Skip to comments.Recent Human Variation Is Not Evolution (evidence points to recent creation)
Posted on 02/23/2009 10:05:02 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Recent Human Variation Is Not Evolution
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
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 changingbut 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 todays rates since the Fall about 6,000 years ago.3
Other evidence from human genetic studies confirming humanitys youthfulness comes from the very fact that there is only 0.5 per cent difference between any two peoples 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. Its plausible that the Creator front-loaded Adam and Eves 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, Theres 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 Gods 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 Gods 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.
1. McAuliffe, K. March 2009. Are We Still Evolving? Discover. 50-58.
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 2Baranomes. 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.
I suspect that as genes evolve, so do we.
The evidence suggest variation within the created kinds, and devolution (not evolution) ever since the fall.
There is indeed a lot Darwin got wrong about human DNA.
GodSpamGunsSpamSomeMoreSpamGunsThatFireSpam strikes again....
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
Thanks for the interesting post!
Bzzt. Wrong answer.
The Word of God says "created", not "evolved".
I believe in Devolution.
How dare you put limits on God's ability.
Or more likely, Devilution.
You're in good company...
“The Word of God says “created”, not “evolved”.”
To revise: The Word of God says “created”, but not how.
Not I, but God Himself said so. Or did you miss that part in the Bible?
True, but an evolved being has no need for redemption. Evolution dictates chance. God leaves nothing to chance. He did not all of a sudden turn around and see humans wandering around, "What the..., where did those come from?"
Strawman. Are you implying that God cannot be the intelligent designer?
I thought they were through, being cool?
Negative. No strawman. God created:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Or, if you prefer Hebrew:
1:1בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Hebrew: "Bara": 1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
Please answer. How much science education do you have??
It appears to me that since you don’t have the science education to understand some concepts and they seem so complicated to you, you automatically say god did it and that’s the end of it.
Even Pope John Paul II said that evolution is perfectly compatible with the Roman Catholic Church.
Maybe all the laws of physics, and thereby chemistry and biology were designed by God.
More than enough to find the flaws in the reasoning of mere mortals like Einstein.
Doesn't say how he created the heaven and earth.
What do you disagree with Einstein about?
My pleasure. If you’re interested, check my history as I post new articles/papers on the creation, evolution, ID debate pretty much on a daily basis. All the best—GGG
Maybe God formed man and shaped him by the process of evolution?
Or it simply verifies Darwin's opinion that larger populations allow for more variation.
some spammers are more equal than others
If you believe in the Bible, devolution is a foregone conclusion.
If a car company designs and builds a car which fails in its most critical requirements, I wouldn't put the blame on the car..
Isn't that more like several times a day?
Unless, of course, God is directing the whole evolution process.
Again, correct. The salient point is it does say "created", not evolved, not gave commanders intent, not closed His eyes and pushed a button.
The Master envisioned, planned, arranged for delivery of, and executed, creation.
Not plausible. God would not have front loaded man with non-essential genes.
Then we still would not need redemption, much less have His Son go through the horror he did on Calvary's tree.
Depends on what you mean by both of those terms.
Isn't that pretty much the YEC position? He pushed a button, created man and closed his eyes?
How much science education did JPII have?
Contradictory. Direction dictates plan, which negates chance.
Why not? It may all be part of God's plan. It is presumptious for you to declare that you know God's plan.
Because God told us His plan. And it doesn't include evolution.
God's plan. Not contradictory.
God could fill this world with little animated gingerbread men who all jump into your mouth. But He didn't. Is that "putting limits" on God's ability?
YEC = Young Earth Creationist
“There is indeed a lot Darwin got wrong about human DNA.”
Darwin never said the slightest thing wrong about DNA, because it was not even discovered until long after his death.
My never-humble opinion: the creationist line on this is completely looney.
1st question: Why not? because an accident cannot be redeemed. You must first have belonged and then lost in order to need a redeemer.
2nd question: I do know God's plan. It is well documented in the Bible, specifically the New Testament. Read it, you will enjoy it. God's plan involves a personal relationship with you, His creation!
How do you know he didn't? Are you the one that call's the shots for God?
You seem to be under the impression that when someone says that God didn't do something that would be theoretically possible for Him to do, that this is somehow "putting limits on God's abilities". I would question that conclusion as faulty reasoning.