Mimic Octopus Changing Color, Shape and Behavior & Cuttle fish's brain

 Dear friends: In a blink of eyes, Mimic Octopus can emulate poisonous Lionfish and other sea creatures to scare others away and protect themselves from their predators!!

2 color Chromaticity charts to match color: just matching all the range of color is difficult, let alone mimicking and impersonate other creatures vividly!!!

Furthermore, Octupus & Cuttlefish are color blind, how can they match colors?

Octopus mystery: how do they see color? - Carnegie Museum of Natural Historycarnegiemnh.org

These are interesting links for you below! 

【一席YIXI】梁希同：這可能是人類第一次聽到烏賊的心聲🦑 Cuttlefish's brain

https://www.joesgonediving.com/en/10-fun-facts-about-cuttlefish/

10 Fun Facts about Cuttlefish

1.     Cuttlefish have not one, not two, but three hearts!

Two hearts are used to pump blood to the cuttlefish’s large gills, and the third heart is used to circulate oxygenated blood to the rest of the body.

 2.     Cuttlefish have truly impressive vision

Cuttlefish can see what’s behind them. It can see well in low light and can also detect polarized light, enhancing its perception of contrast. The cuttlefish moves its lenses by reshaping its entire eye. Also, the cuttlefish’s eyes are very large in proportion to its body and may increase image magnification upon the retina, while the distinct ‘W’-shaped pupil helps control the intensity of light entering the eye.”

3.     Chameleons of the sea

Cuttlefish are referred to as the “chameleons of the sea” due to their color-changing abilities. They can do this even though they are completely color blind. They can even successfully change color to match their surroundings in complete darkness. Cuttlefish are cephalopods, which means they are in the same class as octopus who are also great at camouflage.

...

10.  Cuttlefish Can See Light Invisible to Humans

Cuttlefish can’t see color, but they can see polarized light, an adaptation which may aid in their ability to sense contrast and determine what colors and patterns to use when blending into their surroundings.  The pupils of cuttlefish are W-shaped and help control the intensity of light entering the eye.  To focus on an object, a cuttlefish changes the shape of its eye, rather than the shape of its eye’s lens, as we do.

 

Amazing Cuttlefish's brain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE2kTGF0RZc&t=17s

I have watched this video about the brain of Cuttlefish (烏賊 ) which is very fascinating to me.

It seems to me its' brain has at least had a wonderful built-in chip with a program to match colors. I couldn't believe that all these magic talents of mimicking came from evolution. Though the narrator in this video thinks so. Take a look, it's very interesting and fascinating.   

Mimic Octopus Changing Color, Shape and Behavior

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgDGTLRcwa8

The Insane Biology of: The Octopus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFP_AjJeP-M

Think about it!

Where does Mimic Octopus' intelligence come from? 

Evolution or Creation, which one makes more sense? How could their smartness develop through evolution gradually? Their eyes are even found color blind! Their species could be wiped out long before they gradually evolved many defense mechanisms to protect their lives! Adding many million years or billion years couldn't solve this puzzle! 

Isn't it easier to believe that our Creator has designed them to have built-in intelligent chips and programs of mimicking other creatures and shifting shapes with matching colors to start with?

I don't believe in Macro-evolution across species, because they couldn't produce offspring at all, i.e. mules and other cross species hybrid animals usually can't have offspring.(Amazingly, there are at least 18 hybrid animals, some are just in zoos.

 https://www.boredpanda.com/strange-hybrid-animals-that-are-hard-to-believe-actually-exist/ )

That echoes that God created all creatures according to their own kind. ( Genesis 1:20-21 Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—

each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.)

But Micro-evolution inside one's own species happens all the time for them to adjust to their environments and survival. ( my 2 cents opinion)

https://octolab.tv/species/mimic-octopus/

(...the way in which the mimic octopus puts this ability to use does spark some interesting questions. How does it select which animals to emulate? How are they able to customize this ability to different regions with different local fauna?  ) 

It is for good reason that this species of octopus is colloquially known as the mimic octopus. That is exactly what it does to great effect. It is literally able to alter its coloration and shape to mimic other animals that share its habitat. Among the animals that the mimic octopus can “impersonate” are jellyfish, sea snakes, flatfish, and lionfish. All told, individual mimic octopuses have been observed to have the ability to mimic as many 18 different sea creatures.

Marine biologists have not fully cataloged all of the animals that the mimic octopus can imitate. It is believed that the range of animals that the mimic octopus can emulate varies depending on the immediate area which a single specimen inhabits. In other words, depending on what other sea creatures are their neighbors, those are the species that the mimic octopus will “assume.”

The mimic octopus not only takes on the general shape and coloration of those animals, but it is also able to mimic their movements and behavior. The mimic octopus doesn’t just try to blend in — it acts like the animal that it is mimicking. Think of them as the “Rich Little” of octopi.

When marine biologists first discovered this species of octopus in 1998 they were impressed by its “shapeshifting” abilities. There are no other species of octopus which can do what the mimic octopus does. Yes, there are many octopi species which are adept at camouflaging themselves into the background of their respective habitats by changing pigmentation, but none come close to what the mimic octopus does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbT3ilH2o4

15 Interesting Facts About the Mimic Octopus

https://truthinlionsden.blogspot.com/2017/05/can-you-reprogram-your-nervous-systems.html

10 Most Beautiful Octopus Species In The World - YouTube

Did Scientists Really Discover a Human Ancestor?

• 
• Hominid Hype and Homo Naledi: Did Scientists Really Discover a Human Ancestor? ( click this link for the whole article)

...For now, the promoters of Homo naledi are calling it an "anatomical mosaic." That terminology raises a red flag. In the parlance of evolutionary biology, that usually means the fossil is a unique organism that doesn't fit easily into the standard evolutionary tree.

Indeed, just four years ago Australopithecus sediba — also discovered and promoted by Berger — was the transitional form du jure between the australopithecines and our own genus Homo. Yet sediba had a very different set of traits from naledi. If the same researchers now want to advocate Homo naledi as the new "transitional form," they must radically revise their evolutionary story. Both species been called a "human ancestor," in recent years, but both claims cannot be true.

Another major challenge to claims for Homo naledi as a transitional form is the fact that the age of these newly reported fossils is currently totally unknown. For all we presently know, the fossils could be very young (say, less than 250,000 years old), and far removed from any hypothetical evolutionary transition between Australopithecus and Homo.

Homo naledi's promoters are suggesting it is between 2.5 and 3 million years old. But that date isn't the result of an objective geological dating analysis. Rather, that date is driven strictly by evolutionary considerations, because we have very few bones from that time period and very little to document the supposed transition between the apelike australopithecines and the humanlike members of Homo.

At present, there's no geological evidence that this species is from that time period and plugs some "gap" in the fossil record. Claims that it is a human ancestor are driven by hype, not evidence.

...This explanation is more consistent with the evidence, so why do naledi's discoverers claim the species ritualistically buried its dead? It's simple: they want a small-brained species with human-like behavior. Evolutionary considerations, not evidence, again, are driving the conclusions.

Lastly, there are controversies about whether "Homo" naledi even belongs in our own genus Homo. Biological classification is highly subjective, but given the species's small brain size and its australopithecine-like body, it's placement within Homo has already proven controversial.

Four years ago the media was claiming Australopithecus sediba was the newest human ancestor. But cooler heads prevailed and it was shown that sediba was from the wrong time period and had the wrong traits to be a link between humanlike members of the genus Homo and the apelike australopithecines.

What will become of "Homo naledi" remains to be seen. So far, however, its pathway resembles other hominin fossils whose "transitional" or "ancestral" status ultimately went belly up. When evaluating media claims of a "human ancestor," a strong dose of healthy skepticism is warranted.

(Also Read more at following link)

Were Adam and Eve Real? New Anthropological Evidence in 10-Year Update to Book (Interview)

CP: After the book was published there was an announcement of a major archaeological find, Homo naledi, in South Africa. What, if anything, from that discovery would you have included in the book if the news had come before publication?

This hominid is just another in a long list of recent fossil finds that have forced anthropologists to rewrite the human evolutionary story. Every time a new hominid is discovered, it throws the evolutionary paradigm into chaos, and H. naledi is no exception.

If a scientific theory is a good one, new discoveries should provide affirmation and greater clarity. On the other hand,
if new discoveries continually shake up the human evolutionary tree it is a sure sign that the evolutionary paradigm is in trouble.
...CP: In Chapter 3 you write that with your model, "creation is testable. The concept of creation has entered the scientific domain." Why is that important for your readers to understand?

Rana: Whenever a scientific case is presented for God's existence and Scripture's reliability, skeptics will often reject those arguments by asserting that they are outside the bounds of science. They use this objection as an excuse to ignore the scientific case for the Christian faith. By formulating the story of humanity's origin in scientific terms, replete with testable predictions, it forces skeptics to engage the powerful scientific evidence for Christianity.

(Photo: Reasons to Believe)Cover art for "Who Was Adam?" by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe, 2015.

Ten years after publication of Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, 13 new chapters detail the new scientific evidence on the origins of humankind in a second edition.

Rana and Ross are scholars affiliated with Reasons to Believe, which also published the new edition of Who Was Adam? RTB works to spread the Gospel by showing how science supports the truths found in Scripture. Rana and Ross both have doctorate degrees in the physical sciences, biochemistry and astronomy, respectively.

Unlike most second editions, this one leaves the original edition alone and adds the new chapters onto the original.

During an interview with The Christian Post, Rana explained they did it that way for transparency. Readers can compare their initial predictions with the decade of scientific research that came after that. Rana and Ross also use the additional chapters to respond to the critics of their first edition.

Rana also describes where he, and RTB, fit among the diverse viewpoints of the so-called "creation versus evolution" debate, and provides his thoughts on the discovery of Homo naledi, which was announced shortly after publication of Who Was Adam?

The following is a lightly edited transcript of that email interview:

CP: When the first edition of Who Was Adam? was published 10 years ago, what was your goal, and, looking back, how have you done?

image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/89316/fazale-rana-and-hugh-ross.jpg?w=262

image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/89316/fazale-rana-and-hugh-ross.jpg?w=262

(Photo: Reasons to Believe)Fazale Rana (left) and Hugh Ross (right), authors of "Who Was Adam?" and research scholars for Reasons to Believe.

Rana: With the first edition of Who Was Adam? we wanted to demonstrate that a scientifically rigorous case could be made for the traditional biblical view of human origins.

Many people, including Christians, believe that there is overwhelming evidence for human evolution. In light of that evidence, they feel as if they have no choice but to abandon the biblical view of human origins and accept the reality of human evolution. The problem with this approach is that it's impossible to reconcile the biblical account of human origins with the notion of human evolution.

The good news is that there is scientific evidence that suggests Adam and Eve were real people, and that all of humanity arose from a primordial pair. A growing number of anthropologists embrace the idea of human exceptionalism — an idea that comports with the biblical notion that human beings are uniquely made in God's image. There is an explosive appearance of sophisticated behavior, including artistic and musical expression, that coincides with the appearance of modern humans.

CP: What's new in this new and expanded edition?

Rana: A lot has happened in anthropology over the last decade since Who Was Adam? was first published. We thought it would be a good idea to see how our original ideas stood up to these advances.

We also thought this updated edition would be a good place to respond to critics of our creation model. For the sake of transparency, we left the original book intact and added over 150 pages of content.

CP: Within the "creation versus evolution" debate, there are a variety (more than two) of viewpoints. For Christians who don't follow the debate closely, it can be confusing. What are the most important points you would like Christians to understand about your own position?

Rana: The position we espouse in Who Was Adam? is called Old Earth Creationism. We think that the days in Genesis 1 are long, finite periods of time. Because of this view, we accept the scientific dates for the Earth's age and life's antiquity.

But we are Creationists. And as such, we are skeptical that evolution can account for life's origin, history, and design. We reject human evolution and believe in a historical Adam and Eve.

CP: In Chapter 3 you write that with your model, "creation is testable. The concept of creation has entered the scientific domain." Why is that important for your readers to understand?

Rana: Whenever a scientific case is presented for God's existence and Scripture's reliability, skeptics will often reject those arguments by asserting that they are outside the bounds of science. They use this objection as an excuse to ignore the scientific case for the Christian faith. By formulating the story of humanity's origin in scientific terms, replete with testable predictions, it forces skeptics to engage the powerful scientific evidence for Christianity.

CP: After the book was published there was an announcement of a major archaeological find, Homo naledi, in South Africa. What, if anything, from that discovery would you have included in the book if the news had come before publication?

This hominid is just another in a long list of recent fossil finds that have forced anthropologists to rewrite the human evolutionary story. Every time a new hominid is discovered, it throws the evolutionary paradigm into chaos, and H. naledi is no exception.

If a scientific theory is a good one, new discoveries should provide affirmation and greater clarity. On the other hand, if new discoveries continually shake up the human evolutionary tree it is a sure sign that the evolutionary paradigm is in trouble.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-evolution-anthropological-evidence-who-was-adam-148337/#lyzHtv7yG1bM7bYz.99

CP: In Chapter 3 you write that with your model, "creation is testable. The concept of creation has entered the scientific domain." Why is that important for your readers to understand?

Rana: Whenever a scientific case is presented for God's existence and Scripture's reliability, skeptics will often reject those arguments by asserting that they are outside the bounds of science. They use this objection as an excuse to ignore the scientific case for the Christian faith. By formulating the story of humanity's origin in scientific terms, replete with testable predictions, it forces skeptics to engage the powerful scientific evidence for Christianity.

CP: After the book was published there was an announcement of a major archaeological find, Homo naledi, in South Africa. What, if anything, from that discovery would you have included in the book if the news had come before publication?

This hominid is just another in a long list of recent fossil finds that have forced anthropologists to rewrite the human evolutionary story. Every time a new hominid is discovered, it throws the evolutionary paradigm into chaos, and H. naledi is no exception.

If a scientific theory is a good one, new discoveries should provide affirmation and greater clarity. On the other hand, if new discoveries continually shake up the human evolutionary tree it is a sure sign that the evolutionary paradigm is in trouble

Debunking Evolution:

Dear all:

Do you firmly believe in Evolution theory as facts?

Yes? Rethink again! Have you had great leap of faith?
Here below is a very thorough research paper and a related You Tube for you to examine and judge for yourself.

Debunking Evolution:

Problems between the theory and reality

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.  Variation (microevolution) is the real part.  The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.  Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.  Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.  What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.  Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.  And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.  But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.  This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.  It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen?  Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.  A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood.  They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.  We do not have these problems with bacteria.  A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.  There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.

...Mutation - natural selection

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).  That is evolution's onlytool for making new creatures.  It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.  Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.  That is physically impossible.  To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).  We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.  The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

...Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance.  To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed").  To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." 
...
Debunking Evolution - main points
 from www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
 By John Michael Fischer, 2013

 This list is a summary. More information is on the webpage.
A. Evolutionists usually talk about small differences in creatures, but the claim of evolution theory is enormous – the invention of every form of life that exists or ever existed on Earth without using any intelligent guidance. The small differences are called “micro-evolution” but that is not evolution; it is variation. Every creature has limits to how much it can change or adapt - limits to its variation. Disease bacteria have mutations constantly and become resistant to drugs, but they always remain bacteria. “Macro-evolution”, big change, is what the theory of evolution is about.
B. To get past the limits of variation, mutations are supposed to provide information to build new organs. But all known mutations result in the loss of information. There are cases where such loss has a selective advantage in certain situations, and disadvantages in other situations. Certainly, no new structure is invented. A shortcircuit in a computer is like a mutation in DNA, and no-one would expect to upgrade their computer that way.
C. Every structure and function in a creature takes much more than one change to "invent". It must be in the body-plan of the developing embryo, must differentiate stem cells into the proper type, must be able to receive nutrients, do waste removal and repair, must have nerves and muscles or other devices linked to a control center, and must integrate with the other elements of the biological system. If all these changes in the DNA do not happen randomly at the same time, it is impossible for a new, working organ to be made.
D. There should be many more transitional creatures in the fossil record than distinct species, many times more. But there are none - not even Archaeopteryx.
E. If life did not begin by chemicals coming together, there could be no evolution. Specialists have been working for 60 years on how this might have happened, and all they can produce "naturally" (without laboratory equipment and techniques to isolate and concentrate chemicals) are some of the many nucleotides and amino acids. They cannot make cell walls, RNA, DNA, ribosomes, organelles, cytoplasm, or cilia of even a cell or bacterium in a natural environment. After 60 years they have nothing to show but speculation and eternal hope. It is hard to prove a negative, but these origin-of-life specialists have come close. What we learn from their work is that life cannot arise on its own from chemicals, and thus there could never be evolution.
F. Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes.
 G. Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse.
H. In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are socalled “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous.
 I. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires all natural processes to become more disordered over time. It prevents the invention of new organs by mutations, because without a construction system already in place, things naturally fall apart – they don’t get more complex.
J. The Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) has never been seen to have been violated. But evolutionists believe it must have happened, and maybe more than once!
K. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of chirality for evolution theory.
 L. The minimum number of genes needed for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. And there are at least 17 basic things necessary for a cell to function, which must be working or it cannot live.This is the minimum level of complexity that must be met for a cell to exist:

**Bottom line: Macro-evolution is physically impossible. It cannot happen; it has never happened. It is up to evolutionists, the ones making the claim, to prove otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C0LFW8ZIE0&feature=youtu.be

My skeptical mind started churning...

 

Origin of Life - What's the latest theory?  

When it comes to the origin of life, "evolutionary theory" is still the foundation of today's scientific worldview. By and large, the text books teach that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the majority scientific hypothesis is that matter randomly acting on matter for a long period of time created everything we see. 

That's pretty much what I remember - no real change there... 

Wait! My skeptical mind started churning... 
How can nothing explode? Where did all that matter and energy come from? What caused its release? How did this explosion of everything (from nothing) order itself? How can simplicity become complexity? Where did the chemical elements come from? Where did the mathematical laws and physical properties come from? How do we explain the design, complexity and fine-tuning inherent in spiral galaxies, solar systems, and stars? 

How did life come from a rock? How did a bird come from a lizard? Why don't we see birds come from lizards today? Why are there no transitional fossils in our museums today? Why have we never observed beneficial mutations? Where did the information code in DNA come from? Where did the language convention that interprets DNA come from? How can we explain the random development of the human eye, reproductive system, digestive tract, brain, heart and lungs? What about the subconscious mind? What about love, morality, ethics, and emotions? Can these things really evolve gradually and randomly over time? 

Jeepers! What was happening to me? 

- See more at: http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/origin-of-life.htm#sthash.QSJiMbW7.dpuf

Evolution Made Everything?

 

Dear friends:

Here is a short short skit to illustrate a dialogue between an atheist, a theist 
( thiests are those who believe that God exists) and an enquirer. Interesting to read?

[On stage, three people: ‘theist’, ‘first atheist’ and ‘second atheist’ engaged in an argument. Enter left ‘enquirer’ wearing a duffle coat and a puzzled expression].

Enquirer:

Excuse me interrupting, but can you tell me who made everything?

Theist:

Yes; God made everything.

First atheist:

Oh? So who made God?

Second atheist:

We made God.

Theist:

Then who made us?

First atheist:

Evolution made us.

Theist:

Who made evolution?

Second atheist:

It’s part of everything; ‘everything’ made evolution.

Enquirer:

Excuse me interrupting … but who made everything? Oh, never mind.

[Enquirer exits the way he came in, wearing an even more puzzled expression].

For more, click the following link.

http://whomadegod.org/book/sooty-and-the-universe/

Common ancestor of humans & Chimps?

 

A chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of chimpanzee and human DNA. The chimp DNA was cut into slices of varying lengths (see legend on the right), and a similar sequence was searched for on the relevant human chromosome, which is shown on the horizontal axis.

(Copyright Answers in Genesis, published at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome in a study by Jeffrey P. Tomkins)

 For the whole article, click the link below.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9851

...Dr. Tomkins just published a new study, and as far as I can tell, it makes the most sense of any BLAST analysis done so far. In this study, he chopped up the chimpanzee genome into “slices” that were as small as 100 base pairs long or as large as 650 base pairs long. The chimpanzee genome is 2.9-3.3 billion base pairs long, so obviously these slices are incredibly small compared to the entire genome. He then looked for each “slice” on the human chromosome that is supposed to correspond to the chimp chromosome where the slice was found. The two slices didn’t have to match exactly; they just had to be similar enough to think that they could be related to each other.


The graph at the top of this post shows his results. Notice that the similarity hovers around 70% for all chromosomes except the Y chromosome. The size of the “slice” affects the result a bit, but really not much. In the end, this leads Dr. Tomkins to conclude:

Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.

Is this the last word on the subject? Most certainly not. I think it is probably the best comparison attempt made so far. Also, the fact that the Y chromosome has a remarkably low level of similarity compared to the other chromosomes is consistent with another study. In addition, the results essentially agree with Dr. Buggs’s analysis, which was based on a completely different strategy. At the same time, however, there is a huge discrepancy between this analysis and Dr. Wood’s analysis. In addition, as we learn more about genomes and how they work, we will probably find better ways to compare the genomes of different organisms.

For right now, however, it seems clear that humans and chimpanzees are not nearly as genetically similar as most evolutionists would have us believe.

Update on Mitochondrial DNA( mt DNA) EVE from Nova

Dear friends:

    Since my last post of the article link related to Adam
was late for his first date Eve, I've googled more about
 related topics;from this following link, we see the
estimate age of the first Eve has been updated.
yet the margin for error is so big.

 ( we see the estimate is almost like speculations with such a gigantic margin of error)

With that kind of margin of the error, the first Adam surely would be able to meet 

the first Eve. Besides, there are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. 
Furthermore, the so called forerunner of human species Neanderthas couldn't contribute to the gene pool of any modern humans. Isn't that interesting?

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

... That was back in 1987. Since then, researchers have updated the estimate to 120,000 to 150,000 years ago. However, the margin for error for this estimate and the previous one are significant—when all of the variables are taken into account, the current range is more like 50,000 to 500,000.

Moreover, the researchers determined that the common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens lived as long as 500,000 years ago, well before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of modern humans. This suggests (though it does not prove) that Neanderthals went extinct without contributing to the gene pool of any modern humans….

Final note

---

There are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. In fact, recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination. Such recombination would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates.


Not surprisingly, there is currently a heated debate over the value of "mitochondrial Eve"—especially between history-hunting geneticists and some fossil-finding paleoanthropologists...