Olfactory genes along with mutations across ape species. Does this not prove common ancestry?
QUESTION: "A paper has a sampling of olfactory genes along with mutations across ape species. Does this not prove common ancestry"?
This this actually does NOT line up. Before I get into why this does not matter, and also how to answer this easily, let's Break this down... First they ignored the differences. Humans have much fewer Olfactory receptor (OR) pseudogenes. That's right, primates have almost twice as many!
Now remember, evolutionists believe in something called neutral theory, where all things evolve (mutate) at the same rate. Therefore since the split, humans and chimps have existed for the same amount of time and have undergone the same amount of evolution. Therefore, a constant rate of mutations should have caused humans and chimps to have the same amount of pseudogenes right?
Well let's read this study; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546523/ "In agreement with previous reports based on a small number of ORs, we find that humans have a significantly higher proportion of OR pseudogenes than chimpanzees. Moreover, we can reject the possibility that humans have been accumulating OR pseudogenes at a constant neutral rate since the divergence of human and chimpanzee."
They literally refuted their own evolutionary theory and didn't realize it! Evolution theory hinges on neutral theory.
This study states; "Humans have >1,000 OR genes, of which only ∼40% have an intact coding region and are therefore putatively functional. In contrast, the fraction of intact OR genes in the genomes of the great apes is significantly greater (68%–72%)". This study resequenced 20 OR genes in 16 humans, 16 chimpanzees, and one orangutan. We compared the variation at the OR genes with that at intergenic regions."
So humans have almost twice as many intact Olfactory receptor (OR) than other primates and way more than monkeys but much more pseudogenes. What does that mean? Less is broken, it's more functional.
They even admitted; "the observation that humans have more pseudogenes than apes remains statistically significant." So they notice this matters but remember they will always discount any differences and only look to similarities. Remember, they are always thinking in an evolutionary mindset. So the fact this is reversed means everything. We should have less intact since there are more pseudogenes, but we find the opposite! If mutations are breaking up these intact coding regions to make pseudogenes, then why do we have more than apes? If neutral theory was true we should have the same if not less than apes literally have twice as fast generation times.
Now, this is where they try to validate this proves evolution... "14 OR loci from one gene cluster on human chromosome 17 in humans and apes (9). Although three to five of these 14 OR loci were found to carry coding region disruptions in one or more ape species, all 14 OR genes were inferred to be intact in the common ancestor of all apes". Of the 5 total max that are in the protein coding regions of some primates alive today, only a few of those match down the line. And when we actually compare humans and chimps in this area what do we see? Well darn look at that. "The comparison of the two repertoires reveals two chimpanzee-specific OR subfamily expansions and three expansions specific to humans." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546523/ So we find 3 that are different and specific to humans that do not align with chimps at all and 2 in chimps that are specific to only chimps. So the whole, "but they have mutations in the same spot" argument doesn't matter at all. Yes they have the same genes, but the gene's mutation rate is in reverse order!
If humans and chimps have existed the same amount of time, then chimps who would have had double the amount of generations would have many more pseudogenes than humans today. They only have 2 of these protein coding genes and humans have 3 (1 more than them). So even if evolutionists wanted to claim that neutral theory was true and that they mutate at the same rate, well that fails them as well. So either way they have nothing but storytelling at this point to try and prove common ancestry, this is why they will hand wave all of that away and focus on just mutations that are in the same spot of a gene.
But that is easily answered as there are mutation hot spots in every region of the genome, so of course there are going to be matching mutations in some regions. It's like looking at tires on vehicles and wondering why they wear down faster than other parts of the vehicle. Well they should! Consider this. Mutations that end up being bad, what happens to them? Well, if you get cancer you die. You are no longer going to pass that mutation on. Therefore, most mutations that get passed on are ones that selection cannot remove because its not harmful enough for selection to remove.
When you drive does it matter if you turn left or right to wear your tires down? Of course not. Damage is damage, and it looks the same. The same goes for the genome. at each gene site you have 4 possible outcomes. One you were born with, odds are most likely beneficial. 2 possible outcomes are bad and one of those will most likely cause a huge health problem and selection most likely will remove or you will die. The other will cause another health problem but not as bad. That only leaves one more option. So it should not be surprising there are shared mutations.
What is the magical rescue device they use for all of this nonsense? Selection must have done it. JUST ADD TIME! Shocking I know (Sorry for the sarcasm, but how many times I have read, co-option, convergence and selection at this point it's getting annoying.) Imagine if every article I wrote I said, and God did it, and then a miracle happened, then God did that. Well, that's all I am reading, it's a God of the gaps argument for evolutionists to fill in all the problems and not address them. Its "evolution must be true so fill in the gaps anyway you chose, just make it sound scientific."
Here is the real question; Why do evolutionists ignore everything that does not line up? Here are some examples; HERV-K GC1 is found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but not in humans? https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/6/11/4140 It's clear that since humans are related and in the last line of ancestry we would have inherited this right? Yet we did not. So like any hypothesis, if this was in court and a jury wanted just one piece of evidence to prove if evolution was guilty or innocent of starting with the assumption of shared common ancestry using inheritable variants and never considering design, then it would be found guilty. Remember we only need one piece of evidence to prove common ancestry is not true and it all breaks down. We have that, but let's look at more shall we? Endogenous retrovirus PtERV1 is present in chimps and other great apes, but NOT in humans and orangutans. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00227-5 So wait a minute, the orangutan came first. It never attracted the virus, then a gorilla got infected and when it speciated into the next ancestor it passed it on, then then this common ancestor produced the ancestors of both the human and chimp line it just forgot to pass it onto the human line? Comon, this is nonsense. These are germline inheritable only things, they cannot just not get passed on. Every proceeding lineage should have it down the line if evolution was true. The fact that multiple examples from genes, ERVs, mutations, chromosomes, etc... all do not follow common descent shows us that evolution is not true. This is why when you look at cytochrome C vs Cytochrome B they both falsify each other. Yet, they should both make the same tree if evolution was true. Yet they form different trees. Why is that? Read for yourself what evolutionists themselves have even admitted when they discovered this!
As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: "The mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied... an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirrhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting."
French evolution biologist François Jacob states “The cytochrome C phylogeny disagrees with the traditional [evolutionary] one in several instances,” https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ194813
Even another evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala at UCI reluctantly concedes, “including the following: the chicken appears to be related more closely to the penguin than to ducks and pigeons; to the turtle. a reptile, appears to be related more closely to birds than to the rattlesnake, and man and monkeys diverge from the mammals before the marsupial kangaroo separates from the placental mammals.”
They never consider design differences. A study on this very subject admitted this when comparing genetic similarity...
That is the problem! Wrong starting points draw the wrong conclusions. It's the paradigm driving the conclusions. Evolution MUST be true because evolution IS true. Evolution is not bad science, it is not science at all.