There has been much promoted regarding the "supposed" evolution of humans from the apes and chimpanzees. Yet, as more and more studies come out regarding comparison of the human DNA and other properties within these groups of non-humans it becomes increasingly evident that there are significant differences at the genome and every other level including differences at the behavioral level. From a design perspective one can compare structures and their functions and even behaviors between animal groups. But from a Creationist perspective this does not have anything to with a common genetic ancestry only a common designer. Of course this last statement is a philosophic one just as the assumed evolutionary association by others is philosophic. See section on the Interfacing of Religion, Philosophy, and Science for a further discussion regarding assumptions in developing one's views of past events of the origins of life and the material universe.
DNA and Structure Homology Studies That Argue Against Evolution
Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons. Acts & Facts. 42 (1), 2013. "A common claim among evolutionists is that human and chimp DNA is between 96 and 98 percent similar—but only carefully selected data were used to arrive at this conclusion. However, evolutionists themselves have reported that only about two-thirds of chimpanzee DNA sequence can be unambiguously aligned, meaning precisely matched, to human DNA.5 This is because the algorithm used in the analysis stops matching the DNA sequence when the human and chimp segments become too dissimilar, which occurs after only a few hundred bases, on average...I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall." Click button below to read article.
Genomic monkey business-estimate of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. by Jeffry Tompkins and Jerry Bergman J. Creation 26(1) 94-100, April 2012. "A review of the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are primarily based on prescreened biological samples and/or data. Data too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned was typically omitted, masked and/or not reported. Furthermore, gap data from final alignments was also often discarded, further inflating final similarity estimates...While the recent Y-chromosome comparison between human and chimp does not lend itself to a genome-wide similarity estimate, the extreme dissimilarity discovered is an insurmountable paradox for common ancestry in primate evolution because it is by far the least variable chromosome in the human genome." Click button below to read article.
Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? by Jerry Bergman Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 15(1):26–33 April 2001. Part of his conclusions: "As scientists learnt more about anatomy, physiology and especially genetics, the concept of homology increasingly came under attack. One problem however, was that examples which seemed to fit evolutionary assumptions were often cited, while the many examples that do not fit were ignored... If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, then we would expect that the same homologies found at the macroscopic level also exist at the microscopic, biochemical and genetic levels. What researchers in each of these fields often find, has greatly undermined the homology concept. So many exceptions now exist that molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the homology theory should be rejected. His main argument is that genetic research has not shown that homologous structures are produced by homologous genes and follow homologous patterns of embryological development. Instead, genetics has found that homologous structures are 'often specified by non-homologous genetic systems' and furthermore, the homology 'can seldom be extended back into embryology'." Click on button below to read article.
Australopithcus and Homo habilis-pre-human ancestors?
by Bill Mehlert 1996
Part of his conclusions: "(5) We have the peculiar situation that there are now
no evolutionary ancestors for the genus Homo, which includes H. erectus, H.
neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens. Neither are there any suitable evolutionary ancestors for the three modern African great apes, Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, and Pan paniscus, while on the other hand there are no modern descendants of the three very similar Pliocene and Pleistocene apes, A. boisei, A. robustus, and A. africanus. Table 5 indicates a more probable phylogeny for the higher primates, based on my studies. (6) The media and the education establishment has played a dominant role in the indoctrination of the public, by focussing heavily on the initial and more sensational claims by palaeontologists, and by ignoring the more sober evaluations of later independent experts." See article at below link.
by Bill Mehlert 1996
Part of his conclusions: "(5) We have the peculiar situation that there are now
no evolutionary ancestors for the genus Homo, which includes H. erectus, H.
neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens. Neither are there any suitable evolutionary ancestors for the three modern African great apes, Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, and Pan paniscus, while on the other hand there are no modern descendants of the three very similar Pliocene and Pleistocene apes, A. boisei, A. robustus, and A. africanus. Table 5 indicates a more probable phylogeny for the higher primates, based on my studies. (6) The media and the education establishment has played a dominant role in the indoctrination of the public, by focussing heavily on the initial and more sensational claims by palaeontologists, and by ignoring the more sober evaluations of later independent experts." See article at below link.
Jumping wallaby genes and post-Flood speciation
by Pierre Jerlström 2000
"Jumping genes or transposable elements (TEs) are present in virtually all life forms, from bacteria to humans. They are short DNA sequences that can move from site to site in the chromosomes of their hosts. They have been divided into two groups, DNA transposons and retroelements...Retroelements have been found in the chromosomes of eukaryotes (which unlike bacteria, have cells with a defined nucleus) such as yeast (the simplest eukaryote), fruit flies, and in vertebrates such as mice and man. The DNA sequence elucidated from the human genome project shows that 35-40% of human DNA is made up of retroelements...molecular biologists have been unveiling crucial functions for these elements. For example, retroelements have been found to play an important role in regulating gene expression (switching genes on and off) and in the repair of chromosomes..." See article from CMI at link below:
Comparison of Limb Structure in Various Life Forms Reveals Common Design Not Genetic Association
Developmental genetics supports creation theory by Walter ReMine 2016
This article is a book review of a book titled: Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation by Gunter Wagner. Walter Remine reviews the book and demonstrates how the information contained in the book actually supports the concepts of design rather than evolutionary development.
"This book focuses on the intersection of genetics and embryology—called developmental genetics—which seeks to understand how DNA strings are converted into functioning organs and body plans. Our understanding of this breathtakingly complex phenomenon is still exceedingly rudimentary, though modern techniques have finally opened up research. A typical technique maps out where and when, in the embryo, a particular gene is expressed...
Another technique suppresses (or ‘knocks out’) a particular gene and then observes which embryonic characters do, and do not, develop. Most of Wagner’s book (~70%) is material of this type, and can be fully embraced by anyone (evolutionist or creationist)...This is an evolutionist book, but it never proclaims new evidence against creation or for macro-evolution. The book never engages the creation-evolution debate. There is an unspoken reason for that: evolutionists are bewildered by the new data and how to explain it. They are now vying to amend evolutionary theory to accommodate this new data. This book begins that process...
The book focuses on the evolutionary concept of homology. Unfortunately, homology is almost always defined by how it is explained, not by how it is observed...
Though Wagner did not intend it, his material is exceedingly encouraging to creationists, and to Message Theory in particular. I discuss this next.
Message Theory claims life-forms were reasonably designed to accomplish three goals simultaneously. The biological designs are: (1) for survival; (2) to look like the product of one designer (rather than the product of multiple designers acting independently); and also (3) to resist macroevolutionary explanations (all of them, not just Darwin’s). Wagner’s material confirms 2 and 3 (and does not dispute 1).
For example, the existence of shared genes—essential to the body plans of diverse animals—helps unify life forms as the product of one designer, while those same genes are a radical problem for macro-evolution. All three design goals (1, 2, and 3) are accomplished simultaneously. That fits Message Theory well..."
"This book focuses on the intersection of genetics and embryology—called developmental genetics—which seeks to understand how DNA strings are converted into functioning organs and body plans. Our understanding of this breathtakingly complex phenomenon is still exceedingly rudimentary, though modern techniques have finally opened up research. A typical technique maps out where and when, in the embryo, a particular gene is expressed...
Another technique suppresses (or ‘knocks out’) a particular gene and then observes which embryonic characters do, and do not, develop. Most of Wagner’s book (~70%) is material of this type, and can be fully embraced by anyone (evolutionist or creationist)...This is an evolutionist book, but it never proclaims new evidence against creation or for macro-evolution. The book never engages the creation-evolution debate. There is an unspoken reason for that: evolutionists are bewildered by the new data and how to explain it. They are now vying to amend evolutionary theory to accommodate this new data. This book begins that process...
The book focuses on the evolutionary concept of homology. Unfortunately, homology is almost always defined by how it is explained, not by how it is observed...
Though Wagner did not intend it, his material is exceedingly encouraging to creationists, and to Message Theory in particular. I discuss this next.
Message Theory claims life-forms were reasonably designed to accomplish three goals simultaneously. The biological designs are: (1) for survival; (2) to look like the product of one designer (rather than the product of multiple designers acting independently); and also (3) to resist macroevolutionary explanations (all of them, not just Darwin’s). Wagner’s material confirms 2 and 3 (and does not dispute 1).
For example, the existence of shared genes—essential to the body plans of diverse animals—helps unify life forms as the product of one designer, while those same genes are a radical problem for macro-evolution. All three design goals (1, 2, and 3) are accomplished simultaneously. That fits Message Theory well..."
No Clear Evidence for Dinosaur to Bird Evolution
Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy
by Jerry Bergman and Philip Snow 2015
"A review of the extensive literature covering the more popular theories of the evolution of birds was completed. Of the numerous theories proposed, all were found to be problematic, and for this reason most are now rejected by evolutionists. The most popular current theory, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, was briefly reviewed, and also found to suffer from major problems, some of which were discussed. The major problem is the differences between birds and both reptiles and mammals, and the fossil record has not been of much help in solving this evolutionary problem. Nor have genetic or biochemical comparisons." See link below for an extensive review.
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the
Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory
John Sanford, Ph. D., John Baumgardner , Ph. D. etc. 2008
Abstract
Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to
population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or
the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based
upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very
reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to
surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
In A. A. Snelling (Ed.) (2008). Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 165–175).
Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and
Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
Abstract
Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to
population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or
the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based
upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very
reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to
surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
In A. A. Snelling (Ed.) (2008). Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 165–175).
Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and
Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.