Creationists believe in DNA?

"Creationists believe in DNA?"

Yes.

"humans have around 98% DNA in common with apes, (and 50% DNA in common with bananas) this would indicate a close relationship"

Right.

"this would indicate a... common source"

Wrong. GloFish have over 99% DNA in common with other fish. And yet, GloFish weren't created through evolution. They were created by intelligent designers. In a science lab. Just a few years ago. Thus proving that a close DNA relationship does not imply evolution.

I don't see how you can deny the historical fact of evolution while believing in DNA. If the answer is that "god" created DNA, then he has a lot of explaining to do as the system is far from perfect. Funny that god would leave so much proof of evolution lying around. Also you cannot believe in DNA and still believe the fairy tale of Adam and Eve.

Chris again I must tell up that if you believe that our DNA is 98% similar to apes then you have believed the hype I used to fall for when I was an evolutionist . In fact I was an evolutionist for 41 Years and my area of interest are the animals of the Carboniferous and Permian period. What scientifically curious person wouldn't get excited over an 8 foot long carnivorous millipede ? I know I did.

I'm now an ID advocate / old earth creationist

This " we are genetically 98% similar to apes " mantra is imply not true and evolutionary biologists know this . It was espoused maybe 40 years ago but as our knowledge of genetics grew we found out that it was wayyyy off. It's. Ow known to be 70% and going lower each year we find more function for what evolutionists called supposed junk DNA .

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf

Chimpanzee?

10-10-2008 17:12 | Dr Richard Buggs

From 1964 to 2004, it was believed that humans are almost identical to apes at the genetic level. Ten years ago, we thought that the information coded in our DNA is 98.5% the same as that coded in chimpanzee DNA. This led some scientists to claim that humans are simply another species of chimpanzee. They argued that humans did not have a special place in the world, and that chimpanzees should have the same ’rights’ as humans.

Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are very different from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in our DNA sequence, this simply means that DNA sequence is the wrong place to look in trying to understand what makes humans different. By this view, the 98.5% figure does not undermine the special place of humans. Instead it undermines the importance of genetics in thinking about what it means to be a human.

Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the 98.5% figure is very misleading. In 2005 scientists published a draft reading of the complete DNA sequence (genome) of a chimpanzee. When this is compared with the genome of a human, we find major differences.

To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million ’letters’ align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless ”junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This ”copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or ”scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.

Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.

The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida. Source http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.ht...

Also Chris to argue that similarity in DNA therefore evolution is true simply doesn't follow . Intelligent design makes the same claim that a designer would in our experiment use the same material to create other animals ..

In the 1950's a popular argument for evolution was the evolution of the car from the early 1900's to the 1950's but the evolutionary biologist soon abandoned this argument and the transitionary photograph he used be used he realized that these cars were intelligently designed and didn't evolve naturally .

"Apes all have eyes, noses, mouths, hands and feet. Humans have all those things too. Therefore, they are related."

"No. Common designer."

"DNA shows similarities in this feature, that feature and the other feature, therefore they are related."

The answer is the same. Common designer. Imagine God is making animals all day, popping this creature with this feature, that with that. Do you think He's going to start from scratch every time? Why shouldn't he take a feature from one animal and add it to the next series of animals? "We have a bird that flies, why not make a rat that flies? Let's give it a pig nose." And then he goes and takes the code from the last several animals and splices it all together. Why the heck not? DNA does nothing to disprove design.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i5f.htm

All information comes from an Intelligent source, so the most complex information (DNA code) would come from the most intelligent source, God.

25% of the human DNA code is UNIQUE to humans.

Where people say we share 98% DNA with apes, it is 98% of 75% = 73%.

"DNA directly and clearly shows our connection to our precedents" - No it does not show it, it is only not inconsistent with the idea. It is also not inconsistent with the idea of common programming.

DNA is not a matter of belief it's been observed and proven to exist.

Is that a question? DNA is powerful proof of God's creation. Where else would all that information come from?

They just believe in getting high on A(cid)...