DNA Evolution Theory Disproven.
Brit-Am Foreword: Transposons are DNA elements that can move from one organism to another when needed and become heredity. Brit-Am accepts this and sees this as possibly explaining how DNA can change according to environmental needs. To our mind this is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory. Steven Phillips however does not accept this. He considers the whole idea of "Tranposon" as emanating from the Theory of Evolution which he rejects. His explanation below is somewhat technical in parts but we considered it worth publishing.
Steven Phillips says:
For the record: transposons are "sequences of DNA that move to different spots on the genome WITHIN A SINGLE CELL". (https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/latest-genetics-battle/ emphasis mine) The important thing to note here is that this process involves the movement of EXISTING information from one part of the cell to another and often results in either the CORRUPTION of or the SUPPRESSION of part of the genome.
[QUOTE] "A news release on the research notes, 'slight changes in genes help organisms adapt and survive in new environments' but adds 'insertions into certain spots in the genome can also cause cell function to go awry.'
"Notable is that the release also provides a list of specific disorders linked to mutations, but does not name specific benefits associated with genetic 'accidents' such as jumping genes [i.e. transposons]. While there are indeed some known benefits, these benefits are still linked with a CORRUPTION (a reduction) of genetic information, just ones that disable a function that is useless in a given environment. Thus, despite the research specifying one source of genetic diversity, evolutionists still lack empirical links between such genetic accidents and the hypothesized process that could turn fish into philosophers." (Ibid.)
I would also strongly recommend that you read the article by Brian Thomas Ph.D entitled "Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument":
[EXTRACT] "Transposons are a class of 'mobile genetic elements' that operate within the DNA of living organisms. For years, macroevolutionary proponents have claimed that their presence undoubtedly supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed that transposons have been wrongly interpreted, changing macroevolution's best argument into its worst nightmare, an almost complete lack of genetic material for it to 'tweak' into newly selectable features." (https://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument.)
Unfortunately, most of us are not knowledgeable enough or have the skill to challenge what these evolutionists claim. There is a tendency to ASSUME that they know what they are talking about, but I can assure you that most of the time they just rely on what everyone else says.
I do not agree with everything that these creationist sites teach, but they do have Ph.D scientists working for them and they do provide a good balanced view when it comes to science matters. It is always worth seeing what they have to say on a subject before quoting something which is clearly biased towards a naturalistic argument. Bear in mind that evolutionists will ALWAYS interpret things according to their naturalistic belief. They look at PATTERNS in the DNA code and interpret those patterns according to their paradigm. Creationists (note that anyone who does not believe in Darwin is automatically labelled a 'Creationist' by evolutionists) will interpret things according to the Biblical perspective, which means that they will interpret patterns in the DNA code as being due to similarity in function, whilst evolutionists will interpret it as something which has either been inherited or added by some unvalidated means (i.e. Horizontal Gene Transfer).
The example you quoted in Britam 3028 is a typical evolutionist comment:
[QUOTE] "The researchers studied the genomes of 12 species of Drosophila or fruit fly, four species of nematode worm, and 10 species of primate, including humans. They calculated how well each of their genes aligns to similar genes in other species to estimate how likely they were to be foreign in origin."
Please explain to me how DNA from fruit fly, worms, apes or any other creature can possibly have entered into our (human) DNA? It is impossible. Evolutionists want us to believe that we are all descended from common ancestors, hence will do everything in their power to convince us of this. So why are you quoting this nonsense?
Let me enlighten you as to what they are doing.
First of all, let me clarify that:
1) for over 30 years Australopithecines have been promoted as being the missing link between man and apes. Now that they have found that humans lived in the same time period as Australopithecines, this teaching has fallen into disrepute, even though there are die-hard evolutionists who refuse to let go of this theory, partly because they have nothing to replace it with. They now have no candidate for man's immediate predecessor. Such is the confused state of the ape to man evolutionary assumptions that paleoanthropologists Jeffrey Schwartz and Ian Tattershall have had to admit that:
[QUOTE] "If we want to be objective, we shall almost certainly have to scrap the iconic list of names in which hominin fossil specimens have historically been trapped, and start from the beginning by hypothesizing morphs, building testable theories of relatedness, and rethinking genera and species." (Defining the Genus Homo pp.931-2, Science Vol. 349 (6251), 2013.)
Note that they will NOT abandon the idea that man and apes are related, even though there is not one scrap of hard evidence to show that they are.
2) according to the latest PanTro6 sample data, the DNA of humans and chimps are around 84-85% similar, NOT the 99% which evolutionists keep quoting. This 99% figure comes from the initial DNA samples which were contaminated. Evolutionists cannot seem to cope with this 85% figure. Bear in mind also that the difference is even greater when you look at other apes. Around 5% of human DNA has not yet been sampled. As this is control DNA, this 85% figure is expected to reduce further. To give you a rough idea of what we are talking about, 85% difference equates to around 450,000,000 DNA letter differences. (And no, I have not added too many noughts! see https://www.icr.org/article/did-humans-evolve-from-apes/) Evolution CANNOT account for this number of differences in the SIX MILLION years they propose for the evolution of ape and man from some unknown ape-like predecessor. To make matters worse for them, the Y chromosomes of apes and humans are only 50% similar making evolution impossible. (See Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Jennifer F. Hughes et al, Nature Vol. 463 (7280), Jan 2010.)
3) there is not one scrap of evidence to show that additional DNA information can be added to the genome by naturalistic means. When evolutionists talk about 'beneficial mutations', they are misusing the expression. Every single example of a beneficial mutation that they can provide involves either loss of DNA information or suppression of part of the genome. Because they have no evidence of evolution by the conventional arguments which show that an increase in DNA information is not possible by itself, they are turning to what is being referred to as Horizontal Gene Transfer, the transfer of genetic information from one host to another. The only evidence they have for this is in the form of DNA 'debris' left behind from (say) a flu virus or other pathogen. Consider, for example, what happens when you catch the flu. The body's immune system builds up antibodies to combat and kill the virus. It does this either by moving DNA from one part of the cell to another or by suppressing part of the genome's function (i.e. we are talking about transposons). Evolutionists are looking at the resultant 'debris' which is formed when the flu virus is destroyed and are getting excited because they think that it provides them with the answer to their conundrum. Evolution cannot happen by naturalistic means (though they will argue that it can, only that it is happening far too slowly to support their general theory of evolution) so the Horizontal Gene Transfer theory is gaining support because they think it will solve all their problems. Bear in mind that there is no new DNA information involved here. We are talking about moving existing DNA from one host to another. The problem then is explaining how it happened. Animals do not go around with hypodermic needles injecting their DNA into other creatures. If we get bitten by a rabid dog, or a mosquito, I am sure that we will greatly benefit from the poison which they inject into our bodies! To add to their woes, geneticists are finding that it is not easy to get foreign DNA to attach itself to a host even in laboratory conditions. In Dec 2019, a team of scientists in Beijing announced that after FOUR THOUSAND ATTEMPTS at injecting chimp DNA into pig embryos, they finally managed to produce two piglets out of a litter of ten which were chimera (i.e. they 'inherited' the foreign DNA cells). Apart from 4,000 attempts being far too slow for the purposes of their grand scheme of evolution, it should be noted that the two chimeras DIED within a week of being born. Geneticists are admitting that this is not particularly encouraging:
[QUOTE] "'Given the extremely low chimeric efficiency and the deaths of all the animals, I actually see this as fairly discouraging,' says stem cell biologist Paul Knoepfler at the University of California, Davis." (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2226490-exclusive-two-pigs-engineered-to-have-monkey-cells-born-in-china/)
To me, this speaks volumes!
4) there is not one scrap of evidence in the fossil record to support evolution. In fact, the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record shows either stasis or extinction of species. Where there is actual evidence of evolution, it is only minor variations in form or size. There is no actual change of species occurring. (You might want to read the article title "Darwin's Legacy" by evolutionist geologist Dr Donald R. Prothero at https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature.)
So what exactly are these people doing? It is important that we understand what they are presenting as 'evidence':
In the June 2018 edition of Science, Zev N. Kronenberg et al 'demonstrated' that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is remarkably similar. (High-Resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes Science Vol. 360 (1085), Jun 2018.) The way they present the 'evidence' is very convincing and you have to really read the paper carefully to see what they have done. Without going into detail, it can be broken down into the fact that they have made two major ASSUMPTIONS. The first is that humans and chimpanzees both have some common ancestor who supposedly lived around six million years ago. They have no evidence for this, but this is what they have convinced themselves MUST have happened, therefore they are going to INTERPRET and MANIPULATE the data to convince us that this is so. They accomplish this by removing any differences between the two sets of genomes until the two match. They claim that these can be explained away by indels (i.e. insertions and deletions in the DNA code). As already stated above, they have problems with explaining how these insertions could possibly have happened, let alone how they could possibly have occurred in the timeframe that they have set.
The following explanation by evolutionist Richard Buggs is worth quoting here:
[QUOTE] "PARTS OF BOTH GENOMES THAT ARE TOO DIFFERENT TO MATCH ONE ANOTHER WILL BE ABSENT FROM THE ALIGNMENT, unless they are very short, in which case they will be included as 'indels' (longer indels, even if they have well characterised flanking sequences, will be absent from the alignment). Within parts that do align, there will be some mismatches between the two genomes, where one or a few nucleotides differ, which in this discussion we have been calling 'SNPs'. In addition there will be some parts of each genome that are present twice or multiple times in one genome and are present fewer times in the other genome. We have referred to these as 'paralogs' or 'copy number variants' (CNVs). To come up with an accurate figure of the similarity of the entirety of two genomes, we need to take into account all these types of difference." (http://richardbuggs.com/index.php/2018/07/14/how-similar-are-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes/ - emphasis mine.)
We are here talking of a MASSIVE manipulation of the data. If you did this with financial data, your company would be out of business within a year! Notice how any large indels are simply ignored. This is because there is no satisfactory explanation for their appearance according to known evolutionary causes. Sorry, but this is NOT science!
After using the most up to date accurate data (PanTro6), Buggs informs us that:
[QUOTE] "The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%."
Applying the new tools which are now available, he did a test on the older PanTro4 data and ended up with 82.34%. This is exceedingly lower than the ~98% cited in classroom textbooks to support human evolution. (NB: All samples taken prior to 2004 are understood by geneticists to be corrupt.) As around 5% of the human genome is still unassembled, and 5% seems to be CNVs relative to chimp, and 4% is aligned to chimp genome, he anticipates that the final figure will be even lower than he has calculated. Even at 85%, this means that approximately 450,000,000 letters distinguish human from chimp DNA. (https://www.icr.org/article/did-humans-evolve-from-apes/) Even after six million years, no known natural process could even begin to write such an immense library of information. NONE of this is EVIDENCE that we have evolved. It seems more probable that the similarity in DNA is attributable to the functions it has to perform, which is not the same thing as evolution! What we are seeing from the scientific community is a MANIPULATION of the data to fit their ASSUMPTIONS. An ASSUMPTION is a THEORY. It is NOT an indisputable FACT and yet they present as such. A theory is NOT EVIDENCE!
Statisticians and economics experts have a name for this sort of interpretation of data:
[QUOTE] "For instance, more data makes it easier to find support for virtually any position - because more data provides more options, limited only by the creativity of the analyst. Analysis could choose to focus on a subset that shows the 'correct' results. Or, data that counters a desired position could be filtered out as 'erroneous.' Sophisticated tools support many different modeling methods and options; one is bound to find the 'right' answer. Just keep adding and dropping variables or observations until the known 'truth' shines through.
"Using data and analytics to support pre-existing beliefs is called 'confirmation bias.' This is a particularly acute problem for modern analytics due to the potent combination of access to massive amounts of data, sophisticated methods and the seeming irreproachability of data-based decisions.
"Confirmation bias can advance personal and political agendas or technical outcomes in ways that are difficult to detect. It can take the form of looking only for evidence that supports a desired outcome." (Better Decision Making with Objective Data is Impossible by Sam Ransbotham, 28 Jul 2015. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/for-better-decision-making-look-at-facts-not-data/.)
Although these comments are aimed at financial statistics, it is just as relevant to all fields of study. Most scientists either do not seem to understand the distinction between data and interpretation or they simply choose to ignore it. Consequently, they are presenting their interpretations of the genetic data as though there is no other possible interpretation, which understanding is simply false. They have applied their bias (i.e. that we HAVE evolved from apes) to the data and are using it to support their belief system.
One of the biggest drawbacks to the ape and man evolution theory (apart from the fact that they have no candidate for a precursor to humans from the fossil record or any mechanism for the increase in genetic information) is the vast difference between the Y chromosome in chimpanzees and humans.
[QUOTE] "About half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY [male-specific region of the Y chromosome], and vice versa, compared to < 10% of the X-degenerate sequence". (Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Jennifer F. Hughes et al, Nature Vol. 463 (7280), Jan 2010.)
It is referred to as 'degenerate' because they believe that the chromosome has 'degenerated'. Even so, this 'degeneration' must have occurred at a fantastically fast rate even compared to known DNA error rates. Being evolutionists, the writers are committed to their delusion, so it MUST in their eyes have happened, even though they have NO EVIDENCE for this!
[QUOTE] "We conclude that, since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, sequence gain and loss have been far more concentrated in the MSY than in the balance of the genome. Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement: whole-chromosome dot-plot comparison of chimpanzee and human MSYs reveals dramatic differences in gross structure, which contrasts starkly with chromosome 21, the only other chromosome comprehensively mapped and sequenced in both species. Contrary to the decelerating decay theory, THE CHIMPANZEE AND HUMAN MSYS DIFFER DRAMATICALLY IN SEQUENCE STRUCTURE." (Ibid. p.5 emphasis mine.)
The authors go on to say "We then compared the MSYs of the two species and found that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, IMPLYING RAPID EVOLUTION DURING THE PAST 6 MILLION YEARS", but even 'rapid evolution' cannot explain this away!
The same goes for the so-called 'fusion' theory to explain away why humans only have 46 chromosomes whilst the great apes have 48. (Actually, the diploid genomes of gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan have 48, gibbons have 44 and one Malaysian ape has 50. I wonder how they explain the extra two chromosomes in Malaysian apes?) They have simply let their imagination run wild yet again! Ken Miller, who put forward this dubious claim, has presented no scientific case for this ASSUMPTION, and unsurprisingly his arguments have since been refuted. First of all, it should be noted that he is claiming that chromosomes 12 and 13 in apes have become fused to produce chromosome 2 in the human chromosome sequence, which in itself is highly questionable.
The only evolutionary group to seriously analyse this fusion claim were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for the fusion - a genomic condition for this region which they termed 'degenerate'. They claimed that the [QUOTE] "head-to-head arrays of repeats at the fusion site have degenerated significantly from the near perfect arrays of (TTAGGG)n found at telomeres." They also added, "if the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ~6 Ma, why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate?" (Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes, pp. 1651, 1662, Yuxin Fan et al, Genome Research Vol. 12, 2002.)
I would point out that, when these writers talk about 'degenerate', there are actually around TWENTY TO THIRTY THOUSAND TTAGGGG base sequences which have supposedly gone 'missing'! Of course, they will not dare question the evolution paradigm. But of course, once someone makes a claim and puts something in writing, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and assumes that the original statement is true. Once a teaching gets established, however, it is very difficult to shake.
There is further evidence to show that this fusion of the two chromosomes is impossible. Daniel Fairbanks records:
[QUOTE] "Fusion at the telomeres should have left two centromeres in the ancient fused chromosome, but there is only one now." (Relics of Eden, pp.17-30, Daniel J. Fairbanks, Prometheus Book, Amherst, New York 2007.)
Of course, these anomalies are simply ignored in favour of their delusion. High-throughput DNA sequencing and its accompanying technologies shows that there is no fusion of two chromosomes.
[QUOTE] "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". (Jeffrey P. Tomkins, PH.D, Nov 2013 at https://www.icr.org/article/new-research-debunks-human-chromosome/.
If you are so inclined, a more detailed technical report can be read at https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/alleged-human-chromosome-2-fusion-site-encodes-an-active-dna-binding-domain-inside-a-complex-and-hig/. In which Tomkins comments:
[QUOTE] "Costa et al. ([DDX11L: A Novel transcript family emerging from human subtelomeric regions BMC Genomics 10:250] 2009), reported that at least 18 different DDX11L-like genes exist in the human genome. They also reported that very little synteny existed for these genes in apes. Using fluorescent in situ hybridization in chimpanzees and gorillas, only two locations of similarity for DDX11L-like genes were found in chimpanzee and four in gorilla, none of which corresponded to locations in human, or each other in apes. Of key importance to the topic of this paper was the fact that none of the regions of DDX11L hybridization in the chimp or gorilla genomes occurred on chromosomes 2A or 2B."
Alternatively, you can listen to Tomkins' own explanation at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwTO648804.
In other words, this 'strong evidence' that humans and chimps are both descended from some [unknown] common ancestor is once again shown to be false. As I have said, people will always interpret the data according to what they want to hear.
Before promoting any claim by evolutionists, it is essential that we carefully read what it is they are trying to say, as most of the time they will present it according to their naturalistic view. Ask yourself whether their arguments fit the facts or whether there is some other interpretation. Bear in mind that most of these people are simply trying to make a name for themselves and they can only do this if they support the evolution paradigm. (Those who do not support the evolution paradigm will simply not get their work published unless they publish in a Creationist magazine. Then they get labelled as 'Creationists' and immediately get stripped by mainstream academia of their scientific status and credibility. A lot of people have lost their jobs in universities and colleges for simply saying that Darwin may have got it wrong!)
Remember always that we are being presented with these writers' INTERPRETATIONS of the data and that their INTERPRETATIONS are not necessarily the ONLY interpretations. You may not know this, but evolutionists have REWRITTEN the dictionary definition of science so that it now HAS to be by NATURALISTIC MEANS, which means that if you try and explain anything by referring to a Creator, you are no longer a scientist! Beware then what they tell you. Always check what it is they are actually saying and ask yourself whether it is really feasible or are they just trying to pull the wool over our eyes once again?
Evolutionists have a long record of fraud and deception behind them. The Piltdown Man was a game changer for evolutionists which gave many leading evolutionists a step up in the academic world. It took 40 years before this fraud was discovered. Someone had taken the lower mandible of an orangutan, filed down its teeth so that they looked more human-like, and then added it to a human skull. They still refer to it as a HOAX. Evolutionists refuse to call it what it is - a FRAUD! There have been many such frauds - Nebraska Man (which turned out to be a tooth of an extinct pig - that is all they had, one tooth!), Java Man, Ada, Lucy - the list goes on. So let's try not to promote their delusions.
Regards,
Steve Phillips