DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.

The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1

After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.

The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2

But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3

Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped” to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.

As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.

Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.

However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!

Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched” together with powerful computers.

In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.

Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10

A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.

So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.

So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.

So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.

The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.

In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.

So in other words you’ll not answer any questions or address any of the points that were brought out which refute your statements- got it! Typical-

I can guarantee you that there is nothing contained in any anti-science website--whether the site promotes creationism, anti-vax propaganda, medical quackery, etc.--that would refute any actual science. It is a giant waste of my time to go to such sites with the intent of correcting every single untruth they propagate, because the untruths are infinite. My time is much better spent trying to guide people to where to find the actual scientific information, how to interpret whether a site is dedicated to promoting pseudoscience or whether it conveys legitimate scientific information, and so forth. The stated purpose of any particular anti-science site is irrelevant; they all use the same disinformation tactics. If you want to see anti-science websites refuted, there are people who spend all their time refuting the nonsense, and they have plenty of websites, which you can easily find on Google.

[[If you want to see anti-science websites refuted, there are people who spend all their time refuting]]

Psssst- I’ve read a great many of them and most aren’t worth spit because htey angage in childish Christian bashing over and over and over again ,and their arguments don’t stand up to counter refutations- the few that are worth reading are able to tackle the evidences they disagree with in a mature manner, a civil manner, for the most part, and are respectful of their opponents- Several such sites/authors have a healthy back and forth with reputable scientists who oppose their views as well, and the arguments on both sides usually carry a far greater weight than the those sites who can;t bring themselves to civil discussions- about all you get on those site is silly group think and wolf pack mentality- they simply wave their hands, make outlandish claims, and attack anyone that doesn’t agree- Nope- no thanks- again- that isn’t science- I’ll stick to those few sites that are mature enough to have civil discussions and actually take the time to address people’s concerns rather than saying silly things like ‘there’s nothing of any value on such sites’

ifinnegan: "the keen thing about evolution is it can’t be disproven."

itsahoot: "Or proven so where does that leave you?"

You folks are playing word definition games, and I wonder why?

Surely you know in strict scientific terms, no theory is ever proven, at best it's confirmed.
And no hypothesis is "disproved", though it may well be falsified.

By definition, if a theory is "proved", meaning observed, it's no longer theory, now it's fact.
An example is the globe shaped Earth -- first hypothesis, then confirmed theory, now observed fact.

So basic evolution is a confirmed theory, confirmed by innumerable observations of its predictions, for example that fossils are found in appropriate geological strata.
We don't have confirmed observations of elephants & dinosaurs together.

So words like "proved" imply scientific facts, and "fact" is reserved for confirmed observations -- what we can actually see or detect.
Since we can't watch ancient creatures evolving into new species, that will never be a "fact" only at best a strongly confirmed theory.

But while overall evolution is theory, many aspects of it are observed facts, for example: descent with modifications.
We can see it and we can do it, as in dogs evolved from wolves -- dogs are a new species and within dogs we've evolved many sub-species and breeds.
So "descent with modification" is observed, confirmed fact and so also is natural selection.

But unobservable speciation events in the deep past can only ever be confirmed scientific theory.

I see you can’t break yourself away from the childish liberal tactic of Christian bashjing- I thought we coudl have a civil discussion but I see you’re not up to it- My mistake

Either provide an example of my engaging in Christian bashing, or refrain from making that claim. Accusing someone of doing something which they do not do is an act of bearing false witness--which is mentioned as a big "no-no" several places in the Bible.

had you bothered to read the ‘Christian site’ you would have seen that several of the papers did not focus simply on the non coding areas or the ‘redundant’ areas [yada, yada, yada]

Has it occurred to you that I've actually looked at a sufficient number of anti-science websites to form an understanding of the basic tactics that they all use? They use lies of omission, where they only pick out one or two facts that can be twisted to fit their agenda--aka "cherry-picking data." They then go on to misinterpret the meaning of the few cherry-picked facts that they present, often deriving pages and pages of "interpretation" which is nothing but a false narrative centered on the couple of actual facts they presented. Whether the pseudo-science is focused on promoting creationism, medical quackery, "natural" or "organic" foods, any unnatural eating habits (vegetarianism, veganism), alien visitation, or pick your favorite flavor of pseudoscience to embrace, the methodology is identical.

As I said, I do not need to refute every single untruth promoted by anti-science advocates in order to recognize and reject the pseudoscience. Lies are infinite, but methodology is not.

Bob434: "The importance of the distinction of nephesh chayyah life."

Thanks, though your link did not make the point I was hoping for.
My attention here is focused on Genesus 2 (KJV):

" And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

To me this sounds like evolution from dirt, with God performing His final act of breathing the breath of life into the first fully human soul.
So, if your claim there was no "spiritual death" before Adam's Fall is correct, then an explanation is: that's because there were no fully human living souls at the time.
Adam & Eve were the first.

To me that's great news.

And no hypothesis is "disproved", though it may well be falsified.

A technique employed by evolutionist for decades.

By pointing to semantic arguments you hope to be able to avoid the whole discussion of fraudulent data that seems to point to the evolutionary theory as being accurate to the exclusion of all data to the contrary.

I suspect there is not one freeper here that does not know the difference between theory and fact, though they would have a hard time recognizing that when talking with evolutionists that regularly quote theory as fact.

BJK: "no hypothesis is 'disproved', though it may well be falsified."

itsahoot: "A technique employed by evolutionist for decades."

It's mostly a semantic difference -- "proof" is used in mathematical theorems and law courts, but not for scientific theories.
There experiments & observations falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses.
Failure to falsify does not "prove" a hypothesis, but it does help confirm it, and strong confirmations promote a hypothesis to an accepted theory, such as basic evolution.

That is the language & logic, such that "debates" over what is "proved" or "disproved" are pointless.

itsahoot: "By pointing to semantic arguments you hope to be able to avoid the whole discussion of fraudulent data that seems to point to the evolutionary theory as being accurate to the exclusion of all data to the contrary."

Of course nobody denies that scientists are as human as the rest of us, and sometimes make "mistakes" which support their preconceived ideas.
But in the past 150+ years data confirming basic evolution theory is, literally, mountainous while confirmed data falsifying it is, well, non-existent.

So now you wish to regale me with tales of hoaxes & cover-ups in the name of science?
My response is this: all you really need is just one fully researched, documented, peer-reviewed & published example of data irrefutably falsifying a theory and that theory gets demoted -- reduced in rank -- back to hypothesis.

As a hypothesis, it may get modified to account for your new data then resubmitted for re-confirmation as a modified theory.
And those kinds of things happen in science every day, including with some evolution ideas.
But basic evolution theory has stood the tests of time because, well, it's pretty basic:

Descent with modifications is observed fact & irrefutable.
Likewise natural selection is seen in nature and can be repeated in laboratories.

Can those lead to speciation?
Well, they did with dogs from wolves, and any number of other domesticated animals.
So that much is fact, but long term must remain theory, since we were not there to see it happen.

itsahoot: "I suspect there is not one freeper here that does not know the difference between theory and fact, though they would have a hard time recognizing that when talking with evolutionists that regularly quote theory as fact."

I think your own posts show you enjoy word-games over what is "proved" or "fact" vs. hypothesis & theory.

Basic evolution is theory confirmed by many, many facts.

“But while overall evolution is theory, many aspects of it are observed facts, for example: descent with modifications.”

Not really. The observed facts are from a separate discipline and used by Evolutionary theorists.

Evolution itself isn’t a discipline.

Name any “observed fact” you mention above and you’ll find it did not come from evolutionists.

It’s application to evolution is essentially assumption, eg descent with modification.

“*Most* non-coding regions are filler.”

You’re 20 years behind the times at least.

Are you no longer in the field?

Did you not read my post?

Thanks for your response, but i didn’t expect obsolete boilerplate.

“As long as the sequences at the ends of the introns remains conserved, the rest can be any sequence at all without changing the function.”

DNA is an amazing molecule (as is RNA) you should look in to it some day.

Too many people, yourself apparently included, think nucleic acids are generic blocks with a static structure.

American in Israel: "Look in nature, clearly there is NO evidence of a massive amount of useless random vestigial DNA experiments hanging off of every organism as DNA mindlessly experiments trying to stumble onto a software upgrade."

Whatever are you talking about?
Of course there is, massively, in every creature's DNA, every DNA mutation which did not kill off its carriers stays with us, and now helping track our ancestry and species relationships.

But in most species most offspring die without ever reproducing, for reasons ranging from predation to starvation, disease or mal-adaptive DNA mutations.
To survive & reproduce individuals need both good genes and good luck -- that's "natural selection".

American in Israel: "In short, what we now know about DNA and how it functions precludes virtually any chance for evolution."

No, the opposite is true, if you simply consider the millions of different species, from bacteria & amoebas to insects & mammals -- an almost infinite variety of different systems that work.
Some are very, very similar between species demonstrating that small differences can work just as well.
Others are very, very different demonstrating that no DNA similarities are needed to do similar functions.

American in Israel: "The heck with transitional fossils, where are the five legged blind dogs or feathered snails?
There is no evidence of experimental organisms in nature."

On the contrary, the fossil record tells us that every organism in nature is experimental, and almost every experiment eventually fails, to be replaced by newer experiments.
As for misshaped dogs, they are born on occasion, but almost never live to successfully reproduce.
It's called "natural selection" and is basic to evolution theory.

Bob434: "...even just one of those impossibilities alone would be enough to doom the hypothesis, but taken altogether-
it’s a zero change that it happened-
so the only other possibility is that an intelligent designer was needed to create irreducibly complex lifeforms-
the evidence is clear- God was needed-
I have only ever seen two possible explanations, and one turns out to be impossible on several levels- that leaves only one viable alternative-
and His fingerprints are everywhere"

I disagree with your ideas of "impossible", but may I also suggest, you're asking the wrong questions?
Look at it this way:

Question: Is God perfect?
Answer: yes, by any definition we might concoct.
Question: Did God create the heavens and Earth perfectly according to His intent or plan?
Answer: yes, that's what Genesis 1 tells us.
Question: Did God create His Universe so imperfectly that it ever since requires His constant interventions, corrections, modifications, extinctions & improvements, or did He design His Universe perfectly to do those things naturally, without His constant monitoring & meddling?
Answer: I think God created a Universe good enough to perform most of its basic functions naturally.
Question: Does God ever interfere with natural processes, as in miracles?
Answer: Yes, but so far as we know only to impress flawed humans with His supernatural powers.
Question: does the Bible insist on any specific methodology by which God accomplished His creations?
Answer: not really.

My point is: only a physically imperfect Universe would require God's constant intervention in natural events to accomplish His purposes.
Of course, God does intervene to impress us, that's why we're here.
But also, our free will requires us to work hard to find Him amidst order & chaos in the natural realm.

Here’s a good article to read. (Chromatin structure and function is where it’s at).

A comparative encyclopedia of DNA elements in the mouse genome

The laboratory mouse shares the majority of its protein-coding genes with humans, making it the premier model organism in biomedical research, yet the two mammals differ in significant ways. To gain greater insights into both shared and species-specific transcriptional and cellular regulatory programs in the mouse, the Mouse ENCODE Consortium has mapped transcription, DNase I hypersensitivity, transcription factor binding, chromatin modifications and replication domains throughout the mouse genome in diverse cell and tissue types. By comparing with the human genome, we not only confirm substantial conservation in the newly annotated potential functional sequences, but also find a large degree of divergence of sequences involved in transcriptional regulation, chromatin state and higher order chromatin organization. Our results illuminate the wide range of evolutionary forces acting on genes and their regulatory regions, and provide a general resource for research into mammalian biology and mechanisms of human diseases.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7527/full/nature13992.html

ifinnegan: "Evolution is so ipso facto that any scientific finding can support it and none can falsify it."

No, not ipso facto, but in fact that has proved to be the case.
For example: estimates of the total number of fossils found and now in various museum collections worldwide are in the billions representing hundreds of thousands of species.
The number of fossils clearly identified as contradicting basic evolution theories is: zero.

Is that because of massive fraud or a religious mind-set commitment to outdated science?
I don't think so.
Any scientist would be renowned for finding a better explanation, just consider when Einstein overthrew some of Newton's old ideas.

But it doesn't happen, because many better ideas have come along over the years but none falsify basic evolution theory of speciation through:

Descent with modifications and
Natural selection

ifinnegan: "The observed facts are from a separate discipline and used by Evolutionary theorists."

So you really do enjoy silly word games?
Is that all you got?

Darwin's basic evolution theory took into account none of the science discovered in the past 150 years, which makes it more than amazing his theory still holds water.
Surely in 150 years when nearly everything the best scientists then "knew" has been overthrown, Darwin's ideas should be in the ashcans of history by now, right??

But they're not, because they are simple and obvious: Darwin said, speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection.
Darwin knew nothing about DNA or even Mendelian inheritance and those might easily have falsified Darwin's ideas.
But they didn't, far from it.

"Name any 'observed fact' you mention above and you’ll find it did not come from evolutionists."

So you hope to use word games to convert innumerable scientific confirmations of evolution theory into a negative for evolution, by claiming those confirmations did not come from "evolutionists"??

exDemMom: "*Most* non-coding regions are filler.”

ifinnegan: "You’re 20 years behind the times at least."

Not really.
Yes, estimates of "junk DNA" have been reduced from maybe 90% to something less, but alleged functions of most "junk" are not, as yet, determined, and the fact remains that most mutations within the "junk DNA" regions have no discernable affect on offspring.

Such mutations do however provide useful markers for tracing ancestry & distant relationships.

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.