Anti-evolution Christians: Did it surprise you when DNA discoveries & human genome project confirmed so....?

@Scott: "All the human genome project did was map our genome to see what genes do what. It didn't confirm anything with evolution."

Typical creationist.

Try this on for size:

About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.

That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.

Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215...

The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002."

http://www.genome.gov/13514624

These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.

Added

@Po5eidon84: "DNA is a proven fact. Evolution is a theory."

Another typical creationist.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the process by which evolution occurs.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

Note one example of the predictive power of evolutionary theory in my initial posting above.

Added:

@Po5eidon84: "Further Edit: No, really. It is called the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution. There really is a difference by definition of what scientists use. They differentiate for a reason."

Another example of creationist total lack of understanding of scientific terminology. (Note: To respond, I was forced to delete part of my original response because of Y!A text limitations.)

REPEAT AFTER ME: SCIENTIFIC THEORIES DO NOT BECOME SCIENTIFIC LAWS. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

That is the case no matter how much evidence is found in support of a scientific theory--even if that evidence is virtually irrefutable.

A scientific law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and can be found to be false when extrapolated to other circumstances.

In fact, a scientific theory can even be superior to a scientific law. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, was verified by predicting a discrepancy in Newton's law of gravity in calculating changes in Mercury's orbit around the sun because of relativistic effects. The discrepancy in Newton's law, though small, was predicted by Einstein's theory as a result of Mercury's elongated orbit and closeness to the sun and the warp in space-time caused by the sun's great mass, something that Newton's law does not account for.

And your GPS unit would not work as accurately as it does if the GPS system did not take into account Einstein's theory of relativity.

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will...

But Einstein's theory of relativity is still called a theory.

Added:

Whoa! Thumbs down by haters of reality!

Peace.

Knowledge they say is power, yet, the world is being deceived by fallacies.

Since evolution is a fallacy, it therefore follows that

Genome Evolution, is a fallacy.

Genomic evolution is a set of phenomena involved in the changing of the structure of a genome through evolution.

The study of genome evolution involves multiple fields such as structural analysis of the genome, the study of genomic parasites, gene and ancient genome duplications, polypoidy, and comparative genomics. Evolutionary biologists are interested in five specific questions in regards to evolution of the genome, these are:

1. How did the genome evolve into its current size?

2. What is the content within the genome, is it mostly junk or not?

3. What is the distribution of genes within a genome?

4. What is the composition of the nucleotides within the genome?

5. How does translation of the genetic code evolve?

Genome Size

Genome size is all the DNA that makes the genome. A genome can consist of genetic regions and noncoding regions. Genetic regions are those that encode proteins while non-coding regions refer to promoters and junk DNA. The C-value is another term for the genome size. Within a species the C-value does not show much variation, but there is a significant difference in the C-value between species.

Prokaryotic Genome

Prokaryotes are unicellular organisms that do not have membrane-bound organelles and lack a structurally distinct nucleus. Research on prokaryotic genomes shows that there is a significant positive correlation between the C-value of prokaryotes and the amount of genes that compose the genome. This indicates that gene size is the main factor influencing the size of the genome.

Eukaryotic Genome

In eukaryotic organisms, there is a paradox observed, namely that the number of genes that make up the genome does not correlate with genome size. In other words, the genome size is much larger than would be expected given the total number of protein coding genes.

Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize populations for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

Negasaki, Hiroshima, and Chernobyl have ALL proven these assumptions as partly true, which translate

to FALLACIES. In reality, whilst limited adaptation may occur, macroevolution is IMPOSSIBLE.

The reality of reproduction within species, is enough to bury the theory of Evolution.

If evolution was a reality, intermediate species would be observed readily, but to date there is really no conclusive evidence of this phenomenon.

Do you know the HGP was only based on 6 people? How is that truly representative of the whole population?

The human genome project does not prove evolution at all. I should know I worked on it.

Dr Crick did not work on the HGP you cretin is was Dr Watson and it took place in dozens of labs across the world. He was not my boss.

The point of the HGP was to create a tool of a completely mapped genome of a human not to "prove evolution".

What people do with that tool is up to them their conclusions are independent from the project using it as a tool not actual evidence.

Go back to school as it is obvious that you are easily confused by two separate people

Also I hold a doctorate in genetics so do you really think I was a janitor in one of the genetic labs. Troll.

Random fun fact the human genome project is headed by a Christian. Of course he is not likely a "real" Christian to them.

But that's not true. Genetic taxonomies do clash with traditional taxonomy. Only a few select comparisons can be made that are in line with reality and evolution. Most are wildly off.

If they didn't believe the existing rock-solid evidence, I see no reason why they wouldn't dismiss this too.

It wasn't facts and evidence that made them reject the truth of evolution, so more of the same won't help.

Religious zealots have no respect for evidence only the lack of.

DNA is a proven fact. Evolution is a theory.

Okay, I like how peeps already dislike my comment, but those are the official standings of the scientific community. I'm sorry. I can't tell scientists what to do; they stopped returning my calls.

Further Edit: No, really. It is called the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution. There really is a difference by definition of what scientists use. They differentiate for a reason.

If they were open to evidence like this they wouldn't be creationists.

All the human genome project did was map our genome to see what genes do what. It didn't confirm anything with evolution.