Radical Differences Between Human and Chimp Y Chromosomes Open a Bounty of Research Rabbit Holes for Scientists to Plunder

July, 2010


Click on image to see enlarged view

With support from the United States National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, scientists from several medical research laboratories in the United States and the Netherlands have recently completed a series of experiments designed to sequence the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in the chimpanzee. 1 In their words, they achieved for the first time “levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY.” They also compared the MSYs of humans and chimpanzees and found that “they differ radically


June, 2009



God’s Wisdom in the Genome

December, 2008

The genome of organisms contains their genetic material, which largely determines how they will develop. Scientists are learning more and more about the genome of various organisms, which is revealing more and more about the amazing wisdom of God in their design and creation. It seems that our understanding of the functioning of life is always incomplete, and the genome is always more complex than we had thought. Will we ever fully understand the functioning of life, or will it always be a mystery to us?

First we present excerpt from an article about genetics in a recent issue of a magazine produced by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This article shows some unexpected features of the genome. What one  typically calls a gene is really a protein-coding gene and contains instructions for making one or more proteins. The DNA that is not included in such genes has been called “junk DNA” in the past, but now we are learning that this DNA has a function and contains genes that do not code for protein. This DNA that does not code for protein is now called noncoding DNA.

Humans are strikingly similar to a bunch of different critters—genetically, at least. Sixty percent of human genes are fundamentally the same as fruit fly genes, and somewhere around ninety percent of our genes are the same as mouse genes. 1

Recent Discoveries in Genetics

May, 2007


Several recent discoveries in genetics reveal even more of the amazing properties of the genome and give additional evidence for the design of life by an intelligent creator. DNA consists of a long sequence of four nucleotide bases. Proteins consist of sequences of about twenty amino acids, and are specified by a coding system in which three successive nucleotide bases of DNA constitute a “codon” and are translated into a specific amino acid. However, there are more codons than amino acids, so more than one codon corresponds to a given amino acid in many cases.

Now, within everyone’s DNA are “SNPs”, single nucleotide polymorphisms. This is a site at which many humans have differing nucleotides. Sometimes such a difference does not influence the amino acid coded for. For example, the codons UCU and UCC both code for serine, so a change of uracil to cytosine at this point in the RNA, corresponding to a change of thymine to cytosine in the DNA, has no effect on the sequence of amino acids in the protein. Is there then any difference between such codons in terms of their effects on the organism?

Puzzles of the Genome

December, 2006


The genome of an animal contains the DNA that specifies the characteristics of the animal. This is in the form of a sequence of four bases; the sequence of the human genome is over three billion bases long. Of course, different individuals have different sequences. A few years ago the human genome project completed a description of the sequence of the human genome, and several other animals’ genomes have been sequenced since then. Scientists sometimes claim that these genomes provide evidence for the theory of evolution. However, recent results show how little we really know about the genome, and therefore it is unreasonable to assert that the genome provides evidence for evolution, when we understand it so poorly. 

Does the Molecular Evidence Prove Common Ancestry is a "Fact?"

November, 2006

Genesis 1 describes the separate creation of various organisms “after their kind.” This means that all life on earth is primarily related through having a common creator and not through common descent. When evolutionists claim that molecules-to-man macroevolution is a “fact”, they are often referring to evidence for common ancestry irrespective of any evolutionary mechanism. This approach helps them avoid the inherent difficulties associated with explaining how point mutations, genetic recombinations, gene duplication, and natural selection could create new genetic information by chance. One way evolutionists try to support the idea of common ancestry involves comparison of homologous DNA sequences and proteins between organisms (molecular homology). Presumably, the greater the similarities between DNA or protein sequences in different organisms, the more recent has been the divergence from a common ancestor. Two lines of molecular evidence will be explored in this report: comparisons of cytochrome c and endogenous retroviral elements (RVEs).


Intelligent Design

May, 2006


William Dembski


Materialism and Abiogenesis

March, 2016


The TASC newsletter article Fossils examined the fossil record as evidence in support of the theory of evolution.1 The conclusion of that article, as well as of several evolutionists themselves, was that the fossil record did not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution. We might think, "Well, that doesn't matter, since evolution is so strongly supported by the genetic evidence." However, is it really? Let's look and see. We will look primarily at the genetic evidence. 

Is abiogenesis irrelevant?

The idea of life arising from non-life is known as abiogenesis. It might be argued that abiogenesis is not evolution and thus is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution. The line of reasoning is that evolution deals with how life evolves from pre-existing life via natural selection, or how more complex life arises from simpler life, which does not involve the origin of life. This is still life giving rise to more complex life, not life arising from non-life. Therefore, the argument goes, the question of how life arose from non-life is not part of evolution, and is therefore excluded from any discussion of evolution as not being relevant.

Scientific Evidence That Points to a Creator

April, 2016



Creation Resources and Evidences

April, 2005



Subscribe to RSS - Biochemistry