Hambo Wins the Curmudgeon’s Creative Challenge

You probably remember about two weeks ago when we posted Creative Challenge #66: Evidence of Creationism? That was about a recent study, and PhysOrg said: “Just 7% of our genome is uniquely shared with other humans, and not shared by other early ancestors, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science Advances.” Additionally they said: “The researchers also found that an even smaller fraction of our genome — just 1.5% — is both unique to our species and shared among all people alive today.

At the end of our post we asked you: How can this be used by creationists to “disprove” the theory of evolution? Today we have our answer, and it’s from ol’ Hambo himself. His post is titled Humans Only 1.5% Different from Neanderthals and Denisovans? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What’s the genetic difference between modern man and our so-called evolutionary cousins, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans? Well, a new study [Link omitted!] claims to have determined the number of differences with “shocking” results.

Our blog post linked to the published paper. Hambo links to … well, something else. He says:

The study authors write, “We find that only 1.5 to 7 percent of the modern human genome is uniquely human.” Now, one and one-half to seven percent is a very large margin of error! [Hambo worries about error?] Why might that be? Well, for two reasons.

He tells us the reasons:

Here’s the first, according to Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a biologist on our research staff [Wowie!] who has worked heavily with DNA and has a PhD from Harvard:

We’ll skip the quote. It’s sufficient to know that Jeanson claims such studies are unreliable. Hambo continues with even more evidence:

And here’s the second reason: the paper relied on evolutionary assumptions [Gasp!] regarding ancestry and descent from a common ancestor. Those evolutionary assumptions appear to be integral to their study methods and since those assumptions are wrong, their conclusions are wrong as well.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution is wrong, so everything those hell-bound Darwinists say is also wrong. Brilliant! Let’s read on:

I suspect that if, someday, we are able to accurately sequence the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called human cousins, we will find they are genetically very close to “modern man.” Why? Because they aren’t our distant evolutionary cousins — they are humans just like us and all related. [Hee hee!]

Here’s the rest of Hambo’s post — and it’s absolutely fantastic:

These post-flood peoples [Like the Neanderthals!] are descendants of Adam and Eve (and of Noah and his family), made in God’s image, and therefore fully human. So, creationists don’t expect vast differences between the DNA of those peoples and people living today. Instead, we expect minor variations.

Well, dear reader, when you look in the mirror, do you see your Neanderthal ancestors looking back at you? Hambo does, and he knows what he’s talking about. That makes him the winner of the Creationist’s Challenge. You must admit — ol’ Hambo is amazing!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

7 responses to “Hambo Wins the Curmudgeon’s Creative Challenge

  1. Brilliant. Difference? What difference? It’s harder to think like a creationists than we thought. Never underestimate a creationist. Congratulations Ken.

  2. Hey Hambone, chimpanzee DNA is about 97+% similar to human DNA. Did your favorite god thing make them in his/her/its image too?

  3. @abeastwood they have an answer for that:
    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/chimp-human-dna-similarity-what-does-it-really-mean

    Beyond my pay grade but it looks like they do have a point that the 97% number isn’t so cut and dry.

  4. A complaint about logic. He says that if the assumption is false, then the inference drawn from that assumption is also false. Wrong.

  5. Dave Luckett

    I wonder if Ham says the same about Homo erectus? They’re “post-flood people” and human, too, descendants of Noah? What about H ergaster and H habilis? What about Australopithecus africanus? Ardipithecus ramidus?

    Where do we draw the line, oh Apostle of Appalachia? For a hard bright line there must be, or your doctrine is false and your ideas foolish. But there is no hard bright line. It’s a gradual process of acquisition of distinctively human traits. Bipedalism, then dental reduction, adaptation to plantigrade walking for endurance, digitigrade running. Sweat glands. Finally, the steady expansion of the braincase. But where on the continuum do we say, ape no more; human now? The distinctions dissolve. It’s matter of opinion. It’s evolution.

    I bet that the original paper said that the researchers found distinctively Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA elements ranging from 1.5 to 7 percent in individual cases of the genome of modern humans. That is, it isn’t a margin of error at all – those amounts are what were found in individual cases.

    That is, I suspect that in addition to a catastrophic misunderstanding of the evidence, Ham is adding active misrepresentation of it.

  6. I thought that Neanderthal brain was larger than sapiens brain size. I bring this up as a corrective to the idea that evolution is progression.

  7. PhysOrg:: “Just 7% of our genome is uniquely shared with other humans… an even smaller fraction of our genome — just 1.5% — is both unique to our species and shared among all people alive today.”

    So 1.5% vs 7% isn’t any kind of error. They are measuring different things. Even by Ham’s standards, this is pretty bad misrepresentation.

    But I don’t grudge him his award. My own feeble efforts just couldn’t compete.