man and animals are 96 percent the same

8/7/2019 Man and animals are 96 percent the same

1/86

MAN AND ANIMALS are 96 percent

the same

Presented By: Prof. Mr. Maqsood Hasni (P.Ph.D)


2/86

Th e re i s n o d i ff e re n c e b e twe e n h u m a n a n d a n im a l DN A.Be l i e ve i t o r n o t , t h e re ' s a l so n o d i f f e re n c e b e twe e nh u m a n a n d p la n t , o r b a c te r ia l DN A . DN A i s th e sa m eth ro u g h o u t a l l l i fe ( a n d n o n - l if e d e p e n d in g o n yo u r v ie wof v i ruses) :a d e o x y r ib o se su g a r , a p h o sp h a te g ro u p , a n d an i t ro g e n o u s b a se .

So m e wi l l sa y th a t sh a p e s a re d i f f e re n t , wh ic h i s t ru e .F o r e x a m p le : DN A in a h u m a n i s l i n e a r , wh i le b a c te r ia lDN A i s c i rc u la r . Th e c a tc h i s , h o we ve r , t h e a c tu a lm o le c u le s a re th e sa m e . Yo u c a n ta k e a h u m a n g e n e a n din se r t i t i n to b a c te r ia , wh ic h w e d o to p ro d u c e i n su l i n .

Th a t b e in g sa id , a l l t h e va s t d i f f e re n c e s i n l i f e h a ve tod o w i th a m o u n t o f DN A /# o f c h ro m o so m e s a n d a l l th eg e n e s th a t th e DN A e n c o d

Contents

Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary

Relationship?


3/86

Why the pigs and monkeys?

Humans 96 percent the same, Gene study finds

Is pig DNA and human DNA identical?

Neanderthal DNA "Almost" Identical to Human's

Neanderthal and human DNA is actually up to 99.9 per cent identical

Scientists expect to reproduce Neanderthal DNA

DNA Shows Newly Discovered Human Relative Roamed Widely in Asia

An interesting talk

Pig Virus DNA Found in Rotarix

Scientists Decode DNA Of Domestic Pig

What is the 3 closest animals to humans alive?

Animal-to-Human Transplants - the creation of Frankenstein's monster

Mind transfer

Chinese Scientists Create First Human-Animal Embryo

How Ambam the walking gorilla took his first steps to global fame

Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA

Indicate an Evolutionary

Relationship?


4/86

By: Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson,

Ph.D.

The collision occurred without warning. Prior to the impact, thoughts

had revolved around dinner plans. Images of fried chicken and mashed

potatoes, however, now have been replaced by an ear-piercing siren

and flashing strobe lights that dance off of street signs and store

windows. Following the injured persons six-minute ambulance ride,

emergency room doctors assess the situation. There is extensive

internal damage, and several organs are beginning to shut down. The

prognosis is dimunless a healthy kidney and liver are transplanted

within the next 12 hours. A call is made to the National Organ Donor

Registry, and the gravity of the situation is relayed to several donor

officials. Within a matter of hours, a chartered air ambulance delivers

the organs in a bright red Igloo cooler. As the anesthesiologist

begins the necessary preparations for surgery, the patient notices the

surgeon walk over and inspect the donated organs. The last words the

patient hears as he drifts off to sleep is the surgeon saying,

Well, I guess chimp organs will have to do; after all, we share over

98% of the same genetic material.

While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to

chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive

a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American

doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the

organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between

chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but

also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and

more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a


5/86

2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different

from chimpanzeesand that number probably will continue to grow as

we learn all of the details about human DNA

(Britten, 2002).

In 1962, James Dewey Watson and Francis Harry Compton Crick

received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their discovery

concerning the molecular structure of DNA. Just nine years earlier, in

1953, these two scientists had proposed the double helical structure of

DNAthe genetic material responsible for life. By demonstrating the

molecular arrangement of four nucleotide base acids (adenine,

guanine, cytosine, and thymidineusually designated as A,G,C, and T)

and how they combine, Watson and Crick opened the door for

determining the genetic makeup of humans and animals. The field of

molecular biology became invigorated with scientists who wanted to

compare the proteins and nucleic acids of one species with those of

another. Just thirteen short years after Watson and Crick received

their famed Nobel Prize, the declaration was made

that the average human polypeptide is more than 99 percent identical

to its chimpanzee counterpart

(King and Wilson, 1975, pp. 114-115).

This genetic similarity in the proteins and nucleic acids, however, left a

great paradoxwhy do we not look or act like chimpanzees if our

genetic material is so similar? King and Wilson recognized the

legitimacy of this quandary when they remarked:


6/86

The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is

extraordinary because they differ far more than many other sibling

species in anatomy and life (p. 113).

Nevertheless, the results were exactly what evolutionists were looking

for, and as such, the claim has reverberated through the halls of

science for decades as evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like

ancestor.

One year following Watson and Cricks Nobel ceremony, chemist Emile

Zuckerkandl observed that the protein sequence of hemoglobin in

humans and the gorilla differed by only 1 out of 287 amino acids.

Zuckerkandl noted:

From the point of view of hemoglobin structure, it appears that the

gorilla is just an abnormal human, or man an abnormal gorilla, and the

two species form actually one continuous population (1963, p. 247)

The molecular and genetic evidence only strengthened the

evolutionary foundation for those who testified of our alleged primate

ancestors. Professor of physiology Jared Diamond even titled one of

his books The Third Chimpanzee, thereby viewing the human species

as just another big mammal. From all appearances, it seemed that

evolutionists had won a battlehumans were more than 98% identical

to chimpanzees. However, after spending a lifetime looking for

evidence of evolution within molecular structures, biochemist Christian

Schwabe was forced to admit:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to

paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a

molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead it seems


7/86

disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly

progression of species as determined by molecular homologies;

so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the

more important message(1986, p. 280, emp. added).

In 2003, the completed human genome study is scheduled to be

published. Before this massive project was created, scientists

estimated that humans possessed 90,000 to 100,000 genes (a gene is

a section of DNA that is a basic unit of heredity, while the genome

constitutes the total genetic composition of an organism). With

preliminary data from the genome project now in hand, scientists

believe that the actual number of genes is around 70,000 (Shouse,

2002, 295:1447). It appears that only about 1.5% of the human

genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are

clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of non-coding

DNA (frequently referred to as junk DNA) between the clusters. The

function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined.

These findings indicate that even ifall of the human genes were

different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5

percent similar if the junk DNA of humans and chimpanzees were

identical.

Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California,

Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this

similarity line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four basesA,G,C, and Tonly

four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The

laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that


8/86

have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four

sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent

identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at

least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils

are one-quarter human? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human

is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There

is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would

make daffodils humanexcept perhaps DNA. Marks went on to

concede:

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores

qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such

close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimps

genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the humans;

that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small

chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee

chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans

(B-7, emp. added).

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material

when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA

represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides

(compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire

human genome). To help make this number understandable, considerthe fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every

nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp,

you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2%

does not appear so small, does it?


9/86

CHROMOSOMAL COUNTS

It would make sense that, if humans and chimpanzees were

genetically identical, then the manner in which they store DNA also

would be similar. Yet it is not. DNA, the fundamental blueprint of life,

is tightly compacted into chromosomes. All cells that possess a nucleus

contain a specific number of chromosomes. Common sense would

seem to necessitate that organisms that share a common ancestry

would possess the same number of chromosomes. However,

chromosome numbers in living organisms vary from 308 in the black

mulberry (Morus nigra) to six in animals such as the mosquito (Culex

pipiens) or nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) [see Sinnot, et

al., 1958]. Additionally, complexity does not appear to affect the

chromosomal number. The radiolaria (a simple protozoon) has over

800, while humans possess 46. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have

48 chromosomes. A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would

indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a

small deer found in Taiwans mountainous regions), which also has 46

chromosomes.

This hurdle of differing numbers of chromosomes may appear trivial,

but we must remember that chromosomes contain genes, which

themselves are composed of DNA spirals. If the blueprint of DNA

locked inside the chromosomes codes for only 46 chromosomes, then

how can evolution account for the loss of two entire chromosomes?

The task of DNA is to continually reproduce itself. If we infer that this

change in chromosome number occurred through evolution, then we

are asserting that the DNA locked in the original number of

chromosomes did not do its job correctly or efficiently. Considering

that each chromosome carries a number of genes, losing


10/86

chromosomes does not make sense physiologically, and probably

would prove deadly for new species. No respectable biologist would

suggest that by removing one (or more) chromosomes, a new species

likely would be produced. To remove even one chromosome wouldpotentially remove the DNA codes for millions of vital body factors.

Eldon Gardner summed it up as follows: Chromosome number is

probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological

characteristic that is available for species identification (1968, p.

211). To put it another way, humans always have had 46

chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48.

REAL GENOMIC DIFFERENCES

One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been

the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared

accurately. Scientists often would use only 30 or 40 known proteins or

nucleic acid sequences, and then from those extrapolate their results

for the entire genome. Today, however, we have the majority of the

human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released

and made public. This allows scientists to compare every single

nucleotide base pair between humans and primates

something that was not possible prior to the human genome

project. In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists

had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee

comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of

77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end

sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues

detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human

chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences

between the two genomes (2002, 295:131).


11/86

In other words, the comparison revealed some large differences

between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human

genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the

human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]

This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee sequences

to human genomic sequences obtained from public databases. Of

these, 36,940 end sequences were unable to be mapped to the human

genome (295:131). Almost 15,000 of those sequences that did not

match human sequences were speculated to

correspond to unsequenced human regions or are from chimpanzee

regions that have diverged substantially from humans or did not match

for other unknown reasons (295:132).

While the authors noted that the quality and usefulness of the map

should

increasingly improve as the finishing of the human genome sequence

proceeds (295:134),

the data already support what creationists have said for yearsthe

98-99% figure representing DNA similarity is grossly misleading, as

revealed in a study carried out by Roy Britten of the California Institute

of Technology (see Britten, 2002).

Exactly how misleading came to light in an articleJumbled DNA

Separates Chimps and Humanspublished in the October 25, 2002

issue ofScience. The first three sentences of the article, written by


12/86

Elizabeth Pennisi (a staff writer for Science), represented a that was

then, this is now type of admission of defeat. She wrote:

For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of

humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported

here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting

suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar

after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous

sections of DNA that werent noticed in previous studies (298:719,

emp. added).

Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in

Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and

Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared

human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and

deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox

commented:

The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccupscould disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin

seems so distant (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721).

Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized

computer program. To quote Pennisis article:

He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the

human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-

base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the

human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted

for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Lockes and Frazers


13/86

groups didnt commit to any new estimates of the similarity between

the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark

is too high (298:721, emp. added).

While Lockes and Frazers team was unwilling to commit to any new

estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was

not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences,

Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA

Sequences is 5% (Britten, 99:13633-13635).

In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote:

The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA

sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a

better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly

shared between chimpanzee and human DNA (99:13633,

emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the

event as follows:

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic

material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In

fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-

fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California

Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent

figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique

that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague


14/86

Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of

two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a

single base substitution. These occur whenever a single letter differs

in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous

analyses ignored. Insertions occur whenever a whole section of DNA

appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the

other. Likewise, deletions mean that a piece of DNA is missing from

one species.

Together, they are termed indels, and Britten seized his chance to

evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of

chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the

Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University

of Oklahoma.

When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the

corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base

substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to

the expected figure.

But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels.

His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to

the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).

It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans

appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu

and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the


15/86

genomes of primates and humans. In their article A HERV-K Provirus

in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans, the authors

wrote: These observations provide very strong evidence that, for

some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas aremore closely related to each other than they are to humans (2001,

11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against

what evolutionists have contended for decadesthat chimpanzees are

closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study

using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between

humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et

al., 2001)that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are notfound in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences

found in gorillas but not humans

could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other

species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent

sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla

genome (9:431).

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to

genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell

surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and

blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various

ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells

are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all

other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found

on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out

multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly miniscule difference can have

far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to

transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind,


16/86

we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, chimps are

almost identical to us simply because of a large genetic overlap.

CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire

genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been

sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the

5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see

A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are

75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures

share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear

ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology,

pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the

limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT]

limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and

flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin.Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene

couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by

environmental selection, the theory would make good sense.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known

to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different

species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on

from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984,p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and

chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly

demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be


17/86

attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the

image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and

Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this

difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been

established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins,

protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the

differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing

than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the

skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture

associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social

organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using,

together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led

scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise

man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes

were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only

very slowly, and with far less remarkable results.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have

happened to the ancestors ofHomo sapiens which did not

happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees

(1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

That something actually is Someonethe Creator.

REFERENCES


18/86

Barbulescu, Madalina, Geoffrey Turner, Mei Su, Rachel Kim, Michael I.

Jensen-Seaman, Amos S. Deinard, Kenneth K. Kidd, and Jack Lentz

(2001), A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas,

but not Humans,Current Biology, 11:779-783.

Britten, Roy J. (2002), Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee

and Human DNA Sequences is 5%, Counting Intels,Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, 99:13633-13635, October 15.

Coghlan, Andy (2002), Human-chimp DNA Difference Trebled, [On-

line], URL: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?

id=ns99992833, September 23.

Fix, William R. (1984), The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New

York: Macmillan).

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), Construction and

Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,Science,

295:131-134, January 4.

Gardner, Eldon J. (1968), Principles of Genetics (New York: John Wiley

and Sons).

King, Mary-Claire and A.C. Wilson (1975), Evolution at Two Levels in

Humans and Chimpanzees,Science, 188:107-116, April 11.

Lyons, Eric and Bert Thompson (2002a), In the Image and Likeness

of God [Part I],Reason & Revelation, 22:17-23, March.

Lyons, Eric and Bert Thompson (2002b), In the Image and Likeness

of God [Part II],Reason & Revelation, 22:25-31, April.


19/86

Marks, Jonathan (2000), 98% Alike? (What Similarity to Apes Tells Us

About Our Understanding of Genetics),The Chronicle of Higher

Education, May 12.

Morgan, Elaine (1989), The Aquatic Ape: A Theory of Human Evolution

(London: Souvenir Press).

Muchmore, Elaine A., Sandra Diaz, and Ajit Varki (1998), A Structural

Difference Between the Cell Surfaces of Humans and the Great Apes,

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 107[2]:187-198, October.

Pennisi, Elizabeth (2002), Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and

Humans, Science, 298:719-721, October 25.

Shouse, Ben (2002), Revisiting the Numbers: Human Genes and

Whales,Science, 295:1457, February 22.

Sinnot, E.W., L.C. Dunn, and T. Dobzhansky (1958), Principles of

Genetics (Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill) fifth edition.

Schwabe, Christian (1986), On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,

Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 11:280-283, July.

A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution (no date), [On-line], URL:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/plaisted/ce/worm.html.

Toder, R. F. Grutzner, T. Haaf, and E. Bausch (2001), Species-Specific

Evolution of Repeated DNA sequences in Great Apes,Chromosome

Research, 9:431-435.


20/86

Zuckerkandl, Emile (1963), Perspectives in Molecular Anthropology,

Classification and Human Evolution, ed. S.L. Washburn (Chicago, IL:

Aldine).


21/86

Why the pigs and monkeys?

One must ask, was there a Divine Purpose and Wisdom in choosingthose two specific animals?

Is there a Divine Message that Allah Almighty is giving us in this?

What is their relevance?

Are the pigs and monkeys close to us, humans?

Can we, perhaps, medically use them?

The answer certainly lies in the next main-section, below, where Iveprovided ample scientific quotes from prominent and governmentalscientific sources that prove Allah Almightys Divine Claims, above,

and also demonstrate His Divine Wisdom with ample scientific data.

Now for those who might wonder about bestiality, no Islam does notallow bestiality (sex with animals) between humans and pigs andmonkeys, or with any other animal. Not only is bestiality, in general,forbidden in the Noble Quran, but Prophet Muhammad, peace be uponhim, also commanded the killing of those who are caught having sexwith animals:

2- The Scientific Discoveries of today clearly confirm the Noble Quran:

Let us now see what the scientific discoveries of today reveal regardingDNA and the relationship between all humans, and the relationshipthat exists between pigs, monkeys and humans..

Article #1:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains thegenetic instructions used in the development and functioning of

all known living organisms. The main role of DNA molecules is thelong-term storage ofinformation and DNA is often compared to a setof blueprints, since it contains the instructions needed to constructother components ofcells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. TheDNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, butother DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved inregulating the use of this genetic information.Article #2:A DNA sequence or genetic sequence is a successionof letters representing the primary structure of a real or hypotheticalDNAmolecule or strand, with the capacity to carry information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleculehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology%2529http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_structurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleculehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleculehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology%2529http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_structurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleculehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information


22/86

The possible letters areA, C, G, and T, representing the fournucleotide subunits of a DNA strand adenine, cytosine, guanine,thymine bases covalently linked to phospho-backbone. In the typicalcase, the sequences are printed abutting one another without gaps, asin the sequence AAAGTCTGAC, going from 5 to 3 from left to right. A

succession of any number of nucleotides greater than four isliable to be called a sequence. With regard to its biological function,which may depend on context, a sequence may be sense or anti-sense, and either coding or noncoding. DNA sequences can alsocontain junk DNA.

Sequences can be derived from the biological raw material through aprocess called DNA sequencing.

In some special cases, letters besides A, T, C, and G are present in asequence. These letters represent ambiguity. Of all the molecules

sampled, there is more than one kind of nucleotide at that position.The rules of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry(IUPAC) are as follows:

A = adenineC = cytosineG = guanineT = thymineR = G A (purine)Y = T C (pyrimidine)

K = G T (keto)M = A C (amino)S = G C (strong bonds)W = A T (weak bonds)B = G T C (all but A)D = G A T (all but C)H = A C T (all but G)V = G C A (all but T)N = A G C T (any)

Article #3:

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. One of theprimary research areas was DNA sequencing. This page details thatresearch.

The HGPs emphasis was on obtaining a complete and highly accuratereference sequence (1 error in 10,000 bases), largely continuous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeninehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytosinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaninehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyminehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_codehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeninehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytosinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaninehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyminehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_codehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC


23/86

across each human chromosome. Scientists believe that knowing thissequence is critically important for understanding human biology andfor applications to other fields.

Aworking draft of the human genome DNA sequence was completed

in June 2000, published February 2001. The working draft comprisesshotgun sequence data from mapped clones, with gaps andambiguities unresolved. Draft sequence provides a foundation forobtaining the high-quality finished sequence and also is a valuable toolfor researchers hunting disease genes. See Feb. 2001 and April 2003Science and Nature papers analyzing the sequence.

Human DNA Sequence Goals

Achieve coverage of at least 90% of the genome in a workingdraft based on mapped clones by the end of 2001.

Finish one-third of the human DNA sequence by the end of 2001.

Finish the complete human genome sequence by the end of2003.

Make the sequence totally and freely accessible.

Sequence VariationA goal also focused on identifying individual variations in the humangenome. Although more than 99% of human DNA sequences arethe same across the population, variations in DNA sequence canhave a major impact on how humans respond to disease;environmental insults such as bacteria, viruses, toxins, and chemicals;and drugs and other therapies.

Methods have been developed to detect different types of variation,particularly the most common type called single-nucleotidepolymorphisms (SNPs), which occur about once every 100 to 300

bases. SNP maps are helping scientists identify the multiple genesassociated with such complex diseases as cancer, diabetes, vasculardisease, and some forms of mental illness. These associations aredifficult to establish with conventional gene-hunting methods becausea single altered gene may make only a small contribution to diseaserisk.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/journals/journals.html


24/86

Article #4:

Pigs heart valves are already used to replace damaged humanones. One of the reasons this type of surgury can succeed is becausethe pig is so similar in its internal structure to the humans.

A lot of medical testing is done on pigs because the expected results inhumans can be duplicated in these animals.

Article #5:

Fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2006/1604746.htm.

Note: You must click on the SHOW TRANSCRIPT link, inside thearticle, to display the entire interviews transcripts.

Stem Cell Research

Australian researchers have made prostate tissue from embryonicstem cells. This means that they are able to study the development ofdiseases like prostate cancer in much more detail.Plus, a researcher inthe US wants to grow new organs from animals, but in a unique way.

A technology called somatic cell nuclear transfer is also associated withstem cells. Some people call this technology therapeutic cloning and

Norman Swan speaks with a woman who has a personal interest in thistechnique.

Also, Melbourne based scientist and journalist Elizabeth Finkel talksabout stem cells and cloning, the debate that wont go away.

Transcript

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABCcannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility ofmishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

Norman Swan: Welcome to the program. This morning on the HealthReport making new organs getting beyond the fantasy. Somatic cellnuclear transfer, what the media like to call therapeutic cloning where angels fear to tread. Well today a fearless advocate speaks outin favour of it and we hear how the debate seems to have goneunderground in Australia. And in a world first, using quite surprising
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2006/1604746.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2006/1604746.htm


25/86

means, an Australian team has been able to make embryonic stemcells become prostate tissue. This means that the development ofdiseases like prostate cancer can be studied in much more detail.Professor Gail Risbridger is in the Centre for Urology Research atMonash University.

..

Norman Swan: And what makes you think that the kidney cells froman animal like a rat are going to turn into a kidney thats going to beuseful for a human?Marc Hammerman:Well the kidney cells froman animal like the rat probably wont work in a human but froman animal like the pig they probably will. And thats because pigkidneys are remarkably like human kidneys. So if we could transplanta whole pig kidney into a human and be able to get around immuneresponses, a pig kidney would work just fine in a human as is.

.

Norman Swan: Elizabeth Finkel has a book on the matter its calledStem Calls Controversies at the Frontiers of Science and itspublished by ABC Books. Im Norman Swan and this has been theHealth Report, you can hear us again tonight after the 8 oclock newsor you can download us from our website abc.net.au/rn but dont go toyour computer yet, because weve got to hear whats on Life Matters.

Guests

Professor Gail RisbridgerCentre for Urology Research Monash University Melbourne, Victoria

Dr Marc HammermanProfessor of Medicine Washington University School of Medicine St.Louis Missouri USADr Elizabeth FinkelScientist and Journalist Melbourne

Cynthia Kramer

Democratic Candidate St. Louis Missouri

Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia Free Call Helpline 1800 220099
http://abc.net.au/rnhttp://abc.net.au/rn


26/86

Article #6:

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?

xml=/connected/2007/04/11/ecdiab11.xml.

The diabetic who is part pig

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/04/2007

Mans pig-cell implants still active after 10 years, reports Roger

Highfield

A diabetic man described yesterday how a pioneering transplant of pigcells helped to keep his disease under control for the past decade, a

hunch that has now been backed up by a scientific study.

In 1996, Michael Helyer, then a 41-year-old diabetic, was injected withprototype treatment based on pig cells to help regulate his bloodglucose levels and control his diabetes.

About a year after the implant of the insulin-producing pig cells,encapsulated in seaweed gel for protection, he became moredependent on insulin injections. He concluded that the implanted cellshad become worn out.

But over time he noticed a curious phenomenon, usually afterseveral hours with no food or insulin intake. Helyer suspected the pigcells were still alive because he found it easier to control his bloodsugar levels. The effect would come and go thats why I noticed it,said the 51-year-old who was diagnosed with Type I, or juvenile,diabetes at age 22.

His theory was that a few implanted islet cells from 1996 are still aliveand functioning, he told The Daily Telegraph. After some hours ofhard work they were able to reduce high glucose levels.

A year ago, after some nagging, because they couldnt believe mytheory he convinced the researchers to have a look. I felt that theinsulin producing pig cells were still working inside me and I had toconvince the doctors to do further investigation.

The results were surprising said Mr Helyer, the world-first patient tohave received the pig cell implant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/11/ecdiab11.xmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/11/ecdiab11.xmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/11/ecdiab11.xmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/11/ecdiab11.xml


27/86

He was right, surprising scientists and paving the way for new long-term treatments for diabetes that reduce the need for insulininjections. I was astonished, said New Zealand-based diabetesresearcher Prof Bob Elliott, founder and medical director of Living CellTechnologies .

Scientists at Living Cell Technologies recently reported in the journalXenotransplantation that insulin producing pig cells within Mr Helyerwere still alive, following laparoscopy, that revealed functioning pigislet cells in Helyers abdomen. This is the first evidence to indicatethat the companys technology for encapsulating and implanting pigcells into humans is able to provide long-term benefit, said aspokesman.

I still need insulin injections to stay alive, said Helyer, who runs amusical instrument shop in Auckland and is married with two children.

The dramatic response to the transplant operation 11 years agolasted less than a year. At best it allowed only a 30 per cent decreasein injected insulin with a measurable improvement in blood glucoselevel control.

This is better than it sounds, as that 30 per cent decrease in injectedinsulin actually results in a much greater percentage improvement inoccurrence and severity of the low blood sugar episodes.

He said that this is one of the two biggest concerns in living with type

1 diabetes. They usually ruin the rest of your day and an be fatal,especially night time during sleep.

The second concern regards the impact of poor control of the diseaseover the long term, which leads to the feared horrific complications,among them kidney disease or failure, blindness, heart disease, bloodvessel disease, reduced circulation,, gangrene and amputations.

I am naturally excited about the future potential of this treatment asit deals significantly with both of these worrying issues. Also there ismuch benefit to the psyche to know insulin is being produced in onesbody again the implanted islets switch on and off their production asrequired.

The study also shows that Helyer has suffered no illness or infectionfrom the pig cells. One objection to this kind of transplant is that pigcells contain so-called porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs), whichare dormant in pigs but could conceivably trigger disease in


28/86

humans.To minimise the chances of infection, the piglets used by thecompany hark from an island in the Antarctic where the population hasremained isolated for more than 200 years.

As for the Yuk factor Mr Helyer said No yuk for me, explaining that

to have pig cells was not the same as pig organs. He added: piginsulin was a lifesaver for me for many many years, so no issue there.

In the decade or so since the first human trial, the company has madeimprovements to both the encapsulation process and the isolation ofislet cells from pig pancreases the natural source of insulin that isdestroyed in type 1 diabetes. LCT has received approval to start a trialin Russia and is awaiting approval to conduct a trial in New Zealandthis year.

Article #7:

Fromhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html.

Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study

FindsStefan Lovgrenfor National Geographic NewsAugust 31, 2005

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and foundthat humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

Darwin wasnt just provocative in saying that we descend from theapeshe didnt go far enough, said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist

at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. We are apes in every way,from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits andtemperament.

lamic Response: ccording to Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran, weare not apes, nor did we originate from apes. All of the creatures thatyou see with your eyes were created from earthly materials and
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/


29/86

mainly from water and dust. It is, therefore, only natural andnormal to find so many similarities between us and some animals.Whats most stunning, however, is that Allah Almighty specificallychose the pigs and monkeys when He transformed the disbelieversfrom the Jews into them. Scientists have indeed confirmed that the

closest animals, in both DNA and characteristics, to humans, are thepigs and monkeys.So no, Darwin is wrong, and he is now rotting inHell Fire along with the other disbelieving infidels and doomedhypocrites who are, but not limited to, the idol-worshiping pagans, thepolytheist trinitarian pagans and their extremely pornified cum-suckingsocieties, the mischief and evil-making Jews, who are most of the Jewsaccording to the Noble Quran, the mischief and evil-making ones fromthe Muslims, like the swines of the desert, who sold Islam for the filthof this world, and others.

The following links prove my statements about our creation:

1- Life originated from water.

2- Life originated from water in the Noble Quran.

3- Life and our physical bodies originated from CLAY The NobleQuran Claimed it and Science confirmed it!

4- Creation from clay. By Dr. Harun Yahya.

5- The existence of microscopic life in the Noble Quran.

6- The decomposed dead feeds life; food cycle mentioned in theNoble Quran and confirmed by science.

Because chim panzees are our closest living relatives, the chimpgenome is the most useful key to understanding human biology andevolution, next to the human genome itself. The breakthrough will aidscientists in their mission to learn what sets us apart from otheranimals.

By comparing human and chimpanzee genomes, the researchers have

identified several sequences of genetic code that differ between humanand chimp. These sequences may hold the most promise fordetermining what creates human-specific traits such as speech.

If people are asking what makes us human, theyre not going to finda smoking gun [in this study], said Evan Eichler, a genome scientistat the University of Washington in Seattle who was part of the
http://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/blessed_jesus.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/blessed_jesus.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dumpster_section.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/life_originated_from_water.mp3http://www.answering-christianity.com/origin_of_life.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/life_from_clay.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/life_from_clay.htmhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_59.htmlhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_76.htmlhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_81.htmlhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_81.htmlhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/blessed_jesus.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/blessed_jesus.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dumpster_section.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/life_originated_from_water.mp3http://www.answering-christianity.com/origin_of_life.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/life_from_clay.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/life_from_clay.htmhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_59.htmlhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_76.htmlhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_81.htmlhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_81.html


30/86

research team. But theyre going to find suggestions for where tolook.

The project was conducted by an international group of scientistscalled the Chimp Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Sixty-seven

researchers co-authored the study, which is detailed tomorrow in thejournal Nature.

Genetic Blueprints

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of amale common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived atthe Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died lastyear from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clints genetic blueprints with that of the human

genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of ourDNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimpsis ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

Scientists also discovered that some classes of genes are changingunusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees, as compared withother mammals. These classes include genes involved in theperception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, and the productionof sperm.

Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists

identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNAmolecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant,but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differencesthat are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage.

3- Conclusion:

Again, the Noble Quran is filled with scientific statements and notions.These are statements of Allah Almighty describing how He created

things on earth and in the Universe. Whats most amazing is that all ofthese scientific statements and notions had been proven to be inperfect agreement with science and our modern-day scientificdiscoveries. Allah Almighty made the Noble Quran be ProphetMuhammads (peace be upon him) Everlasting Divine Miracle and prooffor Prophethood. The Holy Book certainly stood the test of time 1,500years ago with Its Claims, Prophecies and Miraculous language
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sci_quran.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/sci_quran.htm


31/86

eloquence, and it does again and again in our day today with Itsoverwhelming agreement with science and discoveries that were notknown to man 1,500 years ago.

Allah Almighty Said: We will soon show them Our signs in the

Universe and inside their selves, until it will become quite clear tothem that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord thatHe is a witness over all things? (The Noble Quran, 41:53)

Allah Almightys Divine Claims about Him creating us from a singleperson, and Him transforming some of the evil-doers into monkeysand pigs, are indeed in perfect harmony and agreement with science.The Miracle of the DNA in the Noble Quran, and how when AllahAlmighty Said that He created us from nafsin wahida (one soul andphysical body), His Divine Statement matched perfectly with science,because scientists have proven that all of mankinds DNAs are

approximately 99% the same, and that only 1% makes the differencebetween our characteristics and looks. Also, when Allah Almightytransformed the evil-doers into swines and monkeys, His DivineStatement matched perfectly with science, because scientists havealso proven that the pigs and monkeys are indeed the closest animals,in both DNA and characteristics, to us, humans!

So having established this solid ground from the Noble Quran andScience, it is definitely clear that we do indeed have a very sound andstrong Scientific Miracle about humans and animals DNA in the Noble

Quran.

1. Indeed, all Praise and Glory are due to Allah Almighty alone formaking the Noble Quran be the Perfect and Everlasting Miracle,for us humans, out of all of His Divine Miracles! And may AllahAlmighty send His Peace, Mercy and Blessings upon our Belovedand Blessed Prophet, Teacher and Role Model, Muhammad.Ameen.

[...] THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE added an interestingpost today (The human DNA being 99% the same, and the DNAof the pigs and monkeys being very close ours are directlysupported in the Noble Quran.).Heres a little bit of it:SOURCE:http://www. answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar. htm B [...]
http://www/http://www/


32/86

2. By The human DNA being 99% the same, and the DNA of thepigs and by diabetes.MEDtrials.info on March 4, 2008 at 7:29pm

3. By oriental medicine blog Blog Archive The human DNAbeing 99% the same, and the DNA of the pigs and on March 4,2008 at 7:57 pm

[...] sufi786 had a pretty good blog post. Definitely worth yourtime. Here is a small excerpt:With regard to its biologicalfunction, which may depend on context, a sequence may be

sense or anti-sense, and either coding or noncoding. DNAsequences can also contain junk DNA. Sequences can bederived from the biological raw [...]

4. By The human DNA being 99% the same, and the DNA of thepigs and by cancer.MEDtrials.info on March 4, 2008 at 8:20pm

[...] in much more detail.Plus, a researcher in the US wants togrow new article continues at sufi786 brought to you bycancer.medtrials.info and [...]

5. By free medical thoughts Blog Archive The human DNA being99% the same, and the DNA of the pigs and on March 4, 2008at 9:15 pm

[...] the same, and the DNA of the pigs and March 3, 200812:04 pm free medical excuse forms sufi786 always hassomething good to say. I like this one posted earlier today.Follow the link for the [...]

6. By a man called norman dvd on March 13, 2008 at 8:40 pm
http://diabetes.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://diabetes.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://si3.cmedicine.info/?p=23460http://si3.cmedicine.info/?p=23460http://cancer.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://cancer.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://sb3.cmedicine.info/?p=19499http://sb3.cmedicine.info/?p=19499http://davidplace.freehyperspace2.com/amancallednormandvd.htmlhttp://diabetes.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://diabetes.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://si3.cmedicine.info/?p=23460http://si3.cmedicine.info/?p=23460http://cancer.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://cancer.medtrials.info/2008/03/03/the-human-dna-being-99-the-same-and-the-dna-of-the-pigs-and/http://sb3.cmedicine.info/?p=19499http://sb3.cmedicine.info/?p=19499http://davidplace.freehyperspace2.com/amancallednormandvd.html


33/86

[...] Maude 1972, Good Times 1974, and The Jeffersons 1975being the others. Superb capig4220.bloguize.comThe humanDNA being 99% the same, and the DNA of the pigs and monkeysbeing very close ours are dire ?SOURCE:http://www.answering-

christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmBy Brother [...]

7. By 11 alive atlanta on March 15, 2008 at 8:55 pm

[...] litewsb atlanta 2hope botvinickbook of enochwikipediaharvard admissions contactbetrayal poemsThe humanDNA being 99% the same, and the DNA of the pigs and monkeysbeing very close ours are dire ?SOURCE:http://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmBy Brother [...]

8. By great victoria desert australia on March 20, 2008 at 2:55 am

[...] were a little steep 72 per head, but having skipped it forthree yearroadtonewyork.blogspot.comThe human DNA being99% the same, and the DNA of the pigs and monkeys being veryclose ours are dire ?SOURCE:http://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmBy Brother [...]

Is pig DNA and human DNA identical?

Yes. 98% or so of our genetic material is the same.

Is pig DNA and human DNA identical?Yes because I did a science experiment and found that the human Dnaand the pigs Dna or practically the same.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://radar34567.info/11aliveatlanta.htmlhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://sebastiannews.oxyhostsfree.com/greatvictoriadesertaustralia.htmlhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://radar34567.info/11aliveatlanta.htmlhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://sebastiannews.oxyhostsfree.com/greatvictoriadesertaustralia.htmlhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htmhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dna_of_humans_pigs_monkeys_is_similar.htm


34/86

ERV matched in ape DNA

So how do creationists account for this: ERVs in humans match thosein apes.

ERV = useless code in DNA, but present in all members of a species

Basically it goes like this. Viruses inject their DNA into the hosts DNA.This means that if the cell is able to replicate itself, it also replicatesthe viral DNA. As we all accept, creationists as well, sometimes thingsgo wrong during this replication process. Sometimes, the viral DNA isrendered inactive. This is inconsequential as the cell dies and the errordies with it. But sometimes, this can happen to sperm cells that justhappen to end up fertilizing. Therefore, the organism that is born fromthe fertilized egg carries this viral error (ERV) permanently and then

passes it on. Since we can sequence viral DNA and have sequencedthe entire human genome, we can go hunting for these viralsequences that have actually been propagating for millions of years.This is testable, every human on the planet has the same ERV's eachof which has resulted from a SINGLE little virus doing its thing at somepoint in our evolutionary history.

For evolution to be false, and this is a golden opportunity forcreationists to prove it false, you would have to see that in apes noneof these ERVs are present and they would have their own unique set ofERVs. When we looked, we found them and in the exact right place out

of billions of sequences. The only way this can currently be explainedis with evolution. We have the same error in our DNA that all apeshave. Each of these errors has a cause that we can trace to a singleevent. How can you deny that that single event took place in acommon ancestor?

Neanderthal DNA "Almost"

Identical to Human'sA few weeks ago South African scientists reported finding asupposedly 360 million year old fossil lamphrey. The problem forevolutionary theory is; the fossil lamprey is virtually identical to"present day" lampreys. Just in case some of those pesky creationistswere around to ask embarrasing questions, the scientists noted that
http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=426http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=426


35/86

though the fossil had surprisingly not evolved much, it appeared thatthe lampreys had "gotten slightly longer"!

What kind of scientist would make such an assumption based on onespecimen? An evolutionary scientist who needs to show something for

360 million years of work, that's who.

That brings us to the subject of this article, "Neanderthal Man". Themore we learn about Neanderthal, the less primitive he becomes.Recent scientific articles have admitted that modern man andNeanderthal met, interacted and even interbred. Another recent articlesuggests that Europeans could be 5% Neanderthal

On the other hand, many ruling paradigm scientists are still insistingthat Neaderthals couldn't speak and that there certainly was nointerbreeding. So, what would happen when scientists were able toisolate Neanderthal DNA, as they have recently actually done withmaterial found in a Croation cave?

Neanderthal DNA is 99.9% identical to "human" DNA! Blockbuster! Allover the news, right? 99.9% identical is certainly startling, all right butit's not 100% identical, seemingly preserving something forevolutionary scientists to hang their hats on. Like saying it looks likelamphreys got slightly longer over 360 million years.

What they don't give you is the following fact as quoted from a lecture

by Eric Lanser, Ph D; (easily verified elsewhere) "Any two humans onearth are 99.9 percent identical in their DNA sequences".

This kind of puts the data on Neanderthal DNA in a whole new light;their DNA differs from ours exactly as our differs from each other!Neanderthal is/was exactly as different from you as your next doorneighbor is, only he/she is not typically depicted hunched over wearinganimal skins and carrying a spear.

Given the fact that DNA sequencing shows that "modern humans" andNeanderthal are "identical", the article below really makes no sense,continuing the fiction that the populations remained separate and thatwe (modern humans) won (in evolutionary terms) and that they lost.Turns out that we're a little shorter, maybe.
http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=382http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=382


36/86

Neanderthal and human DNA isactually up to 99.9 per cent identical

By FIONA MACRAE

22:00pm on 15th November 2006

We may like to think we're far superior to the Neanderthals speciesthat us humans beat in the evolutionary battle.

But analysis of DNA from a38,000-year-old bonehas revealedNeanderthal and humanDNA is actually up to99.9 per cent identical.

In contrast, humansand chimps only share95 per cent of theirgenetic material.

The discovery came asscientists work on decodingthe entire Neanderthalgenome from a perfectly-preserved artefact. Foundin a cave in Croatia, thebone could hold the key to many of the secrets of evolution.

Dr Edward Rubin, one of the US and German researchers who have

started to sequence the ancient DNA, said: 'We are at the dawn ofNeanderthal genomics. 'This data will function as a DNA timemachine and tell us aspects of biology we could never get frombones or associated artefacts.

Fossil remains have already shown that Neanderthals lookeddifferent from us, with heavy brows, low foreheads, and receding


37/86

chins. They were also much more robustly built than modernhumans.

A full blueprint of Neanderthal DNA - due to be produced in twoyears' time - could provide information on eye colour and hair

colour, intelligence and language. The partial sequencing completedso far has confirmed the theory that humans and Neanderthals splitfrom their common ancestor between 400,000 and 500,000 yearsago, studies published in the journals Nature and Science report.

The two then co-existed for many thousands of years beforeNeanderthals became extinct around 30,000 years ago, perhapsbeaten by their more innovative cousins in the race for food,clothing and shelter.

It is thought they were unable to compete with the more innovativeand adaptable Homo sapiens for food, clothing and shelter. Whilethe studies did not find any evidence that the two populationsinterbred, the researchers were unable to completely rule out theidea.

Dr Svante Paabo (CORR), of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig,Germany, said: 'While unable to definitively conclude thatinterbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur,analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the lowlikelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.'

Co-researcher Professor Jonathan Pritchard, of the University ofChicago, said further analysis could provide more evidence of whatmakes us human.

'Humans went through several key stages of evolution during thelast 400,000 years,' he said. 'If we can compare humans andNeanderthal genomes, then we can possibly identify what the keygenetic changes were during that final stage of human evolution.'

Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the NaturalHistory Museum in London, said: 'Research can now extend tocomplete the whole genome of a Neanderthal and to examineNeanderthal variation through time and space to compare with ours.

'Having such rich data holds the promise of looking for theequivalent genes in Neanderthals that code for specific features in


38/86

modern humans, for example eye colour, skin and hair type,cognitive and language skills.'

He added: 'Having a Neanderthal genome will also throw light onour own evolution, by allowing a three-way comparison of the

genetic blueprints that produced Neanderthals, and that todayproduce us and our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

'We should then be able to pin down unique changes in eachgenome to show how we came to be different from each other.' *In just 50 years' time, we'll live healthily to 100, thanks to fullbody transplants and a vegetarian diet, leading scientists predict.

Asked to forecast the biggest scientific breakthroughs of the next50 years, they said the development of anti-aging drugs will allow

us to live to a sprightly 100.

Professor Richard Miller, of the University of Michigan, said: 'It isnow routine in laboratory mammals to extend lifespan by about40 per cent. 'Turning on the same protective system in humansshould, by 2056, create the first class of centenarians who are asvigorous and productive as today's run-of-the-millsexagenarians.'

Advances in storing both eggs and ovarian tissue will allowwomen to give birth into old age, while technology that allows usto read the minds of animals will lead to mass vegetarianism.

New Scientist magazine's 50th birthday issue also predicts wholebody transplants will be routine within just 50 years.

Scientists expect to reproduceNeanderthal DNA

Submitted by coldrum on Wednesday, 27 June 2007

Researchers studying Neanderthal DNA say it should be possible toconstruct a complete genome of the ancient hominid despite thedegradation of the DNA over time.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/user.php?op=userinfo&uname=coldrumhttp://www.megalithic.co.uk/user.php?op=userinfo&uname=coldrum


39/86

There is also hope for reconstructing the genome of the mammoth andcave bear, according to a research team led by Svante Paabo of theMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig,Germany.

Their findings are published in this week's online edition of Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences.

Debate has raged for years about whether there is any relationshipbetween Neanderthals and modern humans. Some researchers believethat Neanderthals were simply replaced by early modern humans,while others argue the two groups may have interbred.

Sequencing the genome of Neanderthals, who lived in Europe untilabout 30,000 years ago, could shed some light on that question.

In studies of Neanderthals, cave bear and mammoth, a majority of theDNA recovered was that of microorganisms that colonized the tissuesafter death, the researchers said.

But they were able to identify some DNA from the original animal, andPaabo and his colleagues were able to determine how it broke downover time. They also developed procedures to prevent contaminationby the DNA of humans working with the material.

"We are confident that it will be technically feasible to achieve a

reliable Neanderthal genome sequence," Paabo and his researchersreported.

They said problem of damaged areas in some DNA could be overcomeby using a sufficient amount of Neanderthal DNA from differentindividuals, so the whole genome can be determined. "Thecontamination and degradation of DNA has been a serious issue for thelast 10 years," observed Erik Trinkaus, a professor at WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis. "This is a serious attempt to deal with thatissue and that's welcome."

"I'm not sure they have completely solved the problem, but they'vemade a big step in that direction," said Trinkaus, who was not involvedin the research.

Anthropologist Richard Potts of the Smithsonian's National Museum ofNatural History, called the work "a very significant technical study of


40/86

DNA decay."

The researchers "have tried to answer important questions about thepotential to sequence ancient DNA," said Potts, who was not part ofthe research.

Milford Wolpoff, a University of Michigan Anthropologist, said creatinga complete Neanderthal genome is a great goal.

But it is "sample intensive," he said, and he isn't sure enough DNA isavailable to complete the work. Curators don't like to see theirspecimens ground up, he said.

The research was funded by the Max Planck Society and the NationalInstitutes of Health.

How to Reconstruct the Neandertal Genome (Score: 1)by coldrum on Wednesday, 27 June 2007A Neandertal, mammoth and cave bear wandered into a lab and, in theprocess, revealed how it might be possible to reconstruct their entiregenetic makeup.

If you want to bring back from extinction the relative of modern Homosapiens known as Neandertal man, you must first have a working copyof his genetic blueprint. But it is difficult to determine which DNA froma 38,000-year-old skeleton is bona fide Neandertal and which is from

bacteria or contamination with modern human DNA. Now ancient DNAexpert Svante Pbowho is working on reconstructing the Neandertalgenomehas shown how the ravages of time are largely restricted tojust a few types of errors.

Pbo, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology inLeipzig, Germany, and his colleagues examined ground-up Neandertalbone as well as 43,000-year-old mammoth bone and 42,000-year-oldcave bear bone to determine whether the genomes of such ancientcreatures could be sequenced. Although researchers, including Pbo,

have been able to extract DNA from such bones, the entire geneticblueprint remains difficult to map due to confusing gaps in the longstrand and potential contamination.

But by analyzing the available DNA, Pbo found that such damage ismost likely to occur at certain junctures in the strand near the end ofmolecules and, further, that such breakages are most likely to be


41/86

misread as cytosine (C) for thymine (T) or guanine (G) for adenine (A)the chemical bases that make up DNA.

"The damage seems to be limited to these two kinds of changes, andthey have established that other changes can be trusted as genuine

differences between ancient sequences and living homologues," saysJohn Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of WisconsinMadison.

Given this predictability, the researchers should be able to reconstructthe Neandertal genomeor the genome of wooly mammoths, cavebears or any other extinct creature from that periodand use far lessDNA to do it, sparing more fossils from grinding. "Except for C to T, Gto A and perhaps G to T substitutions, nucleotide substitutionsobserved in Neandertals relative to humans and chimpanzees are as

reliable as if they had been determined from contemporary DNA," theresearchers write in Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesUSA.

Any complete genome raises the prospect of bringing back onceextinct animals and peoples by placing ancient DNA in the embryos ofmodern relatives, but Pbo dismisses the possibility. "One cannotclone individuals from DNA," he says, "only from intact cells."

Nevertheless, such efforts are underway for some Pleistocene animals."I know that people are wanting to try to clone a mammoth," Hawks

says. "I predict they will failnot because it is impossible, but becausewe don't understand enough about the genetic differences betweenmammoths and elephants yet to make it work."

The Neandertal genome is more likely to prove useful as a comparisonwith that of H. sapiens. After all, even though the ancient hominid diedout, Neandertal can be a guide to our own genome, not unlike modernliving relatives such as the chimpanzee. "Every genetic differencebetween a Neandertal and a living person is a potential candidate for agene or drug therapy," Hawks says. "Every one of their genes worked

in a humanlike creature. We know that none of them were lethal. So,for instance, functional differences between Neandertals and humansin muscle metabolism might lead to treatments for problems inhumans like muscle wasting."

Tooth growth suggests rapid maturation in a Neanderthal child


42/86

An international European research collaboration led by scientists atthe Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology reportsevidence for a rapid developmental pattern in a 100,000 year oldBelgian Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis). The report, published

in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (onlineedition early December), details how the team used growth lines bothinside and on the surfaces of the childs teeth to reconstruct toothformation time and its age at death. Scientists found differences in theduration of tooth growth in the Neanderthal when compared to modernhumans, with the former showing shorter times in most cases. Thisfaster growth resulted in a more advanced pattern of dentaldevelopment than in fossil and living members of our own species(Homo sapiens). The Scladina juvenile, which appears to bedevelopmentally similar to a 10-12 year old human, was estimated to

be in fact about 8 years old at death. This pattern of developmentappears to be intermediate between early members of our genus (e.g.,Homo erectus) and living people, suggesting that the characteristicallyslow development and long childhood is a recent condition unique toour own species.

Neanderthal life history, or the timing of developmental andreproductive events, has been under great debate during the past fewdecades. Across primates, tooth development, specifically the age ofmolar eruption, is related to other developmental landmarks such asweaning and first reproduction. Scientists have previously found

evidence to both support and refute the idea that Neanderthals grewup differently than our own species. In this new study, researchersused information from the inside of a molar tooth, coupled with datafrom micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), as well as evidence ofdevelopmental stress on the outsides of tooth crowns and roots. Thisyields the first chronology, or time sequence, for Neanderthal toothgrowth, which differs from living humans. The Scladina Neanderthalgrew teeth over a shorter period of time, and has more teeth erupted(present in the mouth), than similarly-aged fossil or living humans(Homo sapiens). This suggests that other aspects of physical

development were likely more rapidly achieved as well, implyingsignificant differences in the behaviour or social organization of theseancient humans.

Neanderthal-human hybrid 'a myth' (Score: 1)by coldrum on Tuesday, 18 December 2007


43/86

Neanderthal-human hybrid 'a myth'

Did modern humans interbreed with Neanderthals and, if so, did themating result in a half-human, half-Neanderthal hybrid?

The answer is possibly 'yes' to the interbreeding but 'no' to the hybrid,according to the authors of a new study that is already making wavesamong anthropologists.

At the centre of the study, published online in the Journal of HumanEvolution, and the current debate, is a 29,000 year old Romanian skullthat is one of the oldest fossils in Europe with modern human features.

But those features aren't quite a perfect match with us, which has ledsome experts to suspect it was a cross between a Neanderthal and a

modern human.

That's not so, according to study leader Dr Katerina Harvati, a seniorresearcher in the Department of Human Evolution at the Max PlanckInstitute for Evolutionary Anthropology and adjunct associate professorof anthropology at the City University of New York Graduate School.

"It differs from living people only in subtle ways, and always wellwithin the range of modern human variation," says Harvati, whoworked with the Max Planck Institute researcher Dr Philipp Gunz andProfessor Dan Grigorescu, from the University of Bucharest.

"It has, for instance, slightly heavier eyebrows than the averageperson, and is generally somewhat more robust than average," sheadds, explaining that modern humans have gradually evolved tobecome more slight and slender than upper Palaeolithic people were.

Comparing skullsShe and her team took detailed 3D measurements of the Romanianskull, called Cioclovina calvaria, and compared these with a similar

head shape analysis of Neanderthals, modern humans and fossils ofother hominids found in Europe, Africa and countries bordering theeastern Mediterranean Sea.

The researchers also studied animal hybrids and developed anunprecedented list of proposed criteria for evaluating whether or not afossil specimen is a hybrid.


44/86


45/86

DNA Shows Newly Discovered HumanRelative Roamed Widely in Asia

Dec 23, 2010 8:59 AM

Malcolm Ritter

APNEW YORK -- Scientists have recovered the DNA code of a human

relative recently discovered in Siberia, and it delivered a surprise: Thisrelative roamed far from the cave that holds its only known remains.

By comparing the DNA to that of modern populations, scientists foundevidence that these "Denisovans" from more than 30,000 years agoranged all across Asia. They apparently interbred with the ancestors ofpeople now living in Melanesia, a group of islands northeast ofAustralia.

There's no sign that Denisovans mingled with the ancestors of peoplenow living in Eurasia, which made the connection between Siberia and

distant Melanesia quite a shock.

David Reich, Nature/AP

This undated photo provided by the journal Nature shows two views of

an upper molar tooth found in a Siberian cave from a recently


46/86

discovered relative of humans that lived more than 30,000 years ago.

DNA revealed that this creature is more closely related to Neanderthals

than to modern humans. That indicates that both this creature and

Neanderthals sprang from a common ancestor on a different branch of

the evolutionary family tree than the one leading to modern humans.

(David Reich, Nature/AP)It's the second report in recent months of using a new tool, genomesof ancient human relatives, to illuminate the evolutionary history ofhumankind. In May, some of the same scientists reported using theNeanderthal genome to show that Neanderthals interbred withancestors of today's non-African populations. That might havehappened in the Middle East after the ancestors left Africa but beforethey entered Eurasia, researchers said.

As for the Denisovans, the new work is probably just the start of what

can be learned from their genome, said one expert familiar with theresearch. Eventually, it should provide clues to traits like eye and skincolor, said Todd Disotell of New York University.

"We're going to be able to piece these people together in the next fewyears from this genome," he said.

The existence of a new human relative was first revealed just ninemonths ago from a sampling of DNA recovered from a finger bonediscovered in the Denisova Cave in southern Siberia. Researchers

proposed the informal name Denisovans for them in Thursday's issueof the journal Nature, where they report the new results.

There's not enough evidence to determine whether Denisovans are adistinct species, the researchers said.

The genome, recovered from the finger bone, showed that Denisovansare more closely related to Neanderthals than to modern humans. Thatindicates that both they and Neanderthals sprang from a commonancestor on a different branch of the evolutionary family tree than theone leading to modern humans.

Scientists have no idea what Denisovans looked like, said David Reich,a Harvard University researcher and an author of the new paper.

Apart from the genome, the researchers reported finding a Denisovanupper molar in the cave. Its large size and features differ from teeth ofNeanderthals or early modern humans, both of which lived in the same


47/86

area at about the same time as the Denisovans.

Neither the finger bone nor the tooth can be dated directly, but testsof animal bones found nearby show the Denisovan remains are at least30,000 years old, and maybe more than 50,000 years old, Reich said.

Scientists found evidence that in the genomes of people now living inMelanesia, about 5 percent of their DNA can be traced to Denisovans,a sign of ancient interbreeding that took researchers by surprise.

"We thought it was a mistake when we first saw it," Reich said. "Butit's real."

And that suggests Denisovans once ranged widely across Asia, he said.Somehow, they or their ancestors had to encounter anatomically

modern humans who started leaving Africa some 55,000 years agoand reached New Guinea by some 45,000 years ago.

It seems implausible that this journey took a detour through southernSiberia without leaving a genetic legacy in other Eurasian populations,Reich said. It makes more sense that this encounter happened muchfarther south, indicating Denisovans ranged throughout Asia, overthousands of miles and different climate zones, he said.

Yet, archaeologists have reported virtually no sign of the Denisovans,no tools or other indications of how they lived. Maybe that's because

sites in Asia haven't been studied as systematically as Neanderthalsites in Europe, he said.

Disotell said he and colleagues were "blown away" by the unexpectedMelanesia finding, with its implication for where Denisovans lived.

"Clearly they had to have been very widespread in Asia," and DNAsampling of isolated Asian populations might turn up more of theirgenetic legacy, he said.

Rick Potts, director of the human origins program at the SmithsonianInstitution, said the new work greatly strengthens the case thatDenisovans differed from Neanderthals and modern humans.

Still, they may not be a new species, because they might represent acreature already known from fossils but which didn't leave any DNA tocompare, such as a late-surviving Homo heidelbergensis, he said.


48/86

Potts also said the Melanesia finding could mean that the Melanesiansand the Denisovans didn't intermix, but simply happened to retainancestral DNA sequences that had been lost in other populationssampled in the study. But he stressed he doesn't know if that's abetter explanation than the one offered by the authors.

"I am excited about this paper (because) it just throws so much outthere for contemplation that is testable," Potts said. "And that's goodscience."


49/86

An interesting talk

By Ashley L.

No, humans are closer to "monkeys" (or primates as they're moreaccurately known). Humans are primates from

man and animals are 96 percent the same

Documents