There is always greener grass over a fence somewhere. My comments are in 'bold'.
Hox (homeobox) GenesEvolution’s Saviour?
Don Batten
Some evolutionists hailed homeobox or hox genes as the saviour of evolution soon after they were discovered. They seemed to fit into the Gouldian mode of evolution (punctuated equilibrium) because a small mutation in a hox gene could have profound effects on an organism.
WS: How long did that one (PE) last? Most actual mutations have detrimental effects. Once again evolution hangs on mutations rather than natural processes designed into genes. By far the greatest effect of genetics is to continue a species with slight NECESSARY environmental adaptation through normal, natural genetic recombinations without adding genetic information. None of that is necessarily a permanent, irreversible change, given long term gradual changes in environment. Quick changes don't allow the supposed evolution processes to have beneficial effect, resulting in extinction, not improvement. Keep in mind the first priinciple of the first Darwin law which a priori excludes intelligent design/creation. It is not evidenced to be inapplicable.
However, further research has not born out the evolutionists’ hopes. Dr Christian Schwabe, the non-creationist sceptic of Darwinian evolution from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167—177).
WS: On a side note the presence of EXCESS retinoic acid causes deformation of hox genes in humans, not benefits. Birth defects are not enhancements to the population. There is no evidence mutations of hox genes meets the question posed by de Beer.
Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example.
WS: So where is the evidence of ADDED information?
Evolutionists, of course, use the ubiquity of hox genes in their argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same (supremely) intelligent Creator. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design. Indeed many of the patterns we see do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp
WS: There is no definitive evidence against ID/creation. Hence, the evolution model is not testable in a way that overwhelms creationist theories. The notion of evolution is not a purely scientific subject until all of its tenets are explained with actual science methods and actual data collected scientifically, not just guesses based on some observations. It is often said by evolutionists that science doesn't prove anything. That is because science for the evolutionist is yet a "proto science", much like a philosophy, evidenced by a disparity of beliefs among the constituents of the TofE.
For similar articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Search/default.asp?qu=hox...
Another one adding clarity to this issue is:
Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten
First published in:
Creation 19(1):21—22
December 1996—February 1997
The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:
Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18—23).
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do itimagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).
WS: Any breaking news on the chimp genome?
Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re—form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
WS:Remaining today in at least one modern biology textbook presented as FACT. When such precise percentages are presented like that, they 'stick' indelibly in the mind. I don't accept the number, but will probably never rid my mind of it, having repeated that figure aloud for too long. No doubt it had a calculated effect. Every time I referred to the shelf of assorted high school and college textbooks for that 'just right' explanation for a lesson, I revisited the many now debunked statements that shaped my own continuing education. If I had my way I would dump all of those books, but they are contributions from personal libraries of many present and former science teachers, and there is little more to refer to in the school library, even less in other local libraries. What they covered in my college years is far less than what is available. What is a modern teacher to do? Relying on atheist explanations is no substitute for me. There is no time for going back and catching up through continuing ed. courses. It takes every spare moment just to prepare for three classes tomorrow and conclude today's business. So naturally my guidance will be from among the creationist scientists, and that is my suggestion for any Christian science teacher. There are few that I know of. I am aware of only a dozen of about 60 local teachers that admit any religious affiliation, and none among the science teachers. Almost all the teachers gather every year at every public school in protest of "See You at the Pole Day" (student-led prayer around the flag pole), often making conversation that drowns out whatever is said by students. No Christian would prohibit prayer, regardless their feelings about separation of church and state.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical erroraveraging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].
WS: Keep in mind the necessity of those mutations being BENEFICIAL ones, which are the rare exception rather than the rule. Beneficial mutations are not shown to be a natural, normal process of reproduction resulting in continuation of any species or creation of new ones.
Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
[Ed. note: the point of this article was to refute one widely parroted ‘proof’ that humans evolved from apes, as should be clear from the title. It was simply beyond the scope of a single Creation magazine article to deal with all other ‘proofs’ of human evolution, although, amazingly, some atheistic sceptics have attacked this article for this alleged failing! But see Q&A: Anthropology (human ancestry, alleged ape-men) for addressing issues like alleged fossil ‘ape—men’.]
Summmary
The methods used to generate the figures so often quoted (and misquoted!) are very clumsy. They do not lend legitimacy to the claims that people and chimps are related in an evolutionary sense. The more we learn of the complexities of the biochemical systems in our cells, the more marvellous they become. Furthermore, even if we accept the data as legitimate there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just animals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp
™ Version 4.2