Recent Human Variation Is Not Evolution (evidence points to recent creation)

Discover magazine recently asked, “Are We Still Evolving?” The same-titled article noted that “for decades theories about human evolution had proliferated despite the absence of much, if any, hard evidence.”1 It then presented research showing that human DNA is definitely changing—but not as Darwinism predicted.

Despite the widespread belief that “we emerged from chimpanzees 6 million years ago,” geneticists observed that differences between people are caused by DNA blocks that are reshuffled in each generation in patterns that remain closely linked.2 This points to a relatively recent development for human variation. Indeed, “most of the change [happened] from 40,000 years ago to the present.”1

For example, John Hawks at the University of Wisconsin-Madison told Discover, “No one on earth had blue eyes 10,000 years ago.” Also, most differences in genes that code for neurotransmitters (small chemicals vital for brain activity) appear to have recently arrived, “with the majority emerging in just the past 10,000 years.”1 Why were there so few genetic changes for millions of years, followed by so many in recent times?

Hawks found through a computer simulation that “if humans had evolved at modern rates ever since we diverged from chimpanzees 6 million years ago,...the difference between the two species today would be 160 times greater than it actually is.”1 Thus, either mutations and shuffling (labeled “evolution”) were dormant for millions of years only to radically accelerate in the recent evolutionary past, or these processes have been occurring at roughly today’s rates since the Fall about 6,000 years ago.3

Other evidence from human genetic studies confirming humanity’s youthfulness comes from the very fact that there is only 0.5 per cent difference between any two people’s DNA. The DNA difference should be vast after long ages of mutations at known rates.4

To call these DNA changes “evolution” could be misleading, depending on which definition is applied. Do the changes observed lead upward to greater complexity, conferring new information-with-a-purpose? Neither the base changes (mutations) nor the shuffling of blocks of DNA have shown the ability to generate any new and useful genetic information, or build new biochemical machinery or organs, let alone whole organisms. What science does know about them is that they serve to corrupt or rearrange pre-existing information.

The “evolutionary” changes that have been accelerating, according to these researchers, are really just variations within human kind, unfolding from the original, information-rich first people. It’s plausible that the Creator “front-loaded” Adam and Eve’s genomes with full complements of a wide variety of both essential and non-essential genes, as well as genetic and epigenetic factors to facilitate rearrangement of those genes.5, 6 Thus, as humans have spread out and thrived in various environments across the globe since their dispersal at Babel, their traits have also spread out. As the Discover article noted, “There’s a lot more people on the planet than in recent times....We are getting less alike.”1

Chance-based DNA mutations and variation-by-design DNA shuffling have unfolded due to historical events that are recorded in Scripture. The first humans disobeyed God’s command to refrain from eating the fruit of a certain tree, and this brought decay and death. Their descendants filled the earth with violence, resulting in judgment and a new, less habitable post-Flood landscape. Humans then disobeyed God’s command to fill the earth, leading to the introduction of language families that drove people groups apart, making them “less alike” and diluting their once robust genome.

Shuffling and mutating DNA add no hard evidence to support any “theories of human evolution.” Rather, the largely “un-shuffled” DNA of modern humans clearly points to a humanity that has been around for thousands, rather than millions, of years.

2. Called “linkage disequilibrium,” this is the observation that human genes from around the world are still situated next to one another, even though they are cut and pasted (shuffled) each generation. This is strong evidence for a youthful mankind.

3. Thomas, B.Why Are Human Genes Still Linked? ICR News. Posted on icr.org August 6, 2008, accessed February 17, 2009.

4. Geneticists have no empirical data to anchor biological dates, so they must trust the paleontologists. Often, paleontologists derive their dates from examining the particular rock layers wherein human and ape remains have been discovered. Thus, their dates are often supplied by geologists. Perhaps geologists obtained them from radioisotope dating of some form. Thus, they trust the geochronologists, who in turn rely on dates from geologic column charts. Without this standardized reference, the geochronologist would have little basis for choosing which of the wide range of obtainable dates to accept, and which to reject. This circus of trust functions, not because there is empirical evidence for deep time, but because those in various disciplines universally conform their results to the standard dates, all of them being convinced a priori that deep time is true.

5. Borger, P. 2008. Evidence for the design of life: part 2—Baranomes. Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 68-76.

6. Gerhart, J. and M. Kirschner. 2007. The theory of facilitated variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (Suppl 1): 8582-8589.

God’s prerogative to use the processes that He has established is in keeping with His nature. However, not once has God established a process and then circumvented that process. He has, from time-to-time, used what we call miracles to show that He is in control of nature. Never has this been used to invalidate His established processes.

You are avoiding the main issue, hovever, that of whether man was created or evolved. Everything else is smoke in mirrors.

"You are avoiding the main issue, hovever, that of whether man was created or evolved."

I reject the premise of your question. It is my contention and that of the Catholic Church that the answer is both. God created life and used the process of evolution to shape man in His image. What I find incredulous is that so many are quick to cite biblical reference to support their argument or counter the position of the Catholic Church and in doing so choose to accept the edicts of the Church Canon in one instance and reject it in another as it fits their argument.

I reject the premise of your question

Then you reject the premise that God created. His word states thus.

It is my contention and that of the Catholic Church that the answer is both.

I am not Catholic and could not care less about what the Pope mandates. Either one believes in evolution, or one believes in creation. They are mutually exclusive.

God created life and used the process of evolution to shape man in His image.

If God's hand is directing, then it is not evolution, it is creation. The premise of evolution is random mutation through time with the best attributes remaining. Hardly directed.

What I find incredulous is that so many are quick to cite biblical reference to support their argument or counter the position of the Catholic Church and in doing so choose to accept the edicts of the Church Canon in one instance and reject it in another as it fits their argument.

You and I are in agreement with this. If church canon is in line with the Bible, then they are correct and the teaching is sound. If they are in opposition to the Bible, then it is heretical.

"Either one believes in evolution, or one believes in creation."

You don't get to set the rules for belief and racing to the letter of scripture to support your contention or interpretation falls upon deaf ears

Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. - Luke 11:52

You don't get to set the rules for belief and racing to the letter of scripture to support your contention or interpretation falls upon deaf ears

Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. - Luke 11:52

Bad form, and poor use of scripture. Christ was speaking to and about the Pharisees who burden people with laws that are not of God's making.

Try this one:
1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer, to anyone who asks, to give a reason for hope that he has."

God's word is not up for alteration but is always up for discussion.

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

God, through Paul, has told us to study His word and be knowlegable in it.

"God, through Paul, has told us to study His word and be knowlegable in it."

It is clear to me that nothing I say will change your beliefs and nothing you can say will change mine. I am among those who believe that the Holy Spirit continued to speak to us through the Church he founded under St. Peter, who, unlike Paul, was an actual disciple of Christ.

It is clear to me that nothing I say will change your beliefs and nothing you can say will change mine.

Quite possible, but the discourse was enjoyable.

I am among those who believe that the Holy Spirit continued to speak to us through the Church he founded under St. Peter, who, unlike Paul, was an actual disciple of Christ.

I am indeed, of the Protestant ilk, but still hold that the Holy Spirit speaks to the church. Our disagreement rests in that Paul is also an Apostle, though one abnormally born (his words). Peter had his opportunity to write much more but did not. Paul wrote the lion's share of the New Testament and has the same authority as Peter. The secular argument amongst the Christian faith is akin to the argument that Moslems have as to proper succession (i.e. Shia and Sunni).

Thank you for a civil discussion.

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.