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 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.
References
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 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.
Please show me one that holds differently. I won't hold my breath.
Try these:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design
http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligent-design
Remember, I am not an ID adherant. The readings I mentioned are diverse and either in print or articles from various news sources. Do not expect me to archive every tenet of every belief system out there.
Do you always argue this way? I never once said that there were many ID sites that did not support evolution. Find one post where I said this. When you cannot, apologize.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
“If evolution is defined as “change over time,” then clearly one can believe in God and evolution because God could have directed the change.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligent-design
Nowhere does this say man was ‘created’ not evolved/designed.
“The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.”
OK. Please cite what you have read!
"From what I have read, there are many threads within the ID community."
Not at all. I am just asking you to back you one tenet. That ID does not support that man evolved over millions of years.
Doesn't say how he created the heaven and earth.
Doesn't say He did via anything like evolution.
Doesn’t say anything about radiation but I hope you believe in radiation.
Doesn’t say he didn’t.
Great news!
By the way, please add me to your ping list, thanks!
Evolution in progress.
Thanks for the ping!
Done! Welcome aboard the HMS Creation :o)
And it doesn't say anything about first tying your shoes before going off for the day, because if you don't, you might trip and fall.
There, glad that's all settled!
So why does it have to be mutually exclusive? I doubt that ancient Hebrew even had a word for evolution and that created could have easily meant a slow rather than an abracadabra process.
However, creation is not constrained by time or process.
Because of the end purpose. If humans are accidents of nature, evolved from primordial soup, then we are not in need of redemption. God created man for His great purpose, man subsequently fell from grace and needed to be redeemed. We alone hold this unique position in all of the known universe.
You need to shut down your transmitter long enough for your receiver to function. The debate in this thread is not about whether man spontaneously arose from the primordial soup, it is about the validity of the catholic Churches endorsement of Theistic Evolution. The main point being that God using the laws of science that He created does not diminish the miraculous nature of His creations. If you are so hung up on the time the process took just remember that God created space and time and the relationships between them, but if you would prefer card tricks........
What an eloquent way to influence people and persuade them to your point of view. BTW, my receiver is functioning quite well.
The debate in this thread is not about whether man spontaneously arose from the primordial soup, it is about the validity of the catholic Churches endorsement of Theistic Evolution.
How wonderful it is that we have you to come along and tell us what we are discussing. Not one person on this thread had a clue until you deigned to drop by. Thank you for enlightening us wee simple folk.
Now, to enlighten you, the Catholic church's endorsement was not even mentioned in the article. The article was from the Institute for Creation Research.
The main point being that God using the laws of science that He created does not diminish the miraculous nature of His creations.
You must actually read the article in question and the ensuing thread. This was not in question. What was in question, at least my salient point, was that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive.
If you are so hung up on the time the process took just remember that God created space and time and the relationships between them,
This is truly asanine. I am not 'hung up' on time. God's word specifically states God created heaven and the Earth. His revelation to Moses was each time period used for significant events was a 24 hour period. This is for man's reasoning. Whether the Almighty used 24 actual hours to do one thing or another is entirely His business, but He revealed a time period that was put into the account of creation. What I find more poignant is that there were those significant events and they were grouped according to some category of creation. The time thing is merely a side note, as far as I am concerned, and not a litmus test for salvation. What is fundamental though, is the difference between a created being and an accident.
but if you would prefer card tricks......
Truly a dizzying intellect.
So if God didn't employ the processes He created, how do you describe the process of "creation". Does it have to look like pulling a rabbit out of a hat to pass your divine litmus test?
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.