Gaps/ errors in the Theory of evolution?

Question

I saw this on a website. What does everyone feels about it? I believe in the theory of evolution, but reading this has raised some questions in my mind.

“Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative

Answer 1

these mean nothing.
it's like listing 12 murderers of late whose last name is Peterson and using that as logic to claim that all Petersons are murderers or they are all related by a killer gene

genes code for enzymes and proteins so all that means the same gene produces same function in various species as we would expect. we share a large % of the genes of a fruit fly

actually this proves evolution has happened since other animals share specific genes as a result of random mutations

here is some of what is really meaningful in terms of understanding evolution and DNA:

Studies in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster have altered our estimate of the evolutionary relationship between vertebrate and invertebrate organisms. Key molecular pathways required for the development of a complex animal, such as patterning of the primary body axes, organogenesis, wiring of a complex nervous system, and control of cell proliferation have been highly conserved since the evolutionary divergence of flies and humans. When these pathways are disrupted in either vertebrates or invertebrates, similar defects are often observed.

also

Drosophila and human promoters use different DNA sequences to regulate gene expression, supporting the idea that evolution occurs by the modulation of gene regulation. (rather than ever changing mutations of genes - which are fairly stable)

Answer 2

There's plenty of logical fallacies both in the original question and some of the followups. Here's the two biggest:

1. God of the Gaps - This argument is very common among antievolutionists, and goes something like this: "I cannot see how to bridge from X to Y, therefore it could only be explained by supernatural means." This proves nothing but that A) the arguer may lack imagination or B) there's always room for more explanation. In fact, there's theories out there (Bell's Incompleteness Theorem is one that comes to mind, although it may not be applicable here) that state there's no such thing as a system with absolutely no holes or gaps.

2. Correlation is not causation. In other words, just because two things are similar does not mean they're necessarily related or caused by the same thing, etc. DNA similarity between chimps and humans does not ALONE prove anything. You also need a plausible mechanism by which DNA is important. Fortunately, we have such a mechanism.

Answer 3

Sophiaseeker, I can answer the 2nd part. The thing is, scientists don't necessarily know "why" everything is the way it is. They use all the resources available to them to learn as much as they can about the world (Universe) we live in. They do not just make up things like evolution and the Big Bang because they think it sounds cool. You severely underestimate the years upon years of research they do for every little conclusion they come to. In a matter of looking at it, it is guesswork, but it is very VERY advanced and highly educated guesswork that is based upon large amounts of study. You guys have a book from thousands of years ago, (Which has been subject to numerous mistranslations and edits over the course of time, by the way) written by primitive men, and you are pretentious enough to claim that YOU have all the answers? Now that is ridiculous, friend.

Answer 4

"On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative"
it seems very hard to believe that. especially given that BEANS HAVE NO BLOOD. i never knew that birds could cry either, but if they could, what merit would you get from testing the enzymes in tears!? if they had similar tears, it just shows that they have similar tears, and does not necessarily relate to how closely related the creatures are
cholesterol level? i may have more relation to a snake than my fat uncle on that basis. it's bunk.


as the guy said, DNA would be the only way of deciding how closely things are related, based on our understanding of biochemistry.

your article sounds like cr@p. where did you find it?

Answer 5

The statement "humans are 99% similar chemically to apes" is misleading (probably intentionally so). The REAL clincher that shows man's evolutionary relationship to chimpanzees is that our coding DNA is 99% similar. I don't care how similar we are to other animals in terms of milk content or tear duct secretions or cholesterol levels (and I find those comparisons highly suspect as well), it's DNA that's the hereditary material and DNA is what serious scientists use to guage how closely related two species are. This is a piece of misdirection crafted by a creationist in an attempt to discredit humans' evolutionary relationship to the great apes, but anybody who knows enough about evolution won't sit still for it.

Answer 6

Look at it this way. There are over 20,000 genes that make up the human DNA. Even though we share 99% of those genes with chimps, there are still over 200 genes that differ. How many genes regulate milk chemistry/tear enzyme? 1? 2? Or does depend more on our diet? I'm not a biologist and I honsetly dont know the exact answer, but remember that one ore two genes out of 20,000 is a small number.

Answer 7

My first response was to point out the glaringly obvious ... that it is not the same thing to compare an entire genome, and comparing isolated proteins.

But I did a bit of digging and I have found that the claims in that paragraph are nothing short of complete and utter B.S.

These claims are made repeatedly by several creationists (Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Walter Brown), and these quotes are repeated widely in creationist web sites everywhere ... BUT NOBODY CAN POINT TO ANY RESEARCH, PAPER, PUBLICATION IN WHICH THESE STUDIES WERE DONE!

David C. Wise has written a detailed analysis of this story, complete with asking *repeatedly* for any of these people to produce the research that shows that any of these proteins resemble the human equivalent more closely than a primate ... and despite numerous promises NONE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.

And in cases where these proteins have actually been tested, it turns out that primate proteins are indeed closer than these other organisms.

So it appears like this is one of the most glaring examples where creationists are not just taking valid scientific facts out of context, and cherry picking the pieces they need to support an argument. In this case the facts themselves are completely bogus.

Please, please, please do not believe everything you read on a web site. If you want to know what is scientifically valid research *TALK TO A SCIENTIST*.

Answer 8

Blatant BS. While humans and chimps are about 95% genetically, and therefor chemically, identical, the other examples listed are merely tests of specific chemicals.

It's like saying "A dairy milk chocolate bar and a galaxy chocolate bar are pretty similar but based on the colour of the wrapper, a dairy milk is closer to Motorola's limited edition purple v3 razr mobile phone."

And yeah, butter beans don't actually have blood. "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test..." probably means something like "By completely ignoring the results of scientific testing..."

Answer 9

Chemically similar? Sorry, that argument is bogus. Genetics are how we determine relatives. Using DNA and genetics are how we know chimps and apes are our closer relatives. Those chemical similarities are not used by scientists, they are used by creationists to fool people into doubting science.

Answer 10

I cannot accept the theory of evolution for 2 scientific reasons:

1. I cannot envision any way that a 32 chromosome species could gradually become a 46 chromosone species.

2. According to the theory, all species are constantly evolving into new species all the time, everywhere, all around us. However no one has ever reported seeing one new species.

I just do not have as much faith as it takes to believe in evolution.