Denisovan Genome Disproves Human Evolution

In a Siberian cave, far from Europe, scientists discover a finger bone and two teeth. What were they? According to the story of human evolution, these people were a less-known group called the Denisovans.

Scientists who believed in human evolution were surprised not just by discovering another group of ancient humans, because with just meager fragments, 70 percent of the DNA still remained in what they considered to be 82,000 years old! What? Let me say that again, the DNA remained in what they considered to be 82,000 years old! Does soft tissue really last that long even at 30,000 years old? No! But if you believe in human evolution one has to suspend logic for a story.

In nature news a revised take on the story with new twists with the discovery in mind…

“Unfortunately, the Denisovan genome doesn’t provide many more clues about what this hominin looked like than a pinky bone does. The researchers will only conclude that Denisovans likely had dark skin. They also note that there are alleles “consistent” with those known to call for brown hair and brown eyes. Other than that, they cannot say.”

“Yet the new genetic analysis does support the hypothesis that Neandertals and Denisovans were more closely related to one another than either was to modern humans. The analysis suggests that the modern human line diverged from what would become the Denisovan line as long as 700,000 years ago—but possibly as recently as 170,000 years ago.”

How could have ancient humans who lived in a Siberian cave who were considered lower than Neanderthals interbreed with modern humans? Before the  sequencing of the genome took place it would have been considered, impossible! But in human evolution, falsifications are confirmations as shown below…

“Going back further in time will be exciting.  There’s a huge race on—it’s exciting” says John Hawkins.

Rather than admitting their evolutionary story had been wrong with real-time observations, it’s now a race to get to the finish line.  Not only that but it is implausible that this bone contained 70% of its original DNA after 82,000 years! Who would believe such preservation of soft tissue? It’s a stretch to say the least. It’s much more likely that this individual lived a few thousand years ago at most.

Who would believe that the Denisovan people who stayed isolated from the rest of the world, who never thought of making tools to build a town or even ride a horse for over a hundred thousand years but being able to travel vast distances to court with modern humans in Europe every now and then.  Talk about a bizarre story in human evolution!

While a new sequencing technique now available to researchers that can be used to discern a genome from one DNA strand rather than both is quite remarkable but trying to explain it in historical terms which is forced into a particular framework known as human evolution, is not remarkable, it’s not even science.

We live in an exciting time, since the earth is actually thousands of years old, we are able to learn more about the past rather than loosing valuable information which comes from DNA if the earth was older!

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Denisovan Genome Disproves Human Evolution

  1. Michael: “Scientists who believed in human evolution”

    Again, scientists do not believe. Believing is NOT part of the scientific method.
    Michael, do you still have no clue what sciece is all about ??? After all these years ?

    Michael: ” since the earth is actually thousands of years old ”

    Because ??? What evidence do you have for that ??? All the evidence points towards 4.5 billion years. Very, very clearly by now.

  2. Hi Michael. I was a bit perplexed by your surprise at DNA preservation more than 30,000 years. Is there some sort of physical barrier to DNA being beyond a few thousand years old? Certainly chemists have worked with DNA as a molecule and found that there are theoretical limits to DNA preservation in various storage media (dried, in water, different temperature, certain ions present) and so there is a theoretical limit of less than 1 million years in dried cool conditions or permafrost and probably less than 200,000 years. And certainly samples in humid wet and warm environments DNA doesn’t last any more than a couple thousand years unless it is in a place that can be kept very dry. 80,000 years would be predicted based on chemistry to be a difficult task but not completely unexpected. These bones are found in very dry locations so there is to mineralization and the bone is essentially freeze dried. It is not particularly astonishing that DNA can be found. Actually, the DNA is found in exactly the condition predicted for its age. DNA is not found in long strands but has been fractured by ion exchange reactions into billions of tiny fragments that are only a few bases to several hundreds of bases rather than hundreds of millions like they are in yoru and I. this is why only newer techniques of DNA sequencing are finally able to sequence these tiny strands and then reconstruct the genome like a puzzle. This is the type of DNA expected in very old preserved specimens. Also note that DNA hasn’t been recovered from other presumably much older human bones despite presered bones of some that are maybe 500,000 years old. This again fits the prediction of DNA degradation patterns. Joel

  3. . . . . . . . .Denisovan Genome Disproves Human Evolution

    Well, no. But the Denisovan genome certainly disproves creationist evolution.

  4. How could have ancient humans who lived in a Siberian cave who were considered lower than Neanderthals interbreed with modern humans?

    Perhaps they came out of their caves occasionally. Creationists are the only ones who never come out of their caves.

    And, if creationists can interbreed with humans, then surely the barrier is not too high for primitive Denisovans..

    ——————————————–

    Natural Historian said the scientific stuff very well. We’ll never penetrate Michael’s cranium with mere facts He seems to have perfected a cloaking device for inconvenient truths.

  5. A list of Michael’s factual errors in this post would be lengthy. So just a couple easy ones—things that any biologist knows.

    Let me say that again, the DNA remained in what they considered to be 82,000 years old! Does soft tissue really last that long even at 30,000 years old? No!

    Michael thinks that DNA is “soft tissue.” DNA is a molecule. Soft tissue is made up of millions and millions of molecules organized into a structure. Molecules are NOT tissue.

    Who would believe that the Denisovan people who stayed isolated from the rest of the world, who never thought of making tools to build a town or even ride a horse for over a hundred thousand years but being able to travel vast distances to court with modern humans in Europe every now and then. Talk about a bizarre story in human evolution!

    Michael appareantly did not read the same article that the rest of us did.
    > The Densisovans apparently did not stay isolated, if they interbred with modern humans. Stupid.
    > No other humans in that time period made (iron) tools, rode horses,[1] or built towns either. So why do you say that the Denisovans are “lower” than the others? Racist.
    > Why do you say that Denisovans interbred in Europe? The article says that modern Asians are the ones that carry Denisovan genes. Illiterate..

    Michael just makes stuff up, and offers it as fact. He follows Dickie Smothers’ [2] motto: “If it don’t fit, force it.” This lack of moral standards is why creationists have no credibility.

    =================

    [1] Fact check: Michael, are you a modern human? Can you ride a horse? Where in the horse’s mouth do you place the bit? I thought not.

    [2] Aw, c’mon.Nobody remembers the Smothers Brothers???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s