All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
What does DNA stand for?
DNA is the abbreviated form of the words deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is a nucleic acid that consists of large molecules which are shaped like a double helix. DNA is associated with the transmission of genetic information.
How is DNA good evidence for Creation?
How has the Neanderthal DNA been misrepresented?
These will be answered soon.
Evolutionists claim the DNA shows we were not related to Neanderthal man. Dr. Cuozzo argues that according to Romans 8 we are degenerating (since Adam sinned), and those who don't understand scripture can not understand the (spiritual) fall (and physical deterioration) of man.
Regarding the difference in the DNA of ourselves and Neanderthal man:
"...that's how they tried to prove that we weren't related to them [Neanderthals] at all. And yet we look back and we see the different mitochondrial DNA, which is within our range, but it's considerably different and we think to ourselves "well is this the product of a degeneration process going on?" and where as they [evolutionists] use it to say [that] we're not related at all. And I think the secret to longevity and the secret to better health lies in the early mitochondiral dna. As we go back in time we will see a better mitochondrial DNA..."
Dr. Jack Cuozzo interview with Janet Parshall
In other words the mitochondrial DNA of Adam was better than our own. If Neanderthal man was a true human who lived for hundreds of years (as the Bible describes) then we would expect a difference in the DNA of ourselves and Neanderthals. To live longer Neanderthals would have needed a better DNA.
The Lake Mungo 3 skeleton is that of an anatomically modern human, but it's DNA is slightly different than our own. If a skeleton with a modern human morphology is in our own genus and species, then why should anyone make such a fuss about a slight difference in the Neanderthal DNA?
This is good evidence that the DNA of modern humans is degenerating from its more complex form.
The claim is often made that the DNA of chimpanzees is evidence that we share a common ancestor.
Question:
"Our DNA matches chimps by 99% that seems awfully close as a match to not be considered.
Bruce H. (8/22/2001)
Answer:
Many people claim that the DNA of the chimpanzee is 99.9 percent identical to our DNA. Whenever people make this claim they never give the source of the percentage. Does anyone know for a fact that it is this close? It is funny because in telling and retelling this "fact" the numbers often change. Some people will say it is 98%, others 99% and so on.
The initial study done at the University of California, Berkeley in the mid 1970s suggested that a similarity of 98.5 per cent might be present.
This has been revised down to 94 percent in 2002. This is a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. (September 02 New Scientist online).
By comparing the similarity of DNA between two species, they think that they can determine how closely humans and chimps are related. But this does not prove a relationship. It only proves we have similar genetic material, which could be seen as evidence that we were both made by the same God.
In addition, that is only one part of the DNA that is similar. In other areas it is only about 84 percent similar. (add Cuozzo source)
Also just one percent actually represents thousands of differences.
The main problem with this line of research is the presupposition that they start with. We question should not be "When did the human / chimp split occur?" but did they split or have they always been seperate?
Chimp dna: "But, the upsetting news is that the data were "doctored" during the analysis, so that data points that didn't fit the desired result were omitted from the analysis"
("Louis S. B. Leakey Beyond the Evidence" pg 162, Martin Pickford PhD, Janus Publishing Company London, England 1997)
If we were able to look at the DNA of Australopithecines I think we would find that it is closer to the chimpanzees DNA, than the chimpanzee's is to ours.
For more info on the DNA I will be adding an audio clip answer of this (track 34, Dr. Jack Cuozzo interview by Janet Parshall) for you to download and listen to.
A recent article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2002) has shown that the gelatine based glue that musuem curators have used to preserve fossils has also contaminated the bones and contributes "non-authentic DNA". The authors point out that this problem of contamination is not mentioned in most literature.
("Detection of bone glue treatment as a major source of contamination in ancient DNA analyses" by Graeme J. Nicholson etc, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 118, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 117-120) This fact has also been ignored by proponents of evolution.
In other cases the DNA from the person performing the tests, and also edaphon DNA (which is drived from bacteria and fungal growth) has snuck into the results.
("Detection of bone glue treatment as a major source of contamination in ancient DNA analyses" by Graeme J. Nicholson etc, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 118, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 117-120)
Differences in modern human and Neanderthals could also be the result of such bacterial and fungal contamination.
"Bone glue" is produced using the bones, hides, sinews, ligaments, and gristle of other animals.
("Detection of bone glue treatment as a major source of contamination in ancient DNA analyses" by Graeme J. Nicholson etc, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 118, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 117-120) The older the glue, the more likely it is that it contains impurities.
Many fossil hominid specimens have had a preservant
applied to them. In cases where "bone glue" is used (in Neanderthals for instance) the DNA from the glue may have penetrated* the specimen being preserved. In such cases how would be ever expect to get an accurate DNA from Neanderthal individuals?
*Samples taken at varying depths show that glue has a high degree of penetration into bone.
("Detection of bone glue treatment as a major source of contamination in ancient DNA analyses" by Graeme J. Nicholson etc, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 118, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 117-120)
Bone glue is not the only preservant used on fossils. Others include bee's wax derivatives, vegetable-based tannins, and fungicidal and insecticidal agents.
("Detection of bone glue treatment as a major source of contamination in ancient DNA analyses" by Graeme J. Nicholson etc, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 118, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 117-120)
Perhaps some of the chimpanzee DNA, claimed to be so similar to our own has been contaminated by the handling of humans doing the testing.
We have taken a look at the DNA of so called Neanderthal man, but what about Homo erectus?
If Homo erectus was human as some say, then an analysis of the DNA would be a good way to confirm or deny this. Because the physical structure of erectus is similar to our own, we would expect its DNA to be close to ours regardless of whether or not the 2 are related.
I contacted Dr. Chris Stringer of The Natural History Museum in London and asked him about the DNA of Homo erectus.
Here is his response:
"Unfortunately it seems unlikely that erectus fossils will ever produce good DNA - they are just too old..."
Best,
Chris
Personal letter dated Feb 07, 2001
Dr. Stringer does not share my beliefs, but I appreciate his help on this.
Hopefully some day someone will take a step closer in trying to solve this puzzle.
In the mean time please check out my other papers on Homo erectus which adequatley demonstrate that it was a bipedal primate (not a human - or human ancestor).
There is no way to know DNA superiority. It is only inference
This page will be updated soon
If you have any questions on Creation, Evolution, or just want to say "Hi" please feel free to email me.
| Main Index | Ape-man Index | 