Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Recent Human Variation Is Not Evolution (evidence points to recent creation)
ICR ^ | February 23, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligengdesign; spam; spamspamspamspam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

1 posted on 02/23/2009 10:05:02 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 02/23/2009 10:05:44 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I suspect that as genes evolve, so do we.


3 posted on 02/23/2009 10:06:43 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

The evidence suggest variation within the created kinds, and devolution (not evolution) ever since the fall.


4 posted on 02/23/2009 10:08:10 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There is indeed a lot Darwin got wrong about human DNA.


5 posted on 02/23/2009 10:08:40 AM PST by Ender Wiggin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

GodSpamGunsSpamSomeMoreSpamGunsThatFireSpam strikes again....


6 posted on 02/23/2009 10:09:30 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


7 posted on 02/23/2009 10:11:52 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the interesting post!


8 posted on 02/23/2009 10:18:16 AM PST by VRWCTexan (History has a long memory - but still repeats itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

The Word of God says "created", not "evolved".

9 posted on 02/23/2009 10:20:46 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I believe in Devolution.


10 posted on 02/23/2009 10:21:51 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
The Word of God says "created", not "evolved".

How dare you put limits on God's ability.

11 posted on 02/23/2009 10:23:40 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I believe in Devolution.

Or more likely, Devilution.

12 posted on 02/23/2009 10:24:10 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"I believe in Devolution."

You're in good company...


13 posted on 02/23/2009 10:26:01 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

“The Word of God says “created”, not “evolved”.”

To revise: The Word of God says “created”, but not how.


14 posted on 02/23/2009 10:26:27 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
How dare you put limits on God's ability.

Not I, but God Himself said so. Or did you miss that part in the Bible?

15 posted on 02/23/2009 10:28:03 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
To revise: The Word of God says “created”, but not how.

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?"

16 posted on 02/23/2009 10:30:14 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Evolution dictates chance. God leaves nothing to chance.

Strawman. Are you implying that God cannot be the intelligent designer?

17 posted on 02/23/2009 10:31:39 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I thought they were through, being cool?


18 posted on 02/23/2009 10:31:40 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Strawman. Are you implying that God cannot be the intelligent designer?

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

19 posted on 02/23/2009 10:35:46 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


20 posted on 02/23/2009 10:36:41 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
Please answer. How much science education do you have??

More than enough to find the flaws in the reasoning of mere mortals like Einstein.

21 posted on 02/23/2009 10:38:14 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Doesn't say how he created the heaven and earth.

22 posted on 02/23/2009 10:39:06 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: js1138
More than enough to find the flaws in the reasoning of mere mortals like Einstein.

What do you disagree with Einstein about?

23 posted on 02/23/2009 10:40:09 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VRWCTexan

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


24 posted on 02/23/2009 10:40:56 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Hebrew: "Bara": 1) to create, shape, form

Maybe God formed man and shaped him by the process of evolution?

25 posted on 02/23/2009 10:41:19 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

Or it simply verifies Darwin's opinion that larger populations allow for more variation.

26 posted on 02/23/2009 10:41:19 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

some spammers are more equal than others


27 posted on 02/23/2009 10:41:26 AM PST by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

If you believe in the Bible, devolution is a foregone conclusion.


28 posted on 02/23/2009 10:41:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"The first humans disobeyed God’s command to refrain from eating the fruit of a certain tree

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..

29 posted on 02/23/2009 10:41:48 AM PST by Riodacat (Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

Isn't that more like several times a day?

30 posted on 02/23/2009 10:42:03 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Unless, of course, God is directing the whole evolution process.


31 posted on 02/23/2009 10:42:56 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

God willing!


32 posted on 02/23/2009 10:43:30 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Doesn't say how he created the heaven and earth.

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.

33 posted on 02/23/2009 10:43:45 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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,

Not plausible. God would not have front loaded man with non-essential genes.

34 posted on 02/23/2009 10:44:19 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Maybe God formed man and shaped him by the process of evolution?

Then we still would not need redemption, much less have His Son go through the horror he did on Calvary's tree.

35 posted on 02/23/2009 10:45:18 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

Depends on what you mean by both of those terms.

36 posted on 02/23/2009 10:45:34 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
The salient point is it does say "created", not evolved, not gave commanders intent, not closed His eyes and pushed a button.

Isn't that pretty much the YEC position? He pushed a button, created man and closed his eyes?

37 posted on 02/23/2009 10:45:58 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
Even Pope John Paul II said that evolution is perfectly compatible with the Roman Catholic Church.

How much science education did JPII have?

38 posted on 02/23/2009 10:46:15 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Unless, of course, God is directing the whole evolution process.

Contradictory. Direction dictates plan, which negates chance.

39 posted on 02/23/2009 10:46:21 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Then we still would not need redemption, much less have His Son go through the horror he did on Calvary's tree.

Why not? It may all be part of God's plan. It is presumptious for you to declare that you know God's plan.

40 posted on 02/23/2009 10:47:08 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Isn't that pretty much the YEC position? He pushed a button, created man and closed his eyes?

YEC?

41 posted on 02/23/2009 10:47:52 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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.

42 posted on 02/23/2009 10:48:45 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Contradictory. Direction dictates plan, which negates chance.

God's plan. Not contradictory.

43 posted on 02/23/2009 10:48:54 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
How dare you put limits on God's ability.

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?

44 posted on 02/23/2009 10:50:00 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

YEC = Young Earth Creationist


45 posted on 02/23/2009 10:50:40 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
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?

?

46 posted on 02/23/2009 10:51:23 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ender Wiggin

“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.


47 posted on 02/23/2009 10:51:35 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Why not? It may all be part of God's plan. It is presumptious for you to declare that you know God's plan.

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!

48 posted on 02/23/2009 10:51:54 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
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?

How do you know he didn't? Are you the one that call's the shots for God?

49 posted on 02/23/2009 10:52:03 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
?

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.

50 posted on 02/23/2009 10:52:44 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson