Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

nolidad

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 25, 2014, 03:43 PM
Number of posts: 20,215

Journal Archives

Neandertal: The Answer Is Epigenetics Not Evolution


BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, MAY 02, 2014

Recent genome reports show that the Neandertals are essentially fully human, causing scientists to reclassify them as "archaic humans."1,2 But what about the apparent subtle differences in anatomy that first caused scientists to claim that Neandertals were a completely different species? It turns out that the answer can be found in epigenetics, according to newly published research.3

Epigenetics, in the more modern sense, refers to the heritable chemical changes performed by cellular machines to DNA that alter gene function without actually changing the DNA nucleotide code. In the field of genomics, it is more accurately referred to as chromatin modification. Chromatin is the stuff chromosomes are made of which consists of the DNA molecule packaged around proteins called histones. Both the DNA and the histone proteins can be chemically modified to control how genes function and are regulated along the chromosome.

Specifically, the DNA molecule is modified by adding methyl groups to the cytosine nucleotides called DNA methylation. In general, the more methylated the DNA is at the start of a gene region, the less active the gene is. The patterns of DNA methylation across the genome are collectively called the methylome and can be compared between similar genomes and correlated with specific types of gene activity.

In a recent report in the journal Science, researchers studied the methylomes of two different Neandertals using a new indirect method of analysis for archaic DNA.3 They corroborated their DNA methylation profiles with modern humans and reported that "over 99% of both archaic genomes show no significant methylation differences compared to the present-day human." Another verification of their technique is that they also analyzed the patterns of Neandertal methylation compared to modern humans in housekeeping genes—those that are required for the maintenance of basic cellular function. The methylation patterns were the same compared to modern humans, indicating that the study's methodology was fairly accurate.

The most interesting aspect of the study came when the researchers reported that "in each archaic human we found ~1,100 differentially methylated regions." While some of these areas may have just been related to population variability, significant methylation differences between Neandertals and modern humans were found in areas of the genome associated with the control and regulation of hox gene clusters. Hox genes are known to be associated with bone and skeletal development. Thus, the authors of the report believed that the regulatory changes in these regions driven by epigenetics was at the root of the various anatomical differences we see between modern humans and Neandertals, even though the DNA sequences are essentially the same.

Epigenetic profiles in the genome are affected by diet, life-style, and environmental factors. Creationist climate scientists believe that the earth's environment and human living conditions were much different directly after the flood—about four thousand years ago—than they are today. We also know that the Neandertal remains being found are not in flood sediments, but buried in caves so we can surmise that they were likely living during the first few generations of post-flood humans. Thus, this new epigenetic evidence fits well with biblical based predictions about science: Neandertals were clearly not an evolving pre-human species, but were in fact fully human with trait variability being determined by epigenetic factors.

References

Tomkins, J. 2014. Ancient Human DNA: Neandertals and Denisovans. Acts & Facts. 43 (3): 9.
Tomkins, J.P. DNA Proof That Neandertals Are Just Humans. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org February 21, 2014, accessed April 20, 2014.
Gokhman, D., et al. 2014. Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.1250368.
*Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on May 2, 2014.

Quote of the Day

1 Corinthians 1:

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Help me out , you who believe in the big bang cosmology!

1.We know that the speed of light is a measurement of both time and distance.

2. Big Bang believers believe the universe fluxed, exploded, farted or what ever new term they have for it into existence approx. 13.8 billion years ago!

3. Astronomers have seen a galaxy (millions or hundreds of millions of stars) 13.2 billion light years out in space.

4. So tell me how could this galaxy get out to that point in space time 13.2 billion light years ago, to shine the light we are just seeing now??

5. 13. billion light years ago the universe was only 600 million years old! Even given the very questionable inflation hypothesis that lasted mere seconds- how could a galaxy travel to near the edge of today's present universe????

6. IN order to get 13.2 billion light years into space to shine light we are seeing now- in the first 600 million years of the life of the universe the energy form the big bang that cooled to become matter and then clumped together to become stars had to travel at 20X the speed of light or approx. 2,735,000 miles per second all while slowly becoming stars anfd then a galaxy to get 13.2 billion light years in space to shine the ligt we are just seeing now!

7. what special magic wand ar they using to get this to be???????

Quote of the Day

John 3: (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God

what you aren't being told about our solar system.

A little lengthy at 1 3/4 hours but worth the watch if you are at all curious about our solar system.



Quote of the Day

Psalm 119 King James Version (KJV)
119 Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.

2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!

6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.

7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments

Markets at all time high,

Consumer confidence highest since 2,000
Unemployment at all time lows
trade wars have brought first fair new agreement,
employers can't find enough workers

What will the left talk about?

which bimbo did trump pay off and can we nail him for campaign finance violations!

New Study Confirms Harmful Role of Mutations


BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2017

The traditional evolutionary model states that organisms evolve by random mutations. These mutations somehow provide new genetic information leading to novel traits that can be selected upon by the environment. Not only does this speculative paradigm lack empirical support, but documented beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare. Now, a new study shows mutations that commonly arise during cell division are not only unhelpful, but instead are highly correlated with cancer.1

Many tissues in the body need to regenerate themselves or replenish other types of cells, such as blood cells produced from bone marrow. This process is accomplished through stem cells. Researchers previously documented that the lifetime risk of cancer among 25 different tissue types is strongly associated with the total number of times the stem cells in those same tissues divide to make new cells.2 In addition, it is also known that about three mutations occur every time a cell divides.3 These mutations arise in the form of copying errors during the process of DNA replication.

In the grand evolutionary story, DNA copying errors will somehow lead to new mutations in the germline stem cells that make sperm and eggs so these mutations will be heritable. But do such DNA copying errors occasionally lead to beneficial mutations, or are the odds stacked against such naturalistic optimism? While this new study doesn't evaluate germline stem cells, it does take a close look at stem cell division in general, and the odds are not in favor of evolution.

The data in this new study show a strong correlation between cancer incidence and normal stem cell divisions in human tissue samples from eight different countries across the globe. The strong association was detected regardless of the environment in which the subjects lived. This major role of DNA replication mutations in cancer was supported by using cancer genome DNA sequencing and epidemiological data. Results indicated that DNA copying errors are responsible for two-thirds of the mutations in human cancers!

These data not only show the futility of invoking mutation as an engine of evolution, but also add support to the fact the human genome is degrading—devolving—not evolving and improving over time. Cornell University geneticist Dr. John Sanford demonstrated this process of genetic entropy through a variety of studies.4

The original humans, Adam and Eve, were created with error-free genomes that contained no mutations. Then, as recorded in Genesis 3, sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience and the whole creation was subject to the curse. The veracity of the human genome has been incessantly degrading ever since.

Humans, and the rest of biological creation, are not gradually evolving better genomes over time. In fact, the empirically observed mutation rates we have seen in a variety of creatures match the biblical model and timeframe.4,5 The facts of science we are now documenting in the genome with modern technology profoundly support the Bible, not the failed naturalistic speculations of mankind.

References

Tomasetti, C., L. Li, and B. Vogelstein. 2017. Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention. Science. 355 (6331): 1330–1334.
Tomasetti, C., and B. Vogelstein. 2015. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science. 347 (6217): 78-81.
Tomasetti, C., B. Vogelstein, and G. Parmigiani. 2013. Half or more of the somatic mutations in cancers of self-renewing tissues originate prior to tumor initiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110 (6): 1999–2004.
Tomkins, J. P. 2014. Genetic Entropy Points to a Young Creation. Acts & Facts. 43 (11): 16.
Tomkins, J. P. 2015. Genetic Clocks Verify Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. 44 (12): 9-11.
*Dr. Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Mutation Study Contradicts Evolution


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2010

Biology textbooks teach that mutations added the high-quality genetic information needed to transmutate a fish into a monkey—even though experiments have shown that mutations merely corrupt the information that is already present. In a new experiment, microbiologists from Uppsala University in Sweden induced mutations in two bacterial genes to observe the effects. The results led them to admonish scientists to change how they think about the role mutations play.

The study’s authors cited a lack of experimentally derived data amid the flood of molecular comparison studies of mutational differences between various creatures. They therefore put mutations to the test, measuring how 126 different random single mutations affected the fitness of growing bacterial populations.1 They were able to directly correlate growth rate to "fitness" because they knew that the three-dimensional structure of the two non-essential proteins produced from the two genes they mutated directly affect how fast the bacteria can grow.

In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect. While a few were dangerous, most had very little negative effect. Could such a small negative effect even be detected, let alone culled, by natural selection? And how could a fish transmutate into a monkey by losing "fitness" each generation?

It can’t, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."2

The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill. Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: "Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box absolutely guarantees net loss of information."4

The Uppsala scientists mentioned that their study would add understanding to "the degradation of genetic information due to Muller’s ratchet."1 First described by geneticist Hermann Muller in 1964, populations that do not undergo "recombination" are subject to an "irreversible ratchet mechanism" whereby mutations steadily accumulate.5 It is highly likely that the same ratchet applies to all organisms.

The detailed mutations measured in this bacterial experiment add more confirmation to an intractable problem for any evolution-by-mutation scenario. However, the data makes sense from a biblical perspective, which holds that this present world is in "bondage of corruption," waiting for "the glorious liberty of the children of God."6 In such a world, the degradation of the genome through accumulating mutations would be expected.

References

Lind, P. A., O. G. Berg and D. I. Anderson. 2010. Mutational Robustness of Ribosomal Protein Genes. Science. 330 (6005): 825-827.
Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.
Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 76 (7): 3440-3444.
Sanford, J. C. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Ivan Press, 24.
Muller, H. J. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 1 (1): 2-9.
Romans 8:21.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Quote of the Day

Hebrews 10:19-23

A Call to Persevere in Faith
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »