Science debunks Abiogenesis.

[there4eyeM]

Some interesting mutations took place to produce wheat, and just at a crucial time in human social evolution.

 

[abu afak]

...

What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However, DNA is fixed, as far as the number of chromosomes goes. That's what I meant about no new information being added.

False.

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[6]Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[7][8]

The Evidence for this includes:

• The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[9][10]
• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere in the q21.3–q22.1 region.[11]
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the q13 band, far from either end of the chromosome.[12]

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [12]​

`

 

[RWNJ]

...

What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However, DNA is fixed, as far as the number of chromosomes goes. That's what I meant about no new information being added.

False.

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[6]Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[7][8]

The Evidence for this includes:

• The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[9][10]
• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere in the q21.3–q22.1 region.[11]
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the q13 band, far from either end of the chromosome.[12]

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [12]​

`

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research.126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research.12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes.Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion.Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

 

[Old Rocks]

A much more factual site.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Are Mutations Harmful?

 

[RWNJ]

A much more factual site.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Are Mutations Harmful?

Yeah. Right. This is from their website.
The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

Can you find a more biased site?

 

[abu afak]

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Eviden ce for Creation
...

I posted Wiki citing Real scientists/papers.
You posted ICR/Institute for Creation Research. That's [Oxymoron] "evangelical science."
Discover ICR | The Institute for Creation Research
Foundational Principles | The Institute for Creation Research

For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework[......]
The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent Personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and SUPERNATURALLY created by the Creator.

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).[/B]

• 
  
  • The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry...

That's ALL RAGING Biblical Conspiracy Garbage/Dogma/Dogdoo, NOT Science.
"Supernatural Creation" is NOT science.
Oh, when you copy an article, spare us the notes.. unless it's amazing, even to you, your garbage even has any notes: however abused.
`

 

[RWNJ]

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Eviden ce for Creation
...

I posted Wiki citing Real scientists/papers.
You posted ICR/Institute for Creation Research. That's [Oxymoron] "evangelical science."
Discover ICR | The Institute for Creation Research
Foundational Principles | The Institute for Creation Research

For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework[......]
The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent Personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and SUPERNATURALLY created by the Creator.

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).[/B]

• 
  
  • The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry...

That's ALL RAGING Biblical Conspiracy Garbage/Dogma/Dogdoo, NOT Science.
"Supernatural Creation" is NOT science.
Oh, when you copy an article, spare us the notes.. unless it's amazing, even to you, your garbage even has any notes: however abused.
`

The article was by a PhD in genetics. He is also a published scientist. Now, would you like to try gaining a little credibility by trying to refute what he wrote?

 

[abu afak]

The article was by a PhD in genetics. He is also a published scientist. Now, would you like to try gaining a little credibility by trying to refute what he wrote?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins
#1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins

"The unfortunate demise of John Todd leads us to another stock creationist, Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “research associate” at the Institute for Creation Research. Tomkins has a PhD in genetics (Clemson University) and a master’s degree in “plant science”, and his “research” for the ICR accordingly focuses on genetics, particularly (as per 2011) on the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. He has already discovered that the similarity between humans and chimps was “merely” 86– 89% by failing to understand some rather central distinctions (he never told us what the differences were, but did claim that evolutionist attempts to sequence the genome were biased). His 2012 article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, “Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution,” promptly Failed to understand the science (detailed explanation here).

Needless to say, Tomkins avoids serious, scientific journals for his rants, but instead likes to publish his “results” in venues such as Answers, the house journal of Answers in Genesis. For volume 4 of that journal he published, in addition to his human-chimp difference paper, “Response to Comments on ‘How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees’,”, a response to (creationist) criticisms of said paper. He continued the confusion in volume 6.

His latest project is apparently concerned with the “concept of genetic diversity in biological adaptation.” We are still waiting for any insights.

Diagnosis: Clueless Moron, whose understanding of central concepts in biology seems to be – willfully – more or less non-existent."​

LOFL, You Dishonest/Disingenuous Idiot
`

 

[RWNJ]

The article was by a PhD in genetics. He is also a published scientist. Now, would you like to try gaining a little credibility by trying to refute what he wrote?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins
#1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins

"The unfortunate demise of John Todd leads us to another stock creationist, Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “research associate” at the Institute for Creation Research. Tomkins has a PhD in genetics (Clemson University) and a master’s degree in “plant science”, and his “research” for the ICR accordingly focuses on genetics, particularly (as per 2011) on the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. He has already discovered that the similarity between humans and chimps was “merely” 86– 89% by failing to understand some rather central distinctions (he never told us what the differences were, but did claim that evolutionist attempts to sequence the genome were biased). His 2012 article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, “Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution,” promptly Failed to understand the science (detailed explanation here).

Needless to say, Tomkins avoids serious, scientific journals for his rants, but instead likes to publish his “results” in venues such as Answers, the house journal of Answers in Genesis. For volume 4 of that journal he published, in addition to his human-chimp difference paper, “Response to Comments on ‘How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees’,”, a response to (creationist) criticisms of said paper. He continued the confusion in volume 6.

His latest project is apparently concerned with the “concept of genetic diversity in biological adaptation.” We are still waiting for any insights.

Diagnosis: Clueless Moron, whose understanding of central concepts in biology seems to be – willfully – more or less non-existent."​

LOFL, You Dishonest/Disingenuous Idiot
`

Wow! A biased website is calling him a loon. And you call me dishonest? And I'm still waiting for someone to refute the article. He explained how this gene fusion is a bunch of bs. Explain how he is mistaken, or STFU!

 

[edthecynic]

Even viruses, the simplest form of life, have DNA.

The vast majority of viruses do not have DNA but have RNA instead.
A virus does not fulfill all the requirements for life, like self-replication for example, though some define it as living because it can get a suitable host to reproduce it. It is somewhere in between living and nonliving.

 

[there4eyeM]

Those who believe in 'God' need only ask 'God' for their answers to these questions. Those who believe in science take another route. If 'God' exists, what can the scientifically oriented discover than 'God's creation? What are you worried about?

 

[edthecynic]

That's single strand DNA. As far as I know, there are no viruses that contain normal double helix DNA.

There are both single and double stranded DNA viruses.

 

[edthecynic]

Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

Well actually RNA may well be the first self replicator, not DNA or self-replicating proteins.

 

[edthecynic]

Science doesn't even have a plausible explanation, let alone a valid theory, for how it might have happened. No matter how hard they try, they haven't got a clue. Real science says it's highly improbable, if not impossible. Remember what I said about information theory? Nature is not capable of creating the information content of DNA. DNA is a high level language. It works just like a computer. It accepts input and produces output based on it's programming. It controls every one of the thousands and thousands of processes of the cell. Now, do you have an explanation for how this could happened without intelligent design? Didn't think so.

Yeah, RNA.
You seem to have put all your eggs in the DNA basket, completely forgetting about RNA and its capabilities!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Did you know that the odds of correctly formed amino acids and proteins bumping together and forming the first cell are a number with 5,700 zeros to 1?

Someone else ignoring RNA.

 

[edthecynic]

Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?

With RNA, of course!

 

[edthecynic]

Scientists claim that RNA filled the roll of DNA, at one time. All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Not quite!

As far back as the 1960s, a few of those intelligent organisms began to suspect that the first self-replicating molecules were made of RNA, a close cousin of DNA. This idea has always had a huge problem, though – there was no known way by which RNA molecules could have formed on the primordial Earth. And if RNA molecules couldn’t form spontaneously, how could self-replicating RNA molecules arise? Did some other replicator come first? If so, what was it? The answer is finally beginning to emerge.

Like you point out repeatedly when biologists first started to ponder how life arose, the question seemed baffling. In all organisms alive today, the hard work is done by proteins. Proteins can twist and fold into a wild diversity of shapes, so they can do just about anything, including acting as enzymes, substances that catalyse a huge range of chemical reactions. However, the information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA molecules. You can’t make new proteins without DNA, and you can’t make new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA?

The discovery in the 1960s that RNA could fold like a protein, albeit not into such complex structures, suggested an answer. If RNA could catalyse reactions as well as storing information, some RNA molecules might be capable of making more RNA molecules. And if that was the case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could do everything themselves.

Scientists are not only found in 1982 a RNA enzyme that could catalyse reactions like protein enzymes, but also found in 2000 that in the core of the protein making factories in cells is a RNA enzyme!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing physical can create itself. So, where did energy come from? Scientists tell us that it has always existed

Actually scientists did more than just tell us, they proved with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

Again that is absolutely false!
Not only have scientists found many RNA enzymes they have also created some in the lab!

 

[edthecynic]

A much more factual site.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Are Mutations Harmful?

Yeah. Right. This is from their website.
The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

Can you find a more biased site?

Yeah, ICR.