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.
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.
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?