul which is yet another created gift from God.

We will continue to learn as we delve deeper into our studies of biology and the living world. We may well discover an explanation. But, there will always be questions which cannot be answered, puzzles which cannot be solved. While God has placed some of His creation beyond our ability to discover, He has left other parts of it for us to ponder. What we can know is that the evolutionists’ “argument” regarding chromosome 2 in no way proves that humans evolved from apes.

many blessings pastafarian ,

the reason I do not listen to you is because you have no logic that can refute these facts

1. it is not theft , its called evidence and contributing data and information applicable to the title thread .. you falsely call this theft

2. you attempt to say many other organisms have more chromosomes to distract this topic in specificity 46 ( 23 pairs ) to 48 ( 24 pairs ) chromosomes HUman and chimp/ape respectively ..

1. Near-identical DNA sequences between our chromosome 2 and chimp DNA that is found in two distinct chromosomes

a. this is in direct contrast to the International Weekly Journal of Science in specificity here

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

even after all their extensive tests they found that:

- The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

- The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.


In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome.  For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:



The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened. 

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):



APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Below is the gene table:



The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes.

In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

and further pastafarian ,

your vaccine addiction and mercury overload has you believing you are the genetic product of a monkey fish



you are forgiven

namaste

your schtick is past its expiry date - DO NOT EAT

The code for a CD is ones & zeros - that is 2 types.

The code for DNA is 4 types:
A (Adenine), T (Thymine), C (Cytostine), and G (Guanine).

Bobby. wrote on Sep 21^st, 2016 at 6:43am:


many blessings sir bobby

bring your evidence to rebut these facts

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome.  For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:



The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened. 

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):



APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Below is the gene table:



The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes.

In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

They look the same ergo they are/were the same ... is that the general idea?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 21^st, 2016 at 4:52pm:


incorrect sir bobby ,

first ye must rebut these proven scientific facts ...

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome.  For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:



The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened. 

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):



APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Below is the gene table:



The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes.

In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

I've always thought we're descended from the abos. 

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 8:50am:




Like everyone else, I'm allowed one each 24 hours.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 7:29am:


many blessings lord herbert

the wordage ab original is a slave name the british monarchy bestowed unto all natives so they could steal their land .

ab ( not ) original .. and so the natives keep saying they are not original giving prima facie standing to the invader ..

and so even your inane level .5 level troll contribution

may be turned into wisdom .. rejoice !

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Sep 21^st, 2016 at 6:46pm:


*giggles"

emucorp wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 10:34am:



Why are you giggling

master Light,
Quote:



I have already agreed to that however we
have a common ancestor.

namaste

So master Light - how did it all happen?

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 6:43pm:




forgiven

namaste

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 7:38pm:



Centrelink?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 10:06pm:





well go right ahead gizmo

prove your theory .. yet first step up and bring your evidence to counter these facts presented

for as it stands now this is prima facie unrebutted fact

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN

Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome.  For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:



The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened. 

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):



APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Below is the gene table:



The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes.

In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,

*

Molecular Visualizations of DNA - Original High Quality Version

many blessings unto all beings

one such as I am could care less for attempted petty besmirchments

for regardless of current interpretations ,



We are Divine Beings

Uploaded on Mar 28, 2009
We should understand that we are truly spiritual beings having a human experience, not humans having a spiritual experience.

namaste

- : ) =

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-pan-last-common-...



Study: Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee
Sep 9, 2015 by News Staff / Source
« Previous
| Next »

Humans split from our closest African ape relatives in the genus Pan around six to seven million years ago. We have features that clearly link us with African apes, but we also have features that appear more primitive. This combination calls into question whether the Homo-Pan last common ancestor looked more like modern day chimpanzees and gorillas or an ancient ape unlike any living group. A new study, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that the simplest explanation – that the ancestor looked a lot like a chimpanzee or gorilla – is the right one, at least in the shoulder.

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:




The proof doth resteth in the link provided - should
ye be able to read it.

namaste

More education for Mr Light.