Posted on 10/11/2006 2:45:52 PM PDT by Tim Long
[Editor's note: This was adapted from an article originally posted at EvolutionNews.org on October 4, 2006, here. It is regarding the article "What Makes us Different?" in Time Magazine, by Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, October 1, 2006. The illustration below is linked from their website, and is for Time by Tim O'Brien.]
The current issue of Time features a cover story preaching evolution to the skeptical public and editorializing that humans and chimps are related. Though the article's graphic (below) shows half-human, half-chimp iconography, University of North Carolina, Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks warns us against "exhibit[ing] the same old fallacies: ... humanizing apes and ape-ifying humans" (What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee, pg. xv [2002]). The cover-graphic commits both fallacies:
The article also claims that it's easy to see "how closely the great apes--gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans--resemble us," but then observes in a contradictory fashion that "agriculture, language, art, music, technology and philosophy" are "achievements that make us profoundly different from chimpanzees." Perhaps Michael Ruse was wise to ask "[w]here is the baboon Shakespeare or the chimpanzee Mozart?" (The Darwinian Paradigm, pg. 253 [1989]).
Common Descent, or Common Design? The article predictably touts the 98-99% genetic similarity statistic between humans and chimps, assuming that the similarity demonstrates common ancestry. Can common ancestry explain shared functional genetic similarities between humans and chimps? Sure, of course. But so can common design: designers regularly re-use parts that work when making similar blueprints. The article ignores that shared functional similarities between two organisms do not rule out design in favor of descent.
Evolutionary Miracle Mutations The article also discusses a "mutation" that could allow a loss in jaw-muscle strength, which evolutionary biologists hypothesize allowed the human braincase to grow larger. It's a nice just-so story, but paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood explained why simply identifying these genetic differences does not provide a compelling evolutionary explanation where natural selection would preserve the mutations:
"The mutation would have reduced the Darwinian fitness of those individuals … It only would've become fixed if it coincided with mutations that reduced tooth size, jaw size and increased brain size. What are the chances of that?"
(quoted in Joseph Verrengia, "Gene Mutation Said Linked to Evolution" Union Tribune, 03-24-04) The article also makes the unbelievable claim that two mutations could account for "the emergence of all aspects of human speech, from a baby's first words to a Robin Williams monologue." Are they joking? If human speech evolved via Darwinian means, it would require slowly evolving a suite of highly complex characteristics lacking in animals—a feat some experts think is impossible: Chomsky and some of his fiercest opponents agree on one thing: that a uniquely human language instinct seems to be incompatible with the modern Darwinian theory of evolution, in which complex biological systems arise by the gradual accumulation over generations of random genetic mutations that enhance reproductive success. ... Non-human communication systems are based on one of three designs [but] ... human language has a very different design. The discrete combinatorial system called "grammar" makes human language infinite (there is no limit to the number of complex words or sentences in a language), digital (this infinity is achieved by rearranging discrete elements in particular orders and combinations, not by varying some signal along a continuum like the mercury in a thermometer), and compositional (each of the infinite combinations has a different meaning predictable from the meanings of its parts and the rules and principles arranging them). (Pinker, S., Chapter 11 of The Language Instinct (1994).) While Pinker believes that human language can be explained by Darwinism, human speech and language is exceedingly complex compared to animal language. Claiming it could evolve in two mutations is unbelievable.
Functional Non-Coding DNA: The Evolutionists' New Best Friend? Ironically, the article admits that stark differences between humans and chimps may stem from functional non-coding DNA, which regulates protein production. In an elegant analogy, Owen Lovejoy explains that the 98-99% similarity in coding-regions of DNA ("bricks") may be irrelevant because it's "like having the blueprints for two different brick houses. The bricks are the same, but the results are very different."
Darwinists often cite similarities in non-coding DNA as evidence of chimp-human common ancestry. Yet the Time article explains that non-coding DNA has function—perhaps holding the functions responsible for the differences between humans and chimps: Those molecular switches lie in the noncoding regions of the genome--once known dismissively as junk DNA but lately rechristened the dark matter of the genome. ... "But it may be the dark matter that governs a lot of what we actually see." Though the article still asserts much of the genome is junk, Richard Sternberg and James A. Shapiro wrote recently that "one day, we will think of what used to be called 'junk DNA' as a critical component of truly 'expert' cellular control regimes" ("How Repeated Retroelements format genome function," Cytogenetic and Genome Research 110:108–116 [2005]).
Evidence of function in non-coding DNA not only casts doubt upon whether the 98-99%-protein-coding-DNA-similarity statistic is relevant to assessing the degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimps, but it also shows that similarities in human and chimp non-coding DNA could be explained by common design.
Thanks for the tip, but for some reason my "rotate" buttons on the toolbar are greyed out and not active. Perhaps because I'm using just the free Reader and thus don't have the ability to "modify" the document?
No problem. I didn't pay for my reader, perhaps an upgrade...I think they have free ones. :)
We have more in common with mice and pigs from a DNA perspective than we do with chimps.
Can you back that up with a source?
(And don't bother referring me to a creationist website, as they are not in the business of doing science; they are rather purveyors of unknowledge.)
How do you know this?
Coulter had to do this because she had no desire or ability to deal with the actual data itself.
You're sure of her desires? I think she showed a great desire to deal with the facts, since she spent so many pages on the subject. But I s'pose discerning someone else's desires or inner motivations is, most of the time, pretty subjective.
Have a great day!
I think you mean physiological similarities.
"God just made it look like life evolved!!" placemarker
The real question most everyone in this debate seems to ignore is the question did humans arrive on this planet through sexual reproduction of our ancestors or did we appear instantaneously and independantly from other animals/mammals when god made man?
Facsimile DNA Placemarker
The real question of the validity of any scientific model is whether it is internally consistent, falsifiable, makes successful predictions and is logically sound. Whether or not one 'believes' evolution or not, one can accept that the model is scientifically sound and works, which is really the bottom line so far as science is concerned.
Dr. Wells got himself a PhD, I give him credit for that; but if has anything substantial to say on the subject, he should be submitting for review to legitimate science journals, not posting it directly on the web and direct-to-consumer books. Circumvention of the peer review process is a sure sign of a scientific hack.
The Monkey Speaks His Mind.
It's the best test there is for scientific truth or validity. Anyone deliberately dodging it to the extent Wells does is almost definitely doing a snow job.
There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be invalid.
Of course. The process isn't perfect. If peer review can still admit errors, then any sweeping statement or study that hasn't been peer reviewed is almost sure to contain a huge number of errors, if not outright falsehoods.
There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have not been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be valid
And had such studies been peer reviewed, they would surely have met muster. If not, well, then they're probably lacking in accuracy.
Peer review is the best tool we have for discerning accuracy in the technically complex realm science has become, but obviously, you seem unsatisfied with it. With what mechanism would you suggest it be replaced?
Nice reply to the clueless.
RW
Generally I don't post to you. I think it would be a waste of my time. You have a history of posting some real howlers, but this post belongs in the top 5 of Crapdom.
Before shooting off your mouth, why don't you learn something about what you are talking about?
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.