Posted on 06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT by lasereye
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
The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4
The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research
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.
What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?
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.
References
* Dr. Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University, where he worked as a research technician in a plant breeding/genetics program. After receiving his Ph.D., he worked at a genomics institute and became a faculty member in the Department of Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson.
Simple test:
Take 30 concrete blocks, sand and mortar. Set them down in three separate piles.
How long will it take for them to naturally form into a wall 3 concrete blocks high?
Bachelors in geology?
Interesting you only use ad hom and won’t defend your statements.
If you can’t see the similarity in evolution and climate change, you are biased.
And not a good scientist.
In both cases solid science is used for distortions for ultra-scientific purpose, e.g. Support social,or political movements and goals.
Articles such as this one also fall in to that category, although for the most part, his hard scientific observations with regard to Chimp Human DNA sequence identity were of note and most likely accurate. His framing of the question was accurate and discription of the problems on genomic sequencing were accurate.
At the same time, I don’t know why he would publish only in his institute’s own journal.
Probably for the same reason in that he also jumps to ultra-scientific conclusions.
“I can tell you scientifically why AGW is NOT a scientific theory and why TToE is.”
Do it.
“Evolution is a theory and doesn’t claim without uncertainty to explain all genetic changes over time.”
Yes to an extent. There are theories under evolution which would make claims that can be proven or disproven. It’s not a theory if it does not makes claims that can be proven or disproven. You really hit on the main reason evolution isn’t really a theory and can’t be disproven. It’s only actual claim is everything found conforms evolution because nothing else can be.
Which is actually, oddly, good enough, bit it’s philosophical, not necessarily scientific. One can’t scientifically study God or God did it.
“The IC”R” again posits no alternative view to explain, other than to say “God did it”. This is a fine theological position but it lacks any scientific proof.””
A rather obvious observation. Usually atheists are quite proud of themselves and assured of their genius for having a partial grasp on something so self evident.
I wonder what Tomkin’s PhD is in? It certainly isn’t in science, that much is obvious.
This notion that DNA science *disproves* evolution is a surprise to all life scientists who use the theory of evolution to guide their work and make new discoveries. In fact, I think that the tens of thousands of scientists who have published on evolutionary biology would be stunned to find out that all of their hard work elucidating the processes of evolution did not actually show anything at all.
>>Evolutionary theory did not predict what DNA<<
Proof you do not understand science.
You can’t even articulate a position.
Modern synthesis predicted larger organisms would have more genes and species specific genes.
Genomics has found that to be the exact opposite.
Most mammalian genes are essentially interchangeable.
That was not predicted, but is considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence for common descent.
No, it is NOT falsifiable to true believers in ToE. There is always some crazy naturalistic theory which attempts to make the impossible possible. Frankly, it is irrational to believe that a phenomenon such as hearing “evolved”. But if you want to believe this really happened, no one can stop you.
bbb
“Because it is agenda driven and result oriented. “I will prove what I believe.” That’s not science — or should I say, that never used to be science. Thanks to the global warming fruit loops, believing something now means truth with no more evidence than criticism of opposing points of view. Very sad.”
Sure.
But his understanding and presentation of the genomics issue was accurate and informed.
I find this to be the case with a lot of these ICR articles. Good understanding and analysis of a question, making valid critical points, but then leaping to a foregone conclusion.
Micro evolution is essentially variation in species. Just because both chihuahuas and Great Danes coexist does not prove evolution. They’re both dogs.
What selection forces scream out for a frizzard?
“You need only to find a modern horse skeleton next to millions year old dinosaur fragments.”
Explain how that would disprove evolution.
Careful, my friend.
What also does not help the evolutionists is the fact that there “evidence” keeps getting disproved like Plitdown Man & the faux fossil hybrid they erroneously asserted was a “proof” of a species in “transition”. There is in fact no evidence documenting one species transitioning into another species & this fact has even mystified some evolutionists but not to the extent of disabusing themselves of their false notions concerning the origin of man.
“A rather obvious observation. Usually atheists are quite proud of themselves and assured of their genius for having a partial grasp on something so self evident.”
If someone feels one must scientifically prove the existence of God, that doesn’t say much for their faith, does it?
If an organization feels it must prove that which most accept as part of faith, it’s not too far from atheism, is it?
You missed the obvious point. You were too blinded by the need to call me an atheist that you took the side of your faithless brothers at IC”R”. Think, man, think!
There is a one day sale of a book by Bruce Fenton on Amazon called “Into Africa” The Kindle version is selling for $1.99 today (June 1st) He took all the available data produced by DNA and Genome studies and concluded that humanity migrated Into Africa not once, but twice. There are also other interesting tid bits regarding the different branches of man. Well worth the price today.
You can see micro evolution in individual species adapting to the environment or changing conditions such as the height in Asian populations verses today to hundred years ago.
I wasn’t trying to prove evolution, just the opposite.
You can’t find species changing from A to B but you can find micro changes do to environmental changes not mutations.
Let's do the math ...
My keyboard has 104 keys ... how many characters are in the complete works of WS? Google it ... its 3,695,990 characters ... but (1/104) raised to the 3,695,990 power is not even computable. Lets start real small.
Let's start with the phrase "To be or not to be, that is the question?" ...
With 104 keys any random key has a (1/104) chance of being struck. Put the correct ones in order and your probability of the phrase is (1/104)^41 = 2.0E-83 ... ignoring the shift key for the capital and the question mark.
Lets say your monkey is a speed typist and can randomly type 41 characters in 1 second.
What is the probability of him typing the phrase in a hundred TRILLION years?
86400(sec/day)*365(days/year)*100E12(years) = 3.15E21 ... total probability 2.0E-83 * 3.15E21 = 6.31E-62
How about we put a monkey on every square foot of the planet each going at it ... surface area of the earth is 5.49E15 ft^2 ...
total probability = 6.31E-62 * 5.49E15 = 3.46E-46
And this is just the phrase ...
I think it was Fred Hoyle who said that you had a better chance of having a tornado go through a junkyard and creating a fully functional airliner than life appearing spontaneously. The sheer mathematical odds are astronomical.
Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is no more of a scientist than the so-called scientists who walk lock-step with the climate change religion. They all have an agenda that is result oriented. None of them are credible.
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.