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.
Are you saying that man created by God through evolution is an accident?
Please point out in any of the sacred writings, Old and/or New Testament, where God's plan involved evolution. G'hed.
Not me. I’m just noting that members of the anti-science crowd are rather uniform in claiming super powers. All of them, from weather girls to colonic irrigators, have mental capacities far beyond that of mere mortals.
Because I don't see any little animated gingerbread men running around, anywhere, at any time. Unless you are one VERY fat man.
I would say that your conclusion of what impression I am under is a conclusion of faulty reasoning.
You don’t believe that both direction and chance are under God’s control?
Oh. In order for you to believe that God has done something, you have to see it with your own eyes. I think that I understand that perfectly, NOT!
Now who is making a Strawman?
God did not create man through evolution. Evolution requires random mutation and chance. God does nothing through chance. I thought I had covered this.
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
You really aren't that smart, are you?
Chance is random. It cannot be under 'control'. This is an elementary concept. Please tell me you do not truly believe what you wrote?
I think you have hit upon a key point. They don't believe that they are mere mortals having been blessed with a unique relationship with God that is beyond what we can understand.
On what basis does the author submit that none of the data from uranium decay or astrophyscial observations constitutite empirical evidence for deep time?
But God gave us free will. He took a chance on mankind. He was frequently frustrated with our free will and his lack of control so had to resort to drastic measures like kicking man out of the garden of Eden and wiping them off the face of the earth a few times, destroying cities and civilizations and such. Our earth is full of chance. Like when a tornado or fire kills a bunch of innocent children.
God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden taking the chance that they would not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The rest is history.
Are you asserting that God does not foresee the outcome of chance events and hence control them by allowing them to happen?
Are you of the school that believes God creates and guides hurricanes to specific places as punishment?
Seems resonable. God has a history of punishing man by 'natural events'.
Pretty presumptious of you to declare what God did or did not do.
Indeed He did, full well knowing the outcome. From our perspective, it is chance. God knew the result.
He took a chance on mankind. He was frequently frustrated with our free will and his lack of control so had to resort to drastic measures like kicking man out of the garden of Eden and wiping them off the face of the earth a few times, destroying cities and civilizations and such.
Still, He knew this would happen. After Adam sinned, He set the plan of redemption in motion.
Our earth is full of chance. Like when a tornado or fire kills a bunch of innocent children.
Do not think of this as chance from God's perspective. If you build your house in the shadow of a volcano, do not complain when lava overtakes it. Do not hold God accountable for our use (or misuse) of free will.
I only repeat what God has declared. I can do nothing else.
Not entirely, unless prophetic warning and a chance for repentance has been given. Ninevah escaped destruction because of Jonah, as a tool of God's love, preaching repentance. Sodom and Gomorrah were given the opportunity to repent and did not.
Which leads to one of the great mysteries of Intelligent Meteorology -- What does God have against mobile homes?
Why didn't God just make man good and without any programming errors he had to eliminate every few generations by destroying most of living man on earth?
If they are not entirely an act of punishment, then either the tornados are sent as a reward or they are an act of chance. Which?
Main Entry: 1chance
1 a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause b: the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck c: the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence : contingency
2: a situation favoring some purpose : opportunity (needed a chance to relax)
3: a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a: the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation ; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome (a small chance of success) b plural : the more likely indications (chances are he's already gone)
5 a: risk (not taking any chances) b: a raffle ticket
Notice how there is nothing indicating direction or planning?
“Despite the widespread belief that we emerged from chimpanzees 6 million years ago,
You know that the author is bonkers when he leads off with statements like this!
Aren't trailer park dwellers mostly YEC'rs?
If I have this straight, you are saying that evolution has a purpose?
Logical fallicy. Simply because there is no discernable cause for punishment, does not mean that weather is not simply behaving as intended (see volcano reference above).
If God sends a tornado as punishment to a deserving crowd, then those who die were given opportunity to repent. This does not preclude people from dying as a result of natural disaster simply because they happened to be in the road of bad weather. The two are not connected. However, we as limited humans cannot directly tell the difference.
Please point out where it says that God's plan did NOT involve evolution.
Thank you for the dictionary definition—I never would have thought of that!
However, the dictionary presents man’s definition of chance, not God’s definition. To God, there is no chance. Given that, even the random, chance occurrences that are part of evolutionary theory are all part of God’s plan.
You must have missed the whole "creation" thing?
Creation involves purpose and design.
Oh. So some people have a chance to repent but others do not because they, by chance, were in the route of bad weather?
Then you disagree with those that promote ID?
If we as limited humans cannot directly tell the difference, how do you know there is a difference?
God's definition is ours since He gave us the mind to understand the world around us. He created our rational mind, our logic, our reason. Every definition we conceive has been pre-ordained by God.
You are correct in saying the to God, there is no chance. Simply because we see it as chance does not mean it is so to the Master. Consider this, were we to be able to account for every occurance, every reaction to some action, then there would be no such word as 'random' or 'chance'. God has this ability being Omniscient and Omnipotent. Part of His job description.
You are kidding, right? What does the "D" in "ID" stand for?
No, I am not. Please respond. Do you agree with ID or not?
Excellent question. Those who repent and turn to God, to them, they see the difference. God's purpose is served. Man is redeemed.
Do you see the cross as a symbol of torture and death, or do you see it as a symbol of what God did for you out of love?
You must be. Intelligent Design is a scientific method that allows for an intelligent designer. What precisely is your question?
Exactly. Evolution may not be based on randomness or chance and we should not discount it on that basis. We as mere mortals cannot limit God's power.
Why do you keep ducking the question? Are you afraid to take a stand on whether or not ID may be a valid theory?
“...He gave us the mind to understand the world around us. He created our rational mind, our logic, our reason.”
Precisely. We use the mind that God gave us to postulate that evolution is the path that God took to get us here.
Doesn't ID also say that life first formed in pools of scum and that man evolved from these early life forms over billions of years?
Then it is not evolution, but design and creation. Evolution dictates the means by which man has emerged as random.
I am not ducking any question. Give one and I will answer it. Simply asking if I agree with some obscure point that only you know, does not constitute me "ducking".
I will try again. Is Intelligent Design theory consistent with your viewpoints on man's creation?