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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last
To: rjsimmon
1st question: Why not? because an accident cannot be redeemed. You must first have belonged and then lost in order to need a redeemer.

Are you saying that man created by God through evolution is an accident?

51 posted on 02/23/2009 10:53:11 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
God's plan. Not contradictory.

Please point out in any of the sacred writings, Old and/or New Testament, where God's plan involved evolution. G'hed.

52 posted on 02/23/2009 10:53:25 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

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.


53 posted on 02/23/2009 10:53:38 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
How do you know he didn't?

Because I don't see any little animated gingerbread men running around, anywhere, at any time. Unless you are one VERY fat man.

54 posted on 02/23/2009 10:54:12 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
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.

I would say that your conclusion of what impression I am under is a conclusion of faulty reasoning.

55 posted on 02/23/2009 10:55:48 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
I would say that your conclusion of what impression I am under is a conclusion of faulty reasoning.

Sure. *yawn*

56 posted on 02/23/2009 10:56:39 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

You don’t believe that both direction and chance are under God’s control?


57 posted on 02/23/2009 10:56:50 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Because I don't see any little animated gingerbread men running around, anywhere, at any time.

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!

58 posted on 02/23/2009 10:57:38 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Are you saying that man created by God through evolution is an accident?

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.

59 posted on 02/23/2009 10:57:59 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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!

You really aren't that smart, are you?

60 posted on 02/23/2009 10:59:30 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
You don’t believe that both direction and chance are under God’s control?

Chance is random. It cannot be under 'control'. This is an elementary concept. Please tell me you do not truly believe what you wrote?

61 posted on 02/23/2009 10:59:42 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: js1138
All of them, from weather girls to colonic irrigators, have mental capacities far beyond that of mere mortals.

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.

62 posted on 02/23/2009 11:00:05 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

On what basis does the author submit that none of the data from uranium decay or astrophyscial observations constitutite empirical evidence for deep time?

63 posted on 02/23/2009 11:01:11 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Chance is random. It cannot be under 'control'. This is an elementary concept.

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.

64 posted on 02/23/2009 11:02:58 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
God does nothing through chance.

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.

65 posted on 02/23/2009 11:05:19 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Are you asserting that God does not foresee the outcome of chance events and hence control them by allowing them to happen?


66 posted on 02/23/2009 11:05:22 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
God does nothing through chance.

Are you of the school that believes God creates and guides hurricanes to specific places as punishment?

67 posted on 02/23/2009 11:05:38 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; rjsimmon
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'.

68 posted on 02/23/2009 11:07:25 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
God did not create man through evolution.

Pretty presumptious of you to declare what God did or did not do.

69 posted on 02/23/2009 11:08:52 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
But God gave us free will.

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.

70 posted on 02/23/2009 11:10:46 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Pretty presumptious of you to declare what God did or did not do.

I only repeat what God has declared. I can do nothing else.

71 posted on 02/23/2009 11:11:53 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You mean to tell me that humans aren't "evolved" from monkey's? Amazing...

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

72 posted on 02/23/2009 11:14:57 AM PST by vox_freedom ("If God be for us, who is against us?" -- Romans 8:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Are you of the school that believes God creates and guides hurricanes to specific places as punishment?

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.

73 posted on 02/23/2009 11:15:42 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Seems resonable. God has a history of punishing man by 'natural events'.

Which leads to one of the great mysteries of Intelligent Meteorology -- What does God have against mobile homes?

74 posted on 02/23/2009 11:16:30 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Indeed He did, full well knowing the outcome.

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?

75 posted on 02/23/2009 11:17:30 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Not entirely, unless prophetic warning and a chance for repentance has been given.

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?

76 posted on 02/23/2009 11:19:20 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Hnp7HQ0Gk


77 posted on 02/23/2009 11:21:44 AM PST by Don W (People who think are a threat to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
You still seem to be struggling with this. Allow me to help:

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?

78 posted on 02/23/2009 11:22:44 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“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!


79 posted on 02/23/2009 11:23:09 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
What does God have against mobile homes?

Aren't trailer park dwellers mostly YEC'rs?

80 posted on 02/23/2009 11:24:08 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
a situation favoring some purpose

If I have this straight, you are saying that evolution has a purpose?

81 posted on 02/23/2009 11:25:23 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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?

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.

82 posted on 02/23/2009 11:26:04 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Please point out in any of the sacred writings, Old and/or New Testament, where God's plan involved evolution. G'hed.

Please point out where it says that God's plan did NOT involve evolution.

83 posted on 02/23/2009 11:27:22 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

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.


84 posted on 02/23/2009 11:28:29 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Please point out where it says that God's plan did NOT involve evolution.

You must have missed the whole "creation" thing?

Creation involves purpose and design.

85 posted on 02/23/2009 11:28:42 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
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.

Oh. So some people have a chance to repent but others do not because they, by chance, were in the route of bad weather?

86 posted on 02/23/2009 11:29:03 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Creation involves purpose and design.

Then you disagree with those that promote ID?

87 posted on 02/23/2009 11:29:55 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
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.

If we as limited humans cannot directly tell the difference, how do you know there is a difference?

88 posted on 02/23/2009 11:31:19 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
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.

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.

89 posted on 02/23/2009 11:33:09 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Then you disagree with those that promote ID?

You are kidding, right? What does the "D" in "ID" stand for?

90 posted on 02/23/2009 11:33:53 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
You are kidding, right?

No, I am not. Please respond. Do you agree with ID or not?

91 posted on 02/23/2009 11:35:38 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
If we as limited humans cannot directly tell the difference, how do you know there is a difference?

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?

92 posted on 02/23/2009 11:35:41 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
No, I am not. Please respond. Do you agree with ID or not?

You must be. Intelligent Design is a scientific method that allows for an intelligent designer. What precisely is your question?

93 posted on 02/23/2009 11:37:08 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
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.

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.

94 posted on 02/23/2009 11:38:33 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Why do you keep ducking the question? Are you afraid to take a stand on whether or not ID may be a valid theory?


95 posted on 02/23/2009 11:39:25 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

“...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.


96 posted on 02/23/2009 11:39:44 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Intelligent Design is a scientific method that allows for an intelligent designer.

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?

97 posted on 02/23/2009 11:40:32 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
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.

Then it is not evolution, but design and creation. Evolution dictates the means by which man has emerged as random.

98 posted on 02/23/2009 11:43:06 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Why do you keep ducking the question? Are you afraid to take a stand on whether or not ID may be a valid theory

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".

99 posted on 02/23/2009 11:44:14 AM PST by rjsimmon (1-20-13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
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?

100 posted on 02/23/2009 11:45:54 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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