Christian Biochemist Says Chimp Genome Project is Seriously Flawed

[bascule]

*laugh*

 

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cpr0902.htm

 

NEWS ADVISORY, Sept. 2 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Internationally respected biochemist and one of the world's leading experts in origin of life research, Fazale "Fuz" Rana, PhD, is available for comment on the validity of the conclusions from the Chimpanzee Genome Project.

 

"The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome is a tremendous accomplishment, but what we are seeing here is a scientific shell game," says Dr. Rana. "Researchers are manipulating the outcomes to try and show more similarities between chimps and humans than are actually there by focusing on a single type of genetic difference. When scientists take into account all the types of genetic differences and do a more global comparison, the similarities drop from 96% to about 85%.

 

"The completed chimpanzee genome affirms that there are significant genetic differences between humans and chimps. For example, numerous independent studies indicate that the gene expression profiles of the human and chimpanzee brains are radically different and likely account for the significant biological and behavioral differences that exist between humans and chimps.

 

"When researchers conclude that humans and chimps shared a common evolutionary ancestor 6-7 million years ago, they are assuming that hominids in the fossil record are the transition that led to modern humans. The fact is that the hominid fossil record fails to provide the necessary support to validate that conclusion.

 

"There is a large body of evidence that severs the evolutionary connections between humans and hominids like Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and 'Lucy'. Instead of furthering the case for human evolution, the recent insights into the chimpanzee genome actually make more sense from a creation perspective. There are astounding genetic and archeological evidences that support the biblical account of Adam and Eve now more than at any time in human history."

 

Fazale Rana, Ph.D. is the vice president for science apologetics at Reasons To Believe (http://www.reasons.org) Dr. Rana earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Biology and Biochemistry at West Virginia State College and his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Ohio University. He was twice winner of the Clippinger Research Award at Ohio University. Dr. Rana worked for seven years as a senior scientist in product development for Procter & Gamble before joining Reasons To Believe. He has published more than fifteen articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and delivered more than twenty presentations at international scientific conferences. Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off is Dr. Rana's first book. His newest title, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man is due to release in September '05. For more information visit the Reasons To Believe website at http://www.reasons.org

[PhDP]

When researchers conclude that humans and chimps shared a common evolutionary ancestor 6-7 million years ago, they are assuming that hominids in the fossil record are the transition that led to modern humans.

 

The molecular clock doesn't need to assume that.

[bascule]

Let's look at his descent into BULLSHIT:

 

There is a large body of evidence that severs the evolutionary connections between humans and hominids like Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and 'Lucy'.

 

There is? Care to tell us what this body of evidence is, whose names are on it, how much peer review the papers documenting it have received, or anything which would remotely substantiate this claim whatsoever? DIDN'T THINK SO!

 

Instead of furthering the case for human evolution, the recent insights into the chimpanzee genome actually make more sense from a creation perspective.

 

They do? Why? Because you're fitting the facts to your desired outcome?

 

There are astounding genetic and archeological evidences that support the biblical account of Adam and Eve now more than at any time in human history."

 

Such as? Throw me a bone here please?

 

I mean honestly, this guy makes three bullshit claims in a row without even remotely bothering to back up any of his claims with anything remotely substantive.

[Bill Nye Guy]

I must agree that i didn't think that guys ideas were to good. I was looking on alot of sites about the chimp genome ( spelled it right this time ) and most of the scientists were saying that there was between a 94-99% similarity between chimps and humans. They also said that the few differences they had, accounted between the key differences between chimps and humans.

 

I dont know what that guy was smoking when he said the actually percentage goes down to 85...he didn't take part in anything and yet he "claims" it would be that much. I frankly think its BS, because the other scientists, who said it was 94-99%, actually took part in the genome and actually knew what they were doing.

 

That guy was a christian, thats all thats needed to explain why he tried to dispove the chimp genome project.

[Hellbender]

That guy was a christian, thats all thats needed to explain why he tried to dispove the chimp genome project.

If you allow me to nitpick for a second, while it is true that people with strong religious beliefs often have objections to evolutionary theory, being a christian doesn't necessarily mean you have to. Many christians (and other religious folk) have the brainpower to reconcile their beliefs with fact.

[Ophiolite]

If you allow me to nitpick for a second, while it is true that people with strong religious beliefs often have objections to evolutionary theory, being a christian doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

May I deepen the nitpicking, and with no intention of giving offense, modify your statement thus:while it is true that people with strong religious beliefs resident in North America often have objections to evolutionary theory, being a christian doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

This is not to say there are no creationists in Europe, but they are comparatively few and far between and lack any of the power structure evident from their American brethern.

[JPQuiceno]

Who told you that? I'm Swiss.

[Bill Nye Guy]

I am not saying that its bad that he is a devout christian...that doesn't bug me at all.

 

However the fact that he is devout in his beliefs and is talking about genetics and evolution in specific, its hard to see that his statements arent biased. This is to say that if he accepted it, wouldnt it go against most of his beliefs?

 

 

May I deepen the nitpicking, and with no intention of giving offense, modify your statement thus:while it is true that people with strong religious beliefs resident in North America often have objections to evolutionary theory, being a christian doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

This is not to say there are no creationists in Europe, but they are comparatively few and far between and lack any of the power structure evident from their American brethern.

 

yeah for the most part i agree with you, but i would not say that is the case for all of europe. I have been on some creationtists websites that were started by those in europe. Most of them are well informed of the debate and evidence.

 

-peace all-

[Skye]

I must agree that i didn't think that guys ideas were to good. I was looking on alot of sites about the chimp genome ( spelled it right this time ) and most of the scientists were saying that there was between a 94-99% similarity between chimps and humans. They also said that the few differences they had' date=' accounted between the key differences between chimps and humans.

 

I dont know what that guy was smoking when he said the actually percentage goes down to 85...he didn't take part in anything and yet he "claims" it would be that much. I frankly think its BS, because the other scientists, who said it was 94-99%, actually took part in the genome and actually knew what they were doing.[/quote']

Well it depends on how you measure the similarity. Our genomes are different, different size, different numbers of chromosomes, etc. You can't just line up the sequences and say that some percentage of nucleotides are the same. On the other hand, alot of the differences aren't that important. If we have the same genes on different chromosomes it's not necessaily going to impact the expression of these genes. If we have a gene duplicated, it might not have much effect either, or if non-coding regions vary. So alot of the time the comparisons are limited to say the coding regions.

 

All of the assumptions made are contentious though, so you do other comparisons and come up with a different number. The main thing to take from this is that the numbers themselves aren't all that meaningful without something to compare them to. What does 99% or 96% or 85% or whatever mean? Nothing on its own. The only way to give it any meaning is to have something to compare it to, like how similar we are to other species, or how similar other species are to each other. These tests repeatedly show that we are most similar to chimps and that we are probably more similar to chimps than other species are to each other. So really, what Rana wants to imply here, that we aren't really that similar to chimps, and that we are special in a Biblical sense, isn't supported by the data he is using anyway. However you measure it we are similar to chimps.

[Ophiolite]

However you measure it we are similar to chimps.

It seems to me only two groups can be offended by this similarity:

The Creationists - unjustifiably

The Chimps - perhaps justifiably