Creation-Evolution Confusion Profusion

I am watching a series of 3 episodes of a NOVA special called "Becoming Human"  When I am done, I am going to study the details so I capture it in my mind - the exact details.


(I just took a break to clean my keyboard.  It was so dirty, the ENTER key was starting to stick down.)

Now that we have mapped the human genome, people quote stat about the % of difference between the genome of 2 species.   The problem with this is something called Junk.  The vast majority (98%) of the humane Genome is called JUNK.  The statement is that that portion of the Genome does nothing.  The explanation is that if this genome came into being from evolutionary forces, you would expect a lot of randomness within the order. 

I don't like that they call it junk.  It is the scientific equivalent of saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".  That portion of our DNA does nothing IN SO FAR AS WE KNOW NOW.

So when people compare genomes between species, are they only comparing the 2 %, or are they comparing all of the genome.   If you are comparing it for the purpose of understanding evolution, you have to compare all of it, Junk and all.  They don't tell you what they are comparing.   it makes me uneasy.  There has always been scientific mockery - PiltDown Man, The Biogenic Law, Java Man.   Which voices are trustworthy.

There is a concept called the Molecular Clock.  This is how it works. 

DNA is a double helix.  Each half of the DNA are negative reflections of each other.   The 4 sugars A, T, G and C can only combine in fixed ways.   For DNA to reproduce, it must split in half.  We have duplicated this process in many labs, and we have machines now that automate this for scientific application - one of the main tools of biotech.  If we put a sample of DNA in a primer soup of the 4 sugars, and heat the mixture up to a specific temperature (its not real high - can't remember), the halfs of the DNAwill come apart like a zipper.  The horizontal bonds between sugars is weaker than the vertical bonds of the sugars.  So it comes completely apart into 2 long strands.  After heating the mix for a specific period, the mixture is cooled down.  Again, not very cool, the range of temperatures used is not large.   as it cools down, each DNA half begins to build back it's negative reflection using the free molecules of sugar in the primer soup.  They have to keep it at that temperature for a specific time to give the DNA halfs enough time to completely create it's negative reflection and have a complete double helix again - but now you have 2 of them.   Do this over and over again, and the DNA really starts to accumulate.

But its not perfect.   Sometimes the negative reflection isn't completed, so in the next split, you are also duplicating partial DNA strands.  Or perhaps the double helix does rezip back up completely, but has straggling ends of the DNA halfs that don't match up horizontally, but continue to attach primal sugars to extend the strand vertically.

This happens in real life, too.  It is called a mutation.  The Molecular clock is a statistical model.  It postulates that since the DNA is so long, it will create errors at a somewhat constant rate.  We can assume it is happening, we just don't know where it is happening.

So, knowing the period of the Molecular clock (which we actually don't know - it's relative to itself - so needs to be calibrated with other evidence - like dating fossil evidence - which is a huge assumption.  I am not questioning the dating methods because there are many dating techniques - not just carbon 14.   I am questioning the assumption that the fossils chosen for the calibration are in any way related.   They are fossils - meaning no organic matter.   There is no proof that they are of the same Genus - just the relative shape of the rock)

The nearest living genetic neighbor to humans is Chimpanzees (IN SO FAR AS WE KNOW)  So the estimate that counting the differences between the Genomes can be a basis for determining how long ago the 2 Species had a common ancestor.   But what are they comparing/counting - the 2% or the 100%.  If the 2%, then they could be off my 2 orders of magnitude - huge margin of error.

But they estimate that the common ancestor was from 6 million years ago.   Except they don't mention that this is the earliest that this common ancestor could have existed.  It could have been earlier - much earlier.   The bigger the number of differences, the bigger the "much earlier" can be.

So how long before we start mapping a genome for many species.   I heard that one company was mapping the genome of the white laboratory mouse.   And once we have the maps, how long before we can start comparing them using the molecular clock to guestimate the earliest time period to reach a common ancestor. 

When we do that, will those numbers match up to the entirity of the fossil record.  The data will be skewed in favor of the fossil record because the molecular clock is calibrated using the fossil record.  But even with that, will there be contradictions - a puzzle that cannot be put together.

People are getting creative.   There are other dating methods not based on the concept of atomic half-life.  If we calibrate using only those new methods, will something completely different result
when comparing the genomes of all living mammals.

and, as I have said before, the fossil record is really inadequate to make any connections.   We have known what we are looking for, for 60 years, and haven't found that much of it.   We have only identified 5 fossils of Genus Homo, and it only goes back 3 million years.   That's a 3 million year gap to make the 6 million years to find the common ancestor of our nearest living genetic neighbor.

There are approximately 10,000 invertebrate species on earth IN SO FAR AS WE KNOW NOW.   Invertebrate means having a spine - so there can be fossils.   So the MINIMUM number of fossils we have to find to connect all living species of invertibrates in a genetically linked network is 10,000 (assuming a binary split for each step backwards in the evolutionary link network).
The number is probably MUCH higher - now that we assume that there are at least 5 links between Homo Sapien to get half way to our first significant evolutionary link.

The network of evolutionary significant invertebrate links could be MUCH MUCH more than 10,000.   It could be several billion based on current assumptions.

So how many fossils have we found so far that a majority of Paleontologists accepted as representing a significant evolutionary link.   It is hard to find this out.   It is buried.  No one wants to talk about it.   Go ahead - search the WWW.  You won't find it.

The best I have come up with is less than 1000.   Could be less than 100, depending on how strict you are in your selection criteria.   There is a lot of disagreement between experts.

It's a ruse.  The fossil evidence does not support the level of conviction I see in the public and the scientific community.   There is other evidence that is quite compelling.   But the question to answer is if evolution happened HERE - ON EARTH.   The only evidence that can be used to determine that is the fossil record.

If they were honest, the would conclude that the earth was terra-formed.   Terra-formation is Intelligent Design.   No way that's going to happen, not now.   Terra-formation as a concept is pretty far from the teachings of main stream Christianity about creation.   But it is still Intelligent Design.   Accepting Intelligent Design in any form is akin to declaring there is a God.   They just won't do it.