ICR article image.
Posted on 09/12/2014 1:34:17 PM PDT by fishtank
Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
For over 150 years, Darwin’s hypothesis that all species share a common ancestor has dominated the creation-evolution debate. Surprisingly, when Darwin wrote his seminal work, he had no direct evidence for these genealogical relationships—he knew nothing about DNA sequences. In fact, before the discovery of the structure and function of DNA, obtaining direct scientific evidence for common ancestry was impossible. Now, with online databases full of DNA-sequence information from thousands of species, the direct testing of Darwin’s hypothesis has finally commenced. What follows is a critical reevaluation of the four major lines of genetic evidence that secular scientists use to support evolutionary common ancestry.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
Article References
Futuyma, D. J. 2009. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Carroll, S. B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life. Journal of Creation. 27 (3): 84-92.
Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology” Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
Rupe, C. L. and J. C. Sanford. 2013. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle—“Haldane’s Ratchet.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. M. Horstemeyer, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.
Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 578-590.
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
Gregory, T. R. The onion test. Evolver Zone. Posted on genomicrom.evolverzone.com April 25, 2007, accessed December 17, 2013.
Venema, D. ENCODE and “Junk DNA,” Part 2: Function: What’s in a Word? The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org September 26, 2012, accessed December 17, 2013.
Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Junk DNA” Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.
Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 20, 2011, accessed June 25, 2014.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.
Venema, D. and D. Falk. Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org May 17, 2010, accessed December 13, 2013.
Max, E. E. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy. The TalkOrgins Archive. Posted on talkorigins.org May 5, 2003, accessed December 13, 2013.
Jeanson, N. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.
* Dr. Jeanson is Deputy Director for Life Sciences Research and received his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University.
Cite this article: Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. 2014. Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry. Acts & Facts. 43 (9).
Interesting article.
Because the science is settled - and ideology trumps everything else...
The science is not settled, it never will be. Darwinism hijacked science for one reason, it obviates the need for a Creator, which is exactly what the forces of darkness want. Now man can believe anything except the right thing.
“... Darwin’s hypothesis that all species share a common ancestor has dominated the creation-evolution debate.”
Uhm, doesn’t he essentially prove God?
Darwinism is a political and social weapon however true or untrue.
Summary
Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species. This is remarkable since the supposed “engine” of evolutionary change is the genetic mistakes themselves. If evolutionists can’t even get their fundamental mechanisms to line up with their models, then why do they continue to present Darwin’s grand hypothesis as fact?
Agreed.
And evolutionists must ultimately believe in spontaneous generation, something Pasteur disproved about a century ago with the Law of Biogenesis. The most “simple” single-celled organism is so stupendously complex, that their belief in spontaneous generation is laughable. Their belief is nothing but faith, since no observable, repeatable science supports it.
Darwin fails to explain the sun, the moon and the stars and all other things. In fact, I think it’s a lot of cr**.
good gravy........ Darwin was a biologist not an astronomer.
You are comparing apples and onions.
We’re not talking astronomy. There’s an interdependency.
Kinda makes me think of the gay movement and what they're forcing on our children.
What’s the difference between spontaneous generation and an act of creation by G_d?
Actually Pasteur’s proof was flawed in its methodology. I do not remember all the details, and they would surely be too long to go into here in any case.
There have been numerous replications and all produced something that was not suppose to be there. This was done by alternately baking and freezing a sterile material, and then thawing and observing the material under extreme optical magnification.
because as one evolutionist put it, the alternative is unacceptable.
There have been numerous replications and all produced something that was not suppose to be there. This was done by alternately baking and freezing a sterile material, and then thawing and observing the material under extreme optical magnification.
You’re probably confusing the Urey-Miller experiment with spontaneous generation. Urey-Miller never produced anything remotely near RNA, much less anything that can be considered alive.
Intelligence.
Excellent article.
With all of the science not yet in, I’ll keep my belief in God.
I don’t need evolutionists to tell me this wonderfully diverse and fantastic world just evolved from extraterrestrial primordial ooze. Something had a hand in our creation and his name is God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.