AiG - Genetics - Human Genome

Denisovan DNA’s Secrets
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 8, 2012

Featured in News to Know
Share:
* *
*
Denisovan DNA’s secrets—unveiled and interpreted
News Source
* Nature: “New DNA analysis shows ancient humans interbred with Denisovans”
Denisovans are a recently discovered member of the human family, represented so far
by only a finger bone and two teeth from Siberia. However, Denisovan DNA is already
better studied than that of Neanderthals. Researchers sequencing their DNA with a
new technique confirm that a substantial portion of modern Papuan DNA seems to have
been obtained from Denisovans and that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and early modern
humans all intermingled. By comparing the number of mutations in the Denisovan DNA
with those in modern human DNA, they estimate the Denisovan girl died 75,000 years
ago. Furthermore, they now claim to have additional evidence tracing the evolution
of humans from an ape-like ancestor.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Efforts to sequence Neanderthals have been hampered by contamination with bacterial
and modern human DNA. Only about 5% of the DNA from Neanderthal samples is actually
Neanderthal DNA. By contrast, 70% of the DNA obtained from the Denisovan fragments
seems to belong to the original owner. The partial sampling of her DNA in 2010
revealed that the Denisovan was a previously unknown archaic human. Now, a
practically complete DNA sequence has been obtained using a new “high-coverage”
technique. Results are consistent with a somewhat dark-skinned female with brown
hair and eyes.
They believe any genomic similarity between modern humans and Denisovans to be
evidence of changes that occurred as humans and chimps diverged from their common
ancestor.
The researchers compared Denisovan DNA with that of chimps and modern humans. They
believe any genomic similarity between modern humans and Denisovans to be evidence
of changes that occurred as humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor.
For instance, they believe that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two chromosomes
that remain separate in chimps. Since Denisovan DNA is just like a modern human in
this respect, they place the chromosomal fusion deeper in the genetic past than the
Denisovan-modern human split.1
Comparing Denisovan DNA to modern human DNA, less than a tenth of a percent of the
differences were in regions “known to affect the expression or structure of genes.”
Many were in areas affecting the nervous system. And many of these differences were
in areas of the genome associated with various skin and eye pathology. The rest of
the differences were insignificant. Furthermore, the minimal evidence of genetic
diversity in the DNA suggests that the Denisovan population was quite small.
Thus it seems that Denisovans and modern humans had a great deal in common, as did
Denisovans and Neanderthals.2 Estimates of the antiquity of the DNA are based on a
number of unverifiable assumptions about human evolution in general and about
mutation rates in particular. Therefore, even though the number of differences
between Denisovan DNA and that of modern humans can be assessed, interpretations
about the age those differences represent are based on unverifiable assumptions.
According to the Bible, all human beings are descended from Adam, so we are not
surprised to find that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans share genetic
characteristics. Their similarities with each other and their differences from
chimps are not evidence that chimps, Denisovans, and modern humans share an ape-
like ancestor or that one human chromosome is an evolution-derived chromosomal
fusion. Humans (including Denisovans) and apes are simply different and were
created differently by God from the beginning.
Further Reading
* Neanderthals vs. Humans: Are They Different?
* When Did Cavemen Live?
* Were Cavemen Real?
* “The Search for the Historical Adam” and Population Genomics
For More Information: Get Answers
________________
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know
about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, FOX News,
MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most
likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have
submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch all the latest News to Know,
why not take a look to see what you’ve missed?
(Please note that links will take you directly to the source. Answers in Genesis is
not responsible for content on the websites to which we refer. For more
information, please see our Privacy Policy.)
Previous Article
Mixed Response for Early Modern Human Skull in Asia
Next Article
Belief in Human Evolution: Cause, Co-Conspirator, or Cure for Racism?
You May Also Like
* ABO Blood and Human Origins
* ABO Blood and Human Origins * Are We Really That Different?
* Are We Really That Different? * Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 1 of a Response
to Chapter 2 (and Chapter 4) of Adam and the Genome
* Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 1 of a Response to Chapter 2 (and Chapter 4) of
Adam and the Genome Footnotes
1. Despite the confidence with which evolutionists proclaim that human
chromosome #2 evolved from the fusion of two chromosomes in a human ancestor (after
humans split from some shared ancestor with apes), the human chromosome does not
have an extra centromere, which should be present had two chromosomes fused. And
the centrally placed telomeric-like “end-pieces” evolutionists claim prove the
chromosome is a fusion are actually just patterns which can be found near telomeres
but are not limited to that location. The evolutionist’s interpretation of the
appearance of the chromosome is based on a prior conviction that humans evolved
from ape-like ancestors.
2. Perhaps the appearance of genetically transmitted disease within a small
group of people ultimately contributed to the Denisovan demise as a people, though
admittedly only one person has been sampled thus far and the findings may not be
confirmed if more Denisovans are ever found. This of course is only speculation, as
we do not actually know to cause of extinction of any of the so-called “archaic”
humans.
ABO Blood and Human Origins
by Daniel Criswell on January 14, 2009; last featured June 14, 2018
Featured in Answers in Depth
PDF DOWNLOAD
Share:
* *
*
Abstract
With our recent ability to rapidly sequence genes, the ABO blood group is also
proving to be a valuable asset for determining human migration patterns and
origins.
Keywords: ABO blood, human origins, blood type, protein, lipid, antigen,
antibodies, Adam and Eve, allele frequencies, global flood
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
This article is reprinted here by gracious permission of ICR. Dr. Daniel Criswell
has a PhD in molecular biology and is a biology professor at the ICR Graduate
School.
The original article is located here: http://www.icr.org/article/3647/
Many people know what their blood type is and understand that blood types must be
matched in a medical emergency. The ABO blood group is the most significant blood
factor in clinical applications involving blood transfusions. Understanding the
importance of the ABO blood group is not limited to clinical applications, however.
With our recent ability to rapidly sequence genes, the ABO blood group is also
proving to be a valuable asset for determining human migration patterns and
origins.
What Determines Blood Type?
ABO antigen specificity
Figure 1. ABO antigen specificity. The ABO antigens differ by just one sugar at the
antigen terminus. Only the carbohydrate portion of the antigen is illustrated.
ABO blood types are determined by a cell surface marker that identifies the cell as
belonging to “self” or to that individual. These cell surface markers are
characterized by a protein or lipid that has an extension of a particular
arrangement of sugars. Figure 1 shows the arrangement of sugars that determines
each of the A, B, and O blood types.1 Note that each is identical, except that
types A and B have an additional sugar: N-acetylgalactosamine for A, and galactose
for B.
These sugar arrangements are part of an antigen capable of stimulating an immune
response that produces antibodies to identify and destroy foreign antigens. People
with blood type A produce antibody B when exposed to antigen B, and those with
blood type B produce antibody A when exposed to antigen A. Blood type AB, however,
produces no antibodies because both antigens present on the cells are recognized as
“self.” Blood type O produces antibodies A and B, because neither antigen A nor B
is present on the cells of type O individuals (Table 1). Antibodies A and B belong
to the “M” class of immunoglobins and are expressed from the immunoglobin genes of
B-cell lymphocytes upon exposure to foreign antigens. Immunoglobin genes are
capable of producing an essentially infinite number of antibodies through a complex
editing and selective process.1 Consequently, there isn’t a specific “antibody A”
gene or “antibody B” gene inherited with a complementary A or B antigen.
Blood Type
Cell Antigen
Serum Antibodies
Donor
A
A
B
A or O
B
B
A
B or O
AB
AB
None
All
O
None
A and B
O
Table 1. ABO Blood Groups
A gene for the specification of antigens A or B or type O determines the blood
type. An enzyme, glycosyltransferase, is the product of this gene,2 and differences
in the sequence of this enzyme (polymorphisms) determine whether the enzyme
attaches N-acetylgalactosamine (antigen A), galactose (antigen B), or no sugar
(type O) (Figure 1). People inherit two genes for blood type; or, more accurately,
two alleles, one from each parent. These alleles are represented as IA for type A,
IB for type B, and i for type O. Both glycosyltransferase alleles for antigens A
and B are expressed when inherited together, producing both antigens and resulting
in blood type AB. When the allele for blood type A or B is inherited with type O,
the individual will be either type A or B. This is not necessarily because the type
O allele is silenced or recessive, but is instead a result of the activity of the A
or B glycosyltransferase, while the glycosyltransferase for the O allele is
inactive.2 A type O individual has both alleles for the inactive
glycosyltransferase.
Blood Types and Human Origins
Possible inheritance of four blood types
Figure 2. The possible inheritance of four blood types from Adam and Eve. Alleles
for blood type IA = A, IB = B, i = O
So what light does this shed on human origins? Is it possible for the two people of
the Creation account (Adam and Eve) or the eight people on Noah’s Ark to give rise
to all of the ABO blood types present in humans today? If Adam and Eve were
heterozygous for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one
allele for either type A or B), they could have produced children that had any of
the ABO blood types, as illustrated in Figure 2. The Punnett square simply predicts
what the possible phenotypes would be for a given couple’s children. From the
number of children that Adam and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to
envision all of the ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
If Adam and Eve were heterozygous for the ABO blood type gene locus, then the
allele frequency for the type O allele is 50 percent (2 of 4 alleles), the allele
frequency for type A is 25 percent (1 of 4 alleles), and the allele frequency for
type B is 25 percent (Figure 2). If there are no selective pressures or genetic
drift for these alleles, then the allele frequency will remain constant through all
of their descendants. The overall allele frequency in the Punnett square is
actually the same for the children as it might have been for Adam and Eve. This
scenario would also be true for Noah’s family and their descendants.
Modern Allele Frequencies
Do human populations today reflect these allele frequencies? The answer is yes.
Table 2 shows the allele frequencies for several populations. (Note that these are
not blood type frequencies.) There is a general increase in the frequency of the
type O allele, and in many populations a drop in the type B allele. But as
expected, the frequencies for each allele are close to what they could have been at
the start of human history or with Noah’s family. The shift in frequency (the
increase in type O and decrease in type B) can be caused by migration of people
groups that had a higher or lower frequency for one of the alleles at the time of
migration. It could also result from random genetic drift, or from a mutation that
renders glycosyltransferase inactive—which would result in blood type O from type A
and is likely one cause for the increase in the frequency of the O allele.
Population
Number
Allelle Frequency
O
A
B
American
20,000
67
26
7
French
10,433
64
30
6
Japanese
29,799
55
28
17
African
1,538
57
22
21
Hindu
2,357
55
18
26
Table 2. The allele frequencies for several populations.3, 4
Unfortunately, the origin of the ABO alleles gets more complicated when examining
the actual gene for glycosyltransferase. There are more than 180 variations
(polymorphisms) for the ABO gene listed on the National Center for Biotechnology
Information (NCBI) website,5 and each one of these polymorphisms can be assigned to
one of the three ABO alleles. Most of these polymorphisms do not change
glycosyltransferase activity or blood type, but can identify ethnic groups that
formed after humans migrated across the globe. Mutation and chromosome crossing-
over events are the most plausible cause of these variants.6
There are DNA differences, or polymorphisms, that determine the function of
glycosyltransferase, resulting in different ABO blood types. These differences are
few, but not trivial. The glycosyltransferase specific for antigen A synthesis
differs from the antigen B-specific enzyme by just four amino acid residues (out of
354), and there are several DNA sequence differences in the alleles that code for
the A- and O-specific enzyme.2 The four differences between the A and B
glycosyltransferase are enough to allow the enzyme to specify the characteristic
terminal sugar that distinguishes antigens A and B. A single DNA deletion in the A-
specific allele results in a truncated version of the glycosyltransferase gene
product, eliminating enzymatic activity and effectively resulting in blood type O.
Origin Implications of Blood Type O
It can be argued that one of the three alleles is ancestral to the other two. For
example, the origin of the O allele, and subsequently blood type O, is simply the
result of the deletion resulting in a loss of function of glycosyltransferase
activity for the A antigen. A mutation resulting in the loss of function in a
protein, at best, would be a “nearly neutral” mutation since blood type O does not
appear to have any deleterious effects or selective advantage over the other two
blood types. Because neutral or nearly neutral mutations have no selective
advantage, it is likely impossible to fix these mutations in a large population of
organisms (fixation = 100 percent O alleles) in a reasonable length of time. For
example, if a mutation that gave blood type O were actually 1 percent more
beneficial than type A, it would take 100,000 generations to fix this mutation in
the modern human population from a beginning population of 10,000 people.7, 8 The
larger the population at the time of the mutation, the longer it will take for
fixation and the less likely the mutation will ever be fixed.
Molecular evolutionary time scales place modern humans at roughly 200,000 years
ago,9 a timeframe too short to increase the O allele frequency to 60 percent of all
people alive today within a population of 10,000. Certainly a biblical timeframe
would be far too short for such fixation. The deletion responsible for converting
an A allele to an O allele is not present in chimpanzees, and sequence comparisons
between humans and chimps indicate this allele is unique to the human lineage,10,
11 further complicating an evolutionary scenario for the origin of blood type O.
This scenario would fit better if the O allele was rare in the population today and
appeared in a specific people group. However, the O allele is by far the most
common allele globally, indicating that if it did originate via a mutational event,
it had to occur when the human population was extremely small and before humans
divided into ethnic groups and spread across the globe.
It is possible to achieve the current O allele frequency via a mutation if it
occurred at the time of Noah’s flood and was passed on by one of Noah’s family
members. Noah or Mrs. Noah could have had the O allele and passed it on to each one
of their sons, or the alleles could have mutated in one son’s offspring. The
population of the human race at the time of the flood and immediately afterward
certainly qualifies as a population size that would enable a mutated allele to
become common as the population grew. With a starting population of only eight
people, the O allele could easily have increased in frequency through random
genetic drift in the post-flood population, reflecting the present levels that are
observed today and consistent with computer simulations modeling fixation.12
Conclusion
If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have
been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and
before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in
Adam and Eve at creation or whether it arose as a mutational event that took place
shortly before or after the flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are
descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated
the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins.
More Than Meets the Eye: The Human Genome
on June 16, 2007
Share:
* *
*
News Source
* BBC NEWS: “Human Genome Further Unravelled”
One of the most frequently posited arguments for evolution is the supposed
similarity of ape and human DNA. For instance, it seems that nearly any article
about “human-like” chimpanzee behavior manages to squeeze in a mention of ninety-
some percent similarity between chimp and human genomes.
Answers in Genesis has long tried to show both the illogic and misunderstanding
such claims spread. For one thing, similar genomes do indicate similar biological
construction, but do not indicate common descent any more than they indicate common
design. For another thing, the supposed similarity is often referenced without
explanation of how the genomes are dissimilar.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Evolutionary science is just now catching up with the conclusions creationists have
already drawn. “A close-up view of the human genome has revealed its innermost
workings to be far more complex than first thought,” reports a BBC NEWS article on
a recent Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (Encode) study. Encode’s goal is to build
upon the successful mapping of the human genome by understanding exactly how the
genome works. The article explains:
The surprising results, explained Tim Hubbard from the Wellcome Trust Sanger
Institute, “transform our view of the genome fabric.”
Previously, genome activity was thought of in terms of the 22,000 genes that make
proteins—the functional building blocks in our cells—along with patches of DNA that
control, or regulate, the genes.
The other 97% or so of the genome was said to be made up of “junk” DNA—so called
because it had no known biological function. . . .
Dr Hubbard said: “We are now seeing the majority of the rest of the genome is
active to some extent.”
The reality is that human understanding of how genes actually control biological
construction is woefully inadequate, albeit advancing more each year. Claims that
genome similarity between chimps and humans “prove” evolution are not only
misleading; they are based on a considerably immature field of science.
Claims that genome similarity between chimps and humans “prove” evolution are not
only misleading.
Beyond the chimp-human relatedness debate, this genomic revelation reminds us of
the incredible information processing going on inside our bodies at each moment—
information processing that puts human computing efforts to shame. Not only does
evolution not explain how such intricate information could have evolved from
scratch, it also fails to explain how such an advanced information-management
system could have evolved before or concurrently with the information so that the
genes could actually be “read” and used by cells. Design perfectly explains both
the presence of such vast amounts of data and the awe-inspiring system used to
decode it.
To find more on this latest discovery, return to this website in early July for a
more in-depth article by AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom.
Three Genetic Groupings
on July 4, 2009
Share:
* *
*
Washington Post: “Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety” A new genetic study
of 53 human populations shows that each falls into one of three genetic groups—yet
that the three groups aren’t as different as was thought. The legacy of Shem, Ham,
and Japheth (Noah’s three sons), perhaps?
Washington Post writer David Brown reviews a recent study that analyzes genetic
information from 53 human groups, comparing and contrasting what makes us human.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Generally speaking, all people groups seem to fall into “just three” categories,
Brown reports.
Brown reports. According to evolutionists, this tripartite division originated when
humans left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, splitting into African,
Eurasian, and East Asian groups (the third of which includes Pacific Islander and
Native American groups).
For creationists, that division makes plain sense as reflective of the people
groups that split off after Babel, all descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Of
course, in the millennia since, those people groups have migrated and interbred, so
it’s difficult to say perfectly what modern groups belong to what ancestor—or even
to imply that the ordinary human descends from just one of Noah’s three
sons/daughters-in-law. Additionally, the genomes have been influenced over the
years by environment. So a population of Shem’s descendants and a population of
Japheth’s descendants living in the same environment for millennia would come to
resemble one another. Brown makes the point, albeit from an evolutionary
perspective:
People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through
natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our
genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the
African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food
availability, parasites, infectious diseases, and lots of other things.
Nonetheless, the study is an exciting reminder of the reality of the Genesis
account.
But what else is interesting is that the three broad groupings in the study aren’t
as different as evolutionists expected. Brown writes, “Scientists have long known
that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone’s genes are pretty much
alike. We’re all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.” Brown
identifies skin color as the “most obvious” of these details. Of course, that
reflects what creationists have emphasized, but differs from what some
evolutionists originally preached (see Darwin’s Plantation for more). He goes on,
“Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences . . . [but] that’s
not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns
out to be extremely rare.”
The entire study reminds us of how the variation we see among human populations
today could have arisen as our forbears left Babel. Genetic drift and natural
selection played important roles over time, which is why any two humans randomly
selected may differ in stature, skin color, disease susceptibility, lactose
tolerance, and so forth—even while all of us remain entirely and equally human. The
Bible’s message in Acts 17:26—that we are all of one blood, descendants of Adam
through Noah—is a powerful truth explaining our world.
South Carolina Man’s DNA Tells Ancient Story
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on March 9, 2013
Share:
* *
*
When a relative of Albert Perry, an African-American man in South Carolina (now
recently deceased), decided to send his DNA sample to the National Geographic
Genographic Project, she created quite a stir in the world’s genomic databases.
News Source
* ScienceDaily: “Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought”
Mr. Perry’s Y-chromosome didn’t match any of the data on file. Family Tree DNA took
up the search for Mr. Perry’s ancestral roots, and their surprising discoveries and
conclusions have just been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Michael Hammer, whose laboratory sorted through the mystery, says, “The most
striking feature of this research is that a consumer genetic testing company
identified a lineage that didn't fit anywhere on the existing Y chromosome tree,
even though the tree had been constructed based on perhaps a half-million
individuals or more. Nobody expected to find anything like this.”
Chromosome
The normal male human chromosomes include one X (left) and one Y chromosome, which
is much smaller. Only males have the Y chromosome. Because it is only inherited
from the father, it is useful for tracking ancestral relationships. A 240,000 base
portion of Mr. Perry’s Y-chromosome was compared to the database that has been
accumulating in recent years and found to reflect a rare lineage. Image courtesy of
University of Arizona through www.sciencedaily.com
________________
Inheritance chart
This family tree illustrates the reason mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes are
useful for tracing ancestry. Only males have Y chromosomes, and being unmixed with
DNA from the mother, the mutation pattern on the Y chromosome can be matched with
similar patterns in other people whose DNA happens to be in the database. In this
way, people can be grouped according to their shared common ancestors. Similarly,
even though everyone has mitochondrial DNA, it is passed on through the mother, so
its mutation patterns can also be traced. But the effort to determine how long ago
people in a particular group (like Mr. Perry and the Mbo men from Cameroon) shared
a common ancestor is fraught with many unverifiable assumptions and therefore
flawed. Image credit: saypeople.com
The Y-chromosome is the easiest-to-track portion of men’s genomes since it is only
passed on through males without any mixing of parental genes. (Mitochondrial DNA,
similarly, is the easiest to track in women, as it is passed on through daughters.)
Over time, chromosomes mutate quite a bit, and most of those mutations don’t hurt
anything. But those point mutations do produce unique combinations that can be used
to trace ancestral relationships and sometimes even geographical origins.
Further research eventually tracked Mr. Perry’s unusual combination of genetic
variants to the Mbo people of western Cameroon in sub-Saharan Africa. “The sample
matched the Y chromosome DNA of 11 men, who all came from a very small region of
western Cameroon,” explains Hammer. “And the sequences of those individuals are
variable, so it's not like they all descended from the same grandfather.”
Having discovered that Mr. Perry’s roots stretched back to a place not widely
represented in genetic databases, the next question was to ask what sort of people
were they? Why are they so minimally represented in the modern gene pool? Can we
know how far back we would have to go to find the common ancestor of Mr. Perry and
these Mbo men? And from the evolutionary point of view, of course, what are the
implications for humanity’s origins?
First of all, it is important to note that all of the DNA in question is ordinary
human DNA, not some sort of sub-human hybrid or transition—which of course never
existed, we creationists argue. But researchers believe, on the basis of their
molecular clock calculations, that the lineage of Mr. Perry and these eleven Mbo
men reaches back too far to be from the anatomically modern humans in the fossil
record. They therefore propose that some sort of genetic contribution from archaic
humans is present in the DNA.
Evolutionists currently estimate that Neanderthals diverged from ancestral humans
about 300,000 years ago and that anatomically modern humans then evolved about
195,000 years ago. This belief is based on radiometric dating of the rock layers
near to sites where anatomically modern human fossils are found. But calculations
based on Mr. Perry’s Y-chromosome suggest his ancestors were much older. Hammer
says, “Our analysis indicates this lineage diverged from previously known Y
chromosomes about 338,000 ago, a time when anatomically modern humans had not yet
evolved. This pushes back the time the last common Y chromosome ancestor lived by
almost 70 percent.”
Since mutations accumulate over time, the more time elapsed since people groups
shared a common ancestor should generally be reflected in greater genetic
diversity. Previously, data on DNA diversity has suggested that people containing
the most diverse genetic material hail from other regions in Africa.
Finding the unusual Y-chromosome represented among the Mbo, Hammer says, “was
surprising because previously the most diverged branches of the Y chromosome were
found in traditional hunter-gatherer populations such as Pygmies and the click-
speaking KhoeSan, who are considered to be the most diverged human populations
living today. (See Presence of Ancient Anatomically Modern Humans in Africa and
Another Variety of Archaic Humans for more about them.)
Despite the common designation of the oldest last common ancestor of various groups
as “mitochondrial Eve” or “Y chromosome Adam,” Hammer points out that the data
suggests neither anything biblical nor any single ancestral human. “There has been
too much emphasis on this in the past,” he says. “It is a misconception that the
genealogy of a single genetic region reflects population divergence [from a single
pair of people]. Instead, our results suggest that there are pockets of genetically
isolated communities that together preserve a great deal of human diversity.”
Instead, the molecular clock conclusions imply that Perry’s ancestors may have
included archaic humans who are now extinct. And in 2011, human fossils combining
modern and “unexpectedly archaic features”1 were found in the Nigerian village of
Iwo Eleru. Hammer says, “The Cameroon village with an unusual genetic signature is
right on the border with Nigeria, and Iwo Eleru is not too far away.”2 He adds, “It
is likely that other divergent lineages will be found, whether in Africa or among
African-Americans in the U.S. and that some of these may further increase the age
of the Y chromosome tree.”
Molecular clock calculations appear authoritative and factual, but they are only as
good as the standard by which they are calibrated.
So is this proof that humans evolved earlier than thought, or even that they
evolved at all? No. Molecular clock calculations appear authoritative and factual,
but they are only as good as the standard by which they are calibrated. And they
are calibrated using unverifiable assumptions about the unobservable untestable
past.
Mutation rates, for instance, must be constant for clock conclusions to be valid.
Even in the present, that assumption has already been disproven in humans (as
discussed in Scientists Admit Genetic Data Timing Uncertain and Molecular Clock
Off-Line), and there is no way to observe past mutation rates.
Furthermore, molecular clock predictions are built upon a statistical house of
cards, attempting to predict how long evolution would take if it could happen and
if mutation rates were known to be stable. And human molecular clocks, in
particular, rely heavily on the assumption that chimps and humans share an ape-like
ancestor. The expected time for differences to diverge from this hypothetical ape-
like ancestor to produce modern human and chimp DNA is often used to calibrate the
data.
As to the statistical methods at the heart of molecular clock dating, evolutionary
authors summed up the problems well in a 2004 article in Trends in Genetics. They
wrote, “In this article, we document the manner in which a calibration point that
is both inaccurate and inexact—and in many instances inapplicable and irrelevant—
has been used to produce an exhaustive evolutionary timeline that is enticing but
totally imaginary.” Therefore, they write, “Despite their allure, we must sadly
conclude that all divergence estimates discussed here are without merit. Our advice
to the reader is: whenever you see a time estimate in the evolutionary literature,
demand uncertainty.”3
The assumptions on which the molecular clock dating of human origins is based are
as unverifiable and flawed as those of radiometric dating. Therefore, while Mr.
Perry clearly has a unique heritage, we reject the vast age estimates for his
lineage.
“Creationists and most evolutionists believe that at some point people migrated out
from some central location,” explains Dr. Georgia Purdom, molecular geneticist with
Answers in Genesis. “When that occurred is the issue. The evolutionists’ time frame
is wrong, and that’s because their assumptions are wrong.”
But this information is actually quite exciting in another way. Mr. Perry’s
ancestral roots, now known to reach back to the same place as those of a few men in
Cameroon, are evidence of the diversity we see as a result of the dispersion from
the Tower of Babel. The rare DNA markers in this lineage are a record of some of
the people who migrated out from there, human beings whose individual life stories
are lost in roughly 4,000 years of history but who were just as human as we are.
Mr. Perry’s DNA is therefore a link to the human diversity we all share, having all
descended from Noah’s family.
What Makes Us Human?
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on November 23, 2013
Share:
* *
*
Has “EnhancerFinder” unraveled the secret of human origins?
News Source
* ScienceDaily: “Fast-Mutating DNA Sequences Shape Early Development; Guided
Evolution of Uniquely Human Traits”
Could supercomputers backtrack human evolution and discover what went right
genetically to make us human? Researchers report their superior number-crunching
capability has revealed which genetic switches turned ancestral animal embryos onto
the human path.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Human Genome Project—Only The Beginning
“Advances in DNA sequencing and supercomputing have given us the power to
understand evolution at a level of detail that just a few years ago would have been
impossible,” says Katherine Pollard of the University of California, San
Francisco's (UCSF's) Institute for Human Genetics. “In this study, we found
stretches of DNA that evolved much more quickly than others. We believe that these
fast-evolving stretches were crucial to our human ancestors becoming distinct from
our closest primate relatives.”
“It's been 10 years since the Human Genome Project was declared ‘complete,’”
Pollard says, “but the amount of genomic knowledge we've gleaned since then—in
large part due to advances in bioinformatics and supercomputing—have catapulted us
far beyond what we thought we knew. I'm confident that as we continue to dive deep
into important regions such as HARs [human accelerated regions], we'll come ever
closer to answering the question: what makes us human?’”
Switching Onto The Fast-Track
Evolutionists consider humans more highly evolved than chimps. Pollard’s group
attributes advanced human abilities to rapid—accelerated—mutations in the evolving
human-to-be lineage after chimps and humans diverged from a common ape-like
ancestor. They compared human and chimp genomes in search of such differences in
regulatory genes,1 naming the 2,600 or so differences they identified human
accelerated regions (HARs).
Once-upon-a-deep-time, the team hypothesized, many such HARs controlled how long
certain genes switched on to enhance embryonic development, enabling those embryos
to evolve into something more advanced than their forebears. The team designed
EnhancerFinder to identify HARs that could make us human. Then they tested some
HARs on animal embryos to see if they could direct development human-ward.
“EnhancerFinder is a machine-learning algorithm that takes in basic genetic
information—a HAR sequence, known evolutionary patterns, other functional genomics
data—and returns a prediction of that HAR’s function,” explains John Capra, lead
author of the report published 11 November 2013 in Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B. “Using this approach, we predicted that nearly eight hundred
HARs act as enhancers at a specific point during embryonic development. Confirming
this prediction for several dozen HARs, our next goal was to see whether any of
these HARs enhanced patterns of gene activation that were uniquely human.”
Genetically Enhanced Mice
After testing some HARs on mouse embryos, the team believes EnhancerFinder has
glimpsed “gains of function” that enabled ape-like ancestors to become human. For
instance, the researchers compared the effects of the human and chimpanzee versions
of 2xHAR.164 and 2xHAR.170 on embryonic mice. Only the human version “enhanced” the
development of a portion of the brain that becomes the cerebellum.2 Therefore, the
researchers believe that genes directing brain development in an ancestral embryo
gained new functions when inactive forms of these HARs rapidly mutated into active
forms.
“These results, while preliminary,” Capra says, “offer an unprecedented glimpse
into how very recent changes to the human genome have modified the genetic programs
that control embryonic development to potentially yield different results. We
anticipate that if we were to look at the activity of HARs that are enhancers
during later developmental stages, we would see even more differences between
humans and chimpanzees.”
Testing the effect of a human gene sequence on a mouse embryo does not, however,
demonstrate how mutations in ancestral animal embryos could unlock their genetic
potential and cause them to evolve into humans. A laboratory mouse’s embryonic
development can be altered by artificially providing it with new genetic
instructions, but naturally occurring genetic “gain of function” of the type
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution has never been observed.
Regulatory Genes
What makes us human? To examine the differences in how chimpanzee and human
regulatory genes control embryonic development, some of those genetic distinctions
were tested on developing mice. The influence of human and chimpanzee genetic
regions called 2xHAR.164 and 2xHAR.170 on these mouse embryos differed. Only the
human version of the genes was associated with mid- and hindbrain development.
Image by J. Capra et al., via Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.3
Evolutionary Enhancements or Designed Distinctives?
Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis explains why the
study’s conclusions are flawed from their foundation:
The central problem with the research is the beginning assumption that humans and
chimps share a common ancestor. The researchers compare human and chimp DNA. Where
the sequences differ in the locations they have defined, they assume that the human
DNA in these regions has mutated faster than the chimp DNA in the same area, since
they believe humans are more evolved than chimps.
The researchers did not observe the DNA mutating. Rather, because they assume that
humans are more evolved than chimps, they believe the DNA in the HARs must have
evolved rapidly after humans and apes diverged.
“Thus,” Dr. Purdom explains, “they label these regions as ‘human accelerated
regions’ or HARs.” But even naming these sections of the human genome “accelerated”
or “enhanced” assumes that ape-like creatures on the evolutionary fast-track
evolved into people.
Since no such information-increasing mutation of the type necessary for molecules-
to-man evolution has ever been observed, how did these HARs originate? Dr. Purdom
sheds light on these chimp-human distinctions:
From Scripture we know that humans and chimps are separate creations by God, so in
reality the regions they label as HARs are very likely regions that God designed
differently in chimps and humans. Humans and chimps do share a fair amount of
genetic similarity (especially genes), which is to be expected, since on a
biological level humans and chimps are both mammals. Thus it is no surprise that a
lot of the differences seem to be in the control or regulatory regions of genes,
which “HARs” may represent.
Common Designs And So Much More
Identifying genetic similarities and differences between humans and primate animals
cannot reveal how those differences came to be.
The researchers simply “told” the computer that evolution “happened” and then asked
the computer to “tell” them how.
EnhancerFinder’s programming was based not just on observable differences between
the human and chimpanzee genomes but on so-called “known evolutionary patterns.”
Yet those patterns have never been observed and are only assumed to have taken
place. Programming a computer to agree with you does not prove you are right. In
simple terms, the researchers simply “told” the computer that evolution “happened”
and then asked the computer to “tell” them how. In reality, the computer at best
identified common designs and chimp-human distinctives.
Our Creator used many common designs in the living things he created. Biological
classifications depend largely on such similarities. But amid those common designs
are distinct differences. The differences encoded in the human genome not only
blueprint many unique human abilities but also tailor many common designs to suit
human needs. Thus, distinctives in the human genome—like “HARs”—define much of the
physical aspect of what makes us human.
Elaborating on God’s creation of man in Genesis 2:7, God’s Word records, “And the
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living being.” From the time that God created Adam
and Eve (Genesis 1:26–27) in His own image humans have had fully human physical
bodies imbued with a unique spiritual nature.
God created Adam and Eve on the 6th day of Creation week about 6,000 years ago. The
remarkable features unique to humans as well as those we share with other
biological mammals are all of God’s creation and design. From the beginning, God
designed humans in His image to be able to have fellowship with Him, something
animals cannot do. Thus humans are supplied an abstract creative thinking capacity
that enables us to think thoughts and use language and ask questions and make
choices and understand the natures of God and man.
God’s “Project”
So, what makes us human? Our human genome is an essential part—though only part—of
that answer. And where did the human genome—only now beginning to be understood
since being mapping by the Human Genome Project—come from? The human genome was
God’s “project,” spoken into existence when He created Adam’s physical body and
endowed him with a spiritual nature, without any evolution at all.
God’s “project”—His plan for human beings—did not end when He created Adam and Eve.
Soon after their creation, our first parents rebelled against God, wrecking their
relationship with their Creator and incurring the just sentence of death, both
spiritually and physically. All people since have sinned and fallen short of the
glory of our holy and perfect God (Romans 3:23). God has nevertheless graciously
supplied forgiveness, through the sacrificial death of His own Son Jesus Christ, so
that human beings may be restored to fellowship with their Creator and have
abundant and eternal life.
The Creator’s Human Genome Project
Perspective
on April 1, 2014
Featured in Answers Magazine
Share:
* *
*
EnhancerFinder, a supercomputer program, is supposedly revealing genetic
enhancements that once upon a deep time put an apelike ancestor on the fast track
to becoming human.* The claim is that EnhancerFinder finds genetic regions that
mutated rapidly, leading to the evolution of humans from a common ancestor we
supposedly shared with chimps.
Noah's Ark Guide - FREE
Get equipped with biblical answers to questions about Noah's ark and the global
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
John Capra, lead author of a report published in the November issue of
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, explains, “EnhancerFinder is a
machine-learning algorithm that takes in basic genetic information—a HAR [Human
Accelerated Region] sequence, known evolutionary patterns, other functional
genomics data—and returns a prediction of that HAR’s function.”
Notice that EnhancerFinder’s programming was based not just on observable
differences between human and chimpanzee genomes but also on “known evolutionary
patterns.” Yet those patterns have never been observed and are only assumed. Even
naming these sections of the human genome “accelerated” or “enhanced” assumes that
the DNA came from a common ancestor that humans share with chimps.
Humans and chimpanzees do have physical and genetic similarities. No surprise
there, since biologically they are both mammals designed by the same God. But that
does not prove we share a common ancestor.
EnhancerFinder’s developers believe HARs have played an important role in the
evolution of humans. Molecular geneticist and creationist Dr. Georgia Purdom
disagrees: “From Scripture we know humans and chimps are distinctive creatures; so,
in reality, genetic regions labeled ‘accelerated’ are likely regions God designed
differently in chimps and humans.”
The Human Genome Project examines only a physical aspect of human beings—the
genome. God formed that genome when He created Adam’s physical body and endowed him
with a spiritual nature. In addition, God made humans, not animals, in His image.
God’s “human project” did not end, even when through rebellion we incurred the
sentence of death, both spiritual and physical. All people have sinned (Romans
3:23), but God graciously offers forgiveness, purchased by the death of His Son
Jesus Christ, so that people may be restored to fellowship with their Creator when
they repent and trust Him.
*http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131110204417.htm
Finding Adam in the Genome: A Response to Adam and the Genome
by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on April 27, 2017
Featured in A Response to <i>Adam and the Genome</i>
Share:
* *
*
Evolution has long been at odds with Genesis.1 However, as new scientific data
accumulate, evolutionists find new and more nuanced ways to contradict the biblical
account. The recent publication of Adam and the Genome illustrates this.2 The
authors don’t just deny the plain reading of Genesis 1–11 and the historicity of
Adam and Eve; they extend their denial into the New Testament.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Should Christians care? Consider the theological ramifications. If the thesis of
Adam and the Genome is true, then the plain reading of the text of Scripture is
wrong.3 If we can deny the accuracy of one section of Scripture, what’s to stop us
from denying the rest? Consistent with this predictable pattern, the theistic
evolutionary group BioLogos (with whom one of the book’s authors is affiliated4)
does not affirm inerrancy in their doctrinal statement,5 and the president of
BioLogos makes it clear that they tolerate the view that the Bible has errors.6
Where in Scripture do the errors stop, and where does truth begin?
If one man (Adam) didn’t sin, can one Man (Jesus Christ) really save?
Consider what the nonexistence of Adam and Eve would mean for the central element
of Christianity, the gospel. God through Paul makes it clear that one man (Adam)
sinned, and one Man (Jesus Christ) saves.7 If one man (Adam) didn’t sin, can one
Man (Jesus Christ) really save? Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve has
sobering consequences for the Christian faith.8
Again, BioLogos manifests the fruit of such compromise. They are already
entertaining alternative views of the atonement of Christ.9 Which doctrines will be
reinterpreted next?
The publication of Adam and the Genome should concern all Christians for another
reason: lay Christian audiences are the specific target of this book. The “lay”
element is clear from one author’s summary: “My goal for my half of the book was to
lay out, as clearly as possible for the average reader, why it is that mainstream
biologists—Christian or otherwise—agree that humans evolved, and that we did so as
a substantial population.”10 The “Christian” element is evident from the subtitle:
Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.
What should believers do? How should they respond? This article is the first of a
series in which we will be responding to the scientific claims made in Adam and the
Genome. The first part of our response is designed to correct an oversight in Adam
and the Genome: Adam and the Genome does not engage any of the genetic arguments
we’ve advanced in our technical literature.11 In contrast, chapter 10 of our recent
book Searching for Adam12 summarizes our technical papers and directly engages the
claims made by one of the authors on the BioLogos website. In our chapter, we
showed that recent genetic discoveries not only demonstrate the scientific merit
and integrity of the biblical position but they also present a strong challenge to
the evolutionary one. Consequently, we’ll begin our response by republishing this
chapter over the next four weeks in whole (but divided into several parts). Then,
in later articles, we’ll respond to specific claims in Adam and the Genome.
Christians need not fear the attacks presented by evolution, regardless of whether
the arguments are old or new. The Bible stands infallible forever, and science will
never contradict what the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator has written.
Next Article
Creationists Are Liars? Finding Adam in the Genome with BioLogos
You May Also Like
* How Was Eve Created?
* How Was Eve Created? * When Was Adam Created?
* When Was Adam Created? * Did Humans Invent Clothes 120,000 Years Ago?
* Did Humans Invent Clothes 120,000 Years Ago? Footnotes
1. Roger Patterson, “What About Theistic Evolution?,” chapter 8 in How Do We
Know the Bible Is True? Vol. 2, (Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2011),
https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/what-about-theistic-evolution/.
2. Dennis R. Venema, and Scot McKnight, Adam and the Genome: Reading
Scripture after Genetic Science, Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2017.
3. See especially chapters 1–5 in Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth
About Man’s Origin (edited by Terry Mortenson, Green Forest, AR: Master Books,
2016).
4. Venema is a Fellow of Biology for BioLogos
(http://biologos.org/author/dennis-venema).
5. “What We Believe,” http://biologos.org/about-us/our-mission/.
6. Deborah Haarsma (president of BioLogos) said, “A brief note about the word
‘inerrancy’: at BioLogos, our range of theological and biblical perspectives will
be broader than that of the Evangelical Theological Society. But ETS members are
comfortable in BioLogos. Some in BioLogos would not be comfortable with the word
“inerrancy.” They don’t see it as a useful concept; it’s not how they would
characterize their view of Scripture. But others would be comfortable with the
Bible being inerrant in terms of what God has to teach in matters of faith and
practice.” “Discussing Origins: Biologos, Reasons to Believe, and Southern
Baptists, Part 2,” BioLogos, January 27, 2015,
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/discussing-origins-biologos-reasons-to-believe-
and-southern-baptists-part-2.
7. “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s
offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one
Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came
through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted
in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in
justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much
more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will
reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man’s
offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one
Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of
life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s
obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:15–19).
8. The author of the theological half of the book, Scot McKnight, deals
explicitly with Romans 5. But you can guess how he approaches the text from the
following admission: “I’ll put this stronger: if you don’t accept Dennis Venema’s
section [the science section of the book], then my section of the book need not be
read. I write in the aftermath of the kind of science found in Venema’s part of the
book.” Scot McKnight, “Adam and the Genome: Some Thoughts from Scot McKnight,”
BioLogos, February 14, 2017, http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-
seeking-understanding/adam-and-the-genome-some-thoughts-from-scot-mcknight.
9. Joseph Bankard, “Substitutionary Atonement and Evolution, Part 2,”
BioLogos, June 10, 2015, http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/substitutionary-
atonement-and-evolution-part-2. Joseph Bankard states, “First, the incarnation is
not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require
Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. . . . My view of atonement argues
that Christ’s death was not part of God’s plan. This helps preserve God’s power
(God can forgive in many ways, he doesn’t require blood) and God’s goodness (God
doesn’t will the cross).”
10. Dennis Venema, “Thoughts from Dennis Venema,” BioLogos, February 15,
2015, http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/
adam-and-the-genome-some-thoughts-from-dennis-venema.
11. For example, see the following for a list of technical and lay-level
articles on human origins, and on the origins of species in general: “The Origin of
Species after the Flood,” Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-
ark/origin-of-species-after-flood/.
12. Nathaniel Jeanson and Jeff Tompkins, “Genetics Confirms the Recent,
Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve,” chapter 10 in Searching for Adam: Genesis &
the Truth About Man’s Origin.
Finding Adam in the Genome: Part 1 of a Response to Chapter 2 (and Chapter 4) of
Adam and the Genome
by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on June 22, 2017
Featured in A Response to <i>Adam and the Genome</i>
Share:
* *
*
This article series has been responding to Dennis Venema’s and Scot McKnight’s book
Adam and the Genome.1 Our primary focus has been on Venema’s scientific claims. In
our previous post, we explored chapter one which deals exclusively with nongenetic
data. Venema’s remaining chapters dive into the subject of genetics. In this post,
we begin exploring Venema’s evidences in chapter two, titled “Genomes as Language,
Genomes as Books.”
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Naturally, with a subject as technically complex as genetics, our task might seem
daunting. Nevertheless, in previous posts, we made a critical observation that
simplified our task. We discovered that evolutionists refuse to read young-earth
creationist (YEC) literature because they think that YECs are liars. Consequently,
when evolutionists cite evidence to support their claims, they effectively fit
facts to conclusions.
In chapter two, Venema’s opening arguments illustrate his refusal to engage the YEC
literature. His purpose in these arguments is spelled out explicitly:
When faced with compelling evidence for evolution, many nonbiologists assume that
evolution requires substantial changes in multiple organisms in the same generation
for a change to pass down over time. Therefore they conclude, reasonably enough,
that evolution is too improbable to occur.
If indeed evolution worked that way, they would be right. But, in fact, that’s not
the way it works. Evolution works by incremental change within a population,
shifting its average characteristics over long periods of time.2
To illustrate this point, Venema turns to human language for an analogy.
Missing the Bigger Debate
Venema’s choice is clever. Many parallels exist between the process of language
change and the process of biological change—extending even into the realm of
“transitional forms,” a subject that Venema addressed in chapter one. To accomplish
his stated purpose of showing that “evolution works by incremental change within a
population,” Venema picks an appropriate analogy.
At face value, Venema’s analogy doesn’t distinguish between evolution and YEC.
But what relevance does this analogy have to the origins debate? Had Venema read
the YEC literature and addressed it in his book, the relevance (or lack thereof)
would have been clear. In fact, YECs endorse language change. We explain the origin
of the over 7,000 languages in existence today by invoking an initial,
instantaneous language split at Babel, which would have resulted in perhaps 70
languages, followed by massive language change in the last few thousand years.3
Furthermore, YEC biologists like myself use similar language analogies to explain
DNA change and the process of speciation.4 At face value, Venema’s analogy doesn’t
distinguish between evolution and YEC.
One of the most critical distinctions between evolution and YEC is in an arena that
Venema’s language analogy never addresses. Like the YEC position on language
change, YEC scientists postulate an initial miracle (the creation events of Genesis
1) to explain the origins of the first ancestors or kinds. In other words, the YEC
position holds that the language analogy has strict limits. Venema doesn’t discuss
these limits in chapter two.
Engaging the Critical Issues
Instead, Venema deals with the potential limits to evolutionary change in another
chapter. In chapter four, Venema addresses some of the objections that the
Intelligent Design (ID) community has raised about the limits of evolution. Since
some of the objections raised by the ID community have been adopted by the YEC
community, Venema’s claims in chapter four (“What About Intelligent Design?”) are
worth exploring in detail at this juncture in our article series.
Since ID arguments can be as technically complex as the field of genetics, let’s
focus our attention on just one of the ID arguments that Venema claims to rebut:
Michael Behe’s. Unlike YECs, Behe accepts common ancestry of many species and has
no problem with the evolutionary timescale. Behe’s only objection to evolution is
the mechanism: random mutation and natural selection. In the last two decades, Behe
has published two books—Darwin’s Black Box5 and The Edge of Evolution6—which
outline his specific reasons for objecting to the evolutionary mechanism.
Venema attempts to summarize Behe’s arguments in chapter four. Given Venema’s
refusal to read the literature of his YEC opponents, it’s no surprise that Venema
manifests a similar flaw in his treatment of his ID opponents. Though Venema claims
to have read both of Behe’s books,7 Venema’s summary and understanding of Behe’s
claims leaves much to be desired.
Before exploring where Venema went wrong, let’s review what Behe has claimed. In
Darwin’s Black Box, Behe took up Darwin’s own test for evolution:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down.8
Naturally, Darwin claimed to “find out no such case.”9 But, as Behe points out,
neither Darwin nor his contemporaries knew anything about the molecular details of
cells—the very place where evolutionary change is supposed to happen. Behe put
Darwin’s test in biochemical and molecular terms.
In short, Behe concluded that biological systems consisting of multiple, mutually
interdependent parts—or irreducibly complex systems—could not evolve via mutation
and natural selection. In his book, Behe gives multiple systems that meet the
criteria of being irreducibly complex and, therefore, inexplicable via evolution.
Nearly a decade after Darwin’s Black Box, Behe took up an even more adventurous
task in The Edge of Evolution. Since Venema seems to conflate the messages of these
two books, let’s allow Behe to explain his purpose in his second book. Furthermore,
given Venema’s very pointed responses to Behe, it’s worth quoting Behe at length to
understand exactly what Behe was trying to accomplish, and to understand the
relationship between Behe’s second book and his first:
Darwin’s Black Box was concerned to show just that some elegant structures in life
are beyond random mutation and natural selection. This book is much more ambitious.
Here the focus is on drawing up reasonable, general guidelines to mark the edge of
evolution—to decide with some precision beyond what point Darwinian explanations
are unlikely to be adequate, not just for some particular structure but for general
features of life. This can be compared to the job of an archaeologist who discovers
an ancient city buried under sand. The task of deciding whether random processes
produced things like intricate paintings on walls of the city buildings (perhaps by
blowing sand) is pretty easy. After all, elegant paintings aren’t very likely to be
made by chance processes, especially if the paintings portray not just simple
geometric patterns, but images of people or animals.
But once the cherry-picking is over, the going gets tougher. Are the dark markings
at the side actually a part of a painting, or just smudges? Is a pile of stones
next to an exterior wall a table or an altar of some sort, or just a random
collection of rocks? Is ground near the wall the remnant of a tilled field? Where
lies the border of the city? Where does civilization stop and raw nature begin?
Deciding on marginal cases like those is harder work, and the conclusions will
necessarily be more tentative. But at the end of the study the archeologist will be
left with a much clearer picture of where the city leaves off and random natural
processes take over.10
Venema’s Fatal Misstep
With respect to Behe’s two books, Venema breezes over the differences. He treats
the tests that Behe lays out in the second book as nearly equivalent to the first.
In fact, as the quote above demonstrates, Behe’s first book makes a very tight
theoretical argument. Behe’s second book attempts to empirically determine general
rules for distinguishing between evolution and ID. The first book lays out a
rigorous case; the second book, by definition, deals with more ambiguous data and
is, of necessity, more tentative.
Specifically, Venema takes Behe’s “new binding sites between proteins”11 rule from
The Edge of Evolution and overextends it. Venema treats this rule as nearly
equivalent to Behe’s arguments in Darwin’s Black Box. In fact, they are distinct,
consistent with the distinctive purposes of each book:
The conclusion from Chapter 7—that the development of two new intracellular
protein-protein binding sites at the same time is beyond Darwinian reach—leaves
open, at least as a formal possibility, that some multiprotein structures (at least
ones that aren’t irreducibly complex, in the sense defined in Darwin’s Black Box)
might be built by adding one protein at a time, each of which is an improvement.12
Behe makes it obvious that his irreducibly complexity argument from Darwin’s Black
Box is different from the general rules that he derived in The Edge of Evolution.
This distinction is critical because Venema’s rebuttals focus largely on the “new
binding sites between proteins” rule—to the exclusion of the arguments in Darwin’s
Black Box.
Since Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, the evolutionary community has exerted
great effort in trying to rebut it—but without success.
Venema’s misstep is fatal. It is also consistent with evolutionary practice over
the last two decades. Since Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, the evolutionary
community has exerted great effort in trying to rebut it—but without success. In
general, evolutionary responses fall into four categories. First, evolutionists
have appealed to the concept of scaffolds. By analogy, bridges are an example of
irreducibly complex structures. Yet they exist and have been built in numerous
small steps, seemingly in defiance of Behe’s arguments against this possibility.
The reason bridges overcome the barriers to the construction of irreducibly complex
structures is the existence of scaffolds that buttress unstable intermediate steps
in the construction process. Of course, scaffolds exist because intelligent people
put them there. Since evolution seeks to replace intelligence as a scientific
explanation, and since Behe seeks to reestablish intelligence, the evolutionary
appeal to scaffolds is logically flawed from the outset. In other words, to invoke
scaffolding in response to Behe’s arguments is to concede defeat.
Second, evolutionists invoke vague hierarchies from simple structures and systems
to complex ones. This argument deftly skirts Darwin’s own criteria for testing
evolution. Since evolution works via “numerous, successive, slight
modifications,”13 the real test of evolution is in the details of the mechanism,
not in the way that life can be organized. Effectively, the evolutionary appeal to
vague hierarchies changes the subject—which is not a rational response to a
scientific challenge to evolution. (Darwin’s Black Box hammers this point home.)
Third, evolutionists have appealed to neutral evolution to explain the origin of
irreducibly complex biological systems. This tactic actually makes the problem
worse for evolution. Neutral evolution is simply a synonym for blind luck. When the
explanation is luck, probability calculations apply, and the probability of forming
a biochemical system by blind luck is effectively zero.14
Fourth, evolutionists have ignored irreducible complexity entirely. They have cited
the evolutionary origin of structures that are not irreducibly complex, in order to
justify the origin of structures that are. This logically incoherent answer does
nothing to meet Behe’s challenge.
In chapter four of Adam and the Genome, Venema cites three examples that supposedly
rebut Behe’s arguments. Venema describes a genetic comparison in fruit flies, a
“whole-genome duplication (WGD) event” in the lineage leading to vertebrates (i.e.,
humans, mammals, fish, and so on), and an example of evolution in viruses that
infect bacteria.
Again, because Venema conflates Behe’s two books, Venema’s arguments are deficient.
They also end up repeating the same erroneous strategies that evolutionists have
employed for 20 years. The fruit fly argument, by Venema’s own admission, does not
represent an irreducibly complex structure—a flaw in reasoning which Behe himself
has publicly identified.15 In other words, Venema commits the fourth type of error
that I discussed above.
Venema’s second claim is one from a vague hierarchy. Venema simply assumes that the
species—whose DNA he examines—are related via evolutionary common ancestry, and
then calls Behe’s arguments refuted. Venema never describes a detailed mechanism by
which these DNA patterns arose (nor does he give detailed justification for whether
they are irreducibly complex—a necessary point to prove if Venema wants to rebut
Behe’s claims from Darwin’s Black Box). In other words, Venema never shows how
“numerous, successive, slight modifications” actually produced the genomes that we
see today. In short, Venema repeats the second error that I discussed above.
In Venema’s last example, he seems to finally engage Behe’s claims. Venema says,
“This experiment documents the addition of a protein to an irreducibly complex
system.”16 In fact, Venema contradicts himself later:
Thus Behe is now faced with a concrete example of a new protein-binding site
arising through multiple mutations, with that new binding event replacing a
previously essential part of a complex system—and all documented at a level of
detail that cannot be disputed.17
Which is it? Was a new protein added to the system? Or was one part of the system
replaced with another? Venema doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the
two—or the significance for Behe’s ideas. In an irreducibly complex system,
swapping one part for another doesn’t explain the origin of the system.
For example, in Darwin’s Black Box, Behe uses a mousetrap as an analogy for
irreducibly complex systems in the biological realm. In the mousetrap example, the
pieces of the mousetrap can be attached to the floor instead of to the piece of
wood that normally forms the base of the trap. The floor and the base can be
swapped. But this says nothing about how any of these components arose in the first
place. Before the swap and after the swap, the number of irreducibly complex
components is the same. Nothing has been added to the system. A swap does nothing
to explain how a mousetrap can be built step-by-step from a non-mousetrap. For
evolution to occur, an irreducibly complex system must be built by addition of
parts, not the swapping of parts. Venema claims that parts were added to the system
—and then contradicts himself later. In fact, his latter answer is true—which means
the example never really addresses Behe’s claims in Darwin’s Black Box. In other
words, Venema’s last example falls under category four of traditional evolutionary
responses to Darwin’s Black Box.
Conclusion and Ramifications
Consider the significance of Venema’s attempts to rebut Behe. For over 20 years,
evolutionists have had opportunity to cite some example, some biological process,
some experimental result that refutes Behe’s claims. And, after two decades, the
best that Venema can do is change the subject. This does not bode well for the
scientific coherence of evolution.
Since Behe’s arguments are still fatal for evolution, we won’t take the time to
explore Venema’s responses to other ID claims. If Venema can’t address the most
significant objections to evolution, then there’s no need to explore the rest. The
naturalistic evolution of irreducibly complex biological structures is impossible.
It seems that Venema picks and chooses from Behe’s concepts to fit Venema’s
preconceived conclusions.
Let’s analyze one more aspect of Venema’s treatment of Behe’s ideas. Why does
Venema make the errors that he does? Perhaps Venema’s blunders are due to his
earlier confusion about the purposes of Behe’s two books. With respect to Venema’s
third example that supposedly refutes Behe, Venema seems preoccupied with the “new
protein binding site” rule (as the quote above demonstrates), yet he doesn’t
recognize the distinction between this rule and Behe’s arguments from irreducible
complexity. In other words, it seems that Venema picks and chooses from Behe’s
concepts to fit Venema’s preconceived conclusions. Whether deliberate or
inadvertent, Venema seems to have the same approach to all of his critics, whether
YEC or ID.
In subsequent posts, we’ll explore in more detail Venema’s language analogy, and
how he attempts to use that analogy to buttress his other claims in chapter two.
Are We Really That Different?
by Melissa Webb on February 11, 2018
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
The latest craze is to learn what DNA tests reveal about family heritage. When an
adoptive Christian family decided to look beneath the surface, however, they
discovered a more amazing truth.
At some point in your life you’ve probably wondered about your heritage. Was your
long-lost relative a servant in King Henry VIII’s palace, a pilgrim to the New
World, or a soldier in the American Revolution? The possibilities are endless.
Thanks to recent advances in DNA testing and extensive worldwide participation, you
just might be able to find some answers.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Amid the piles of graphs and data you’ll receive from DNA testing companies, one
little detail won’t be highlighted. But it’s even more amazing than finding a king
(or outlaw!) in your closet. What if these tests show that your heritage—and
everyone else’s—traces back to Noah’s family?
It’s not as far-fetched as it might sound. Noah was a real person, with three boys
who married three women who became the mothers of all people on earth (Genesis
9:19). Did they pass down distinct DNA, which we can detect today?
Geneticists at Answers in Genesis (the parent ministry of Answers magazine) wanted
to find out. They first looked for an average, run-of-the-mill Midwestern US family
who had adopted from China and would be willing to take a DNA test. On the surface,
most of us would assume that North Americans of European heritage would have very
different DNA from their Chinese-born children. But the answer is more complicated.
In fact, the test results provide powerful evidence that we are all one race, or
“one blood,” just as the Bible teaches—ultimately descendants of one man and one
woman (Genesis 1:27–28; Acts 17:26). The test also provides astonishing evidence
that our ancestors go back only a few thousand years. But we will get to that
later.
This is much more than a study of genetics. How two infants from China found a
forever family in Northern Kentucky brings a wonderful truth to light. Whether
adopted or natural born, the Creator gave us the similarities we need to make unity
possible, while he gave us enough differences to make every family wonderful.
Becoming a Family
“God’s plans are always greater than ours.”
If you spend any time with Doug and Pam Duty, you’ll hear this phrase often. They
had no plans to adopt. God had already blessed them with three lovely biological
daughters, ages 17, 15, and 10. At this stage in life, most parents are thinking
about college, weddings, and grandkids.
“I had my own dreams of retirement and what that would look like,” Doug remembers.
“But when the Lord spoke to us, we decided to adopt right away, and we surrendered
immediately. . . . Of course, I’m joking.”
Doug really did have his life’s plan laid out, including retirement as a
pharmaceutical salesman. Then one fateful day, as he flew out on another business
trip, his wife was folding laundry in their bedroom and listening to a family on
the radio sharing their adoption story. She had heard similar stories before, but
for some reason this one stuck. She doesn’t even recall the details. “Doug was gone
for an entire week, while I was home every day thinking about that story.”
When Doug came home, Pam said they needed to talk. “That’s usually a scary thing,”
Doug jokes. Out of the blue, Pam told him she felt God calling them to adopt.
They’d never discussed such a thing before.
Doug feared Pam might be having a midlife crisis, so they put the conversation on
the back burner. Yet from May until October God was “relentless,” Doug admits.
For him, one of the greatest obstacles was the expense. Then one day, as he was at
home reviewing his company’s new benefits, Pam heard Doug yell, “You’ve got to be
kidding! Our new policy will pay $10,000 toward all international adoptions.”
Another sign came a few weeks later, when a foster family asked randomly if they
had ever considered adoption. Pam kept a journal of such indicators and would
occasionally share them with Doug.
The turning point came when their daughter’s friend wanted to have an abortion.
Doug’s immediate thought was that his family needed to adopt the baby and save it.
Sadly, the teen still decided to end the pregnancy; but Doug’s heart had changed
about the power of adoption to save a life.
Now it was Pam’s turn to need convincing. Then one day while she was in the garage
organizing, the name Sophie came to her mind and she couldn’t stop thinking about
it. Then, for three nights in a row she dreamed about a little girl named Sophie.
“I never saw her face, but I knew she was Asian. I thought, if we ever adopt, I
will call the child Sophie. Before I even met her, God had already given me her
name.”
One Friday morning at church, during a Bible study about the crossing of the Red
Sea, she broke. The speaker asked, “Ladies, what is something God has been calling
you to do, and you’ve been making up every excuse not to do?”
The next two-and-a-half years were a whirlwind—finding an adoption agency, picking
a country, working out details. Finally, their plane landed in Beijing, China, and
they laid eyes on a 13-month-old baby who would soon be called Sophie.
Duty Family
At first, Sophie was unresponsive because she had received so little interaction
with adults at the orphanage. Like a three-month-old, she couldn’t sit up, crawl,
or communicate. But after just sixteen days with her new parents, and still in
China, she was already on her way to a rich new life—sitting up, holding her mom’s
and dad’s hands, and even walking.
Five years later, the desire to adopt tugged at Doug and Pam once again. The cutoff
age to adopt from China was 50, a milestone they were quickly approaching. Did God
want them to bring new hope to one more child? They contacted an adoption agency
for more information, and the next thing they knew they were back in China, but
this time for a boy. The only way to complete an adoption so quickly was to choose
a special-needs child.
Adopting a healthy baby already has its own problems. Sophie had quickly grown
attached to her adoptive parents and suffered extreme anxiety whenever they weren’t
within reach. Their new son, Collin, had additional challenges in his adjustment.
First, he was already three years old and speaking fluent Mandarin, so he would
have to learn a new language. Second, he had a severe cleft palate that needed more
surgeries.
But Collin had more than medical obstacles to overcome. After every meal, he would
hide food in his pockets. He even went as far as taking food off strangers’ plates
at restaurants. “In these orphanages, many kids don’t know when they’ll receive
their next meal,” Pam explains.
Today, Collin is ten and has had several successful surgeries. Sophie is 12 and
already dreams about college.
“There are times we look back as we’re doing homework with young children, and
think, ‘This is not what we planned.’ But it is not about us,” Pam says. And the
rewards have been immeasurable.
“There’s no difference in our family. Whether adopted or not, you’re our child and
that makes you a Duty.”
The Dutys believe the first day they saw pictures of Sophie and Collin, long before
they even met them face to face, they were their kids. “There’s no difference in
our family. Whether adopted or not, you’re our child and that makes you a Duty.”
God has everything to do with bringing together families like this. Despite the
cultural differences, the Dutys realized a biblical truth: we are all one family,
descended from Adam. And God intends for us to love one another as family, no
matter what minor differences seem to divide us.
DNA Evidence for One Race
When Answers magazine approached the Dutys about a DNA test, they were intrigued.
They didn’t realize just how much it would prove that “we’re all one family.”
The main test results, which most people are looking for, weren’t shocking. Doug
and Pam are of European descent, and Sophie and Collin are East Asian. Pam leans
strongly toward British Isle genes, while Doug’s genes are a mix of the British
Isles and West/Central Europe. Their children are a mix of southeast and northeast
Asian.
The genetic differences that indicate these ethnicities are extremely minor. Most
were inherited from Adam and Eve. As their descendants moved out from Babel, their
genes acquired minor additional variations due to mutations (alterations to a DNA
sequence), and it is possible to track which regions of the world still carry these
minor variations. Across the globe, 99.9% of DNA is the same. This similarity is
beautifully consistent with the biblical account of human history, from the
creation of the first couple in Eden to the spread of Noah’s family from the Ark
just a few thousand years ago.
When most people talk about DNA, they mean the long string of genetic material
found in each cell’s nucleus, known as nuclear DNA. This is the DNA that defines
our eye color, hair, and other physical characteristics. Most tests just examine
this nuclear DNA, and it showed the Dutys’ ethnic differences.
But the geneticists at Answers in Genesis were interested in a separate test, which
you can run on a less-well-known string known as mitochondrial DNA. This small set
of genes is located inside a part of our cells called mitochondria, the cell’s
“energy factories.” These energy factories are located outside the nucleus and have
their own separate DNA.
The advantage of this string is that the DNA doesn’t go through as many changes,
and geneticists have fewer factors to consider when comparing them. Unlike nuclear
DNA, which is passed down by combining DNA from both parents, mitochondrial DNA is
passed down directly from the mother. So you don’t have to factor any mixing from
different male lineages over the centuries.
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA has only 16,569 base pairs (DNA’s building blocks)
as opposed to over 6 billion base pairs in our nucleus. So mutations are much
easier to track. (In fact, the highest number of mutations recorded in the human
race is just over 120.)
Such a limited number of mutations means that little time has passed for mutations
to occur since the first mother passed down her DNA! With such a simple, clean
record, it is much easier to reconstruct each individual’s maternal family tree.
The difference between the two parents and their two Chinese children is no greater
than the difference between Doug and Pam!
When the geneticists asked the Dutys to do a mitochondrial DNA test, even the
scientists were shocked by what they found. The difference between the two parents
and their two Chinese children is no greater than the difference between Doug and
Pam!
These results make sense if today’s billions of people are the descendants of only
eight people on Noah’s Ark. If different ethnic groups in China and Europe came
from one mother roughly 4,350 years ago, then too little time has passed for many
differences to appear in their mitochondrial DNA. If these groups had been
separated by 100,000 years or more, as evolutionists claim, we would expect to find
more DNA differences. But we don’t.
So, in answer to the question at the beginning of this article, yes, we can all
trace our heritage back to the wives of Noah’s sons, who were on the Ark.
Even though Collin and Sophie are not the biological children of Doug and Pam, they
still share DNA from the same family, which goes all the way back to the Flood.
Collin often asks Doug why his eyes are shaped differently. Doug always tells him,
“It’s because you’re Asian . . . but you’re still my son.” Even though variations
like eye shape and skin color are easy to spot, they are very minor. These
superficial differences, which so many people consider major, compose a very small
percentage of DNA.
Today, millions of people are eagerly taking DNA tests to learn more about their
heritage. The tests sometimes show that their family roots are separated by
thousands of miles. Upon closer inspection, however, the story is immensely
different.
The Bible’s claim that we’re “one blood” (Acts 17:26, KJV) means we’re all from one
family. Every person on this earth is a descendant of the first Adam (1 Corinthians
15:45), who was created in the image of God. Even though the first Adam sinned in
the Garden of Eden, God sent Jesus Christ as the second Adam. Because of his death
on the Cross, we can be saved from our sin and adopted into God’s family.
Both Sophie and Collin were abandoned by their birth parents and left in public
places. But God, who loves helpless orphans, used their tragic circumstances to
transform their lives into a story of his grace. Such stories remind us that we
are, indeed, one family, and God’s love can overcome seemingly impossible barriers
to unite us.
What DNA Tests Can Show About Your Ancestry
When they send saliva to be tested, most people want to know one result: the areas
their ancestors came from. This is based on mutations in our DNA (called nuclear
DNA).
But you have another small set of genes (called mitochondrial DNA), which yields
better information. This string is located inside your cells’ mitochondria, or
“energy factories.” It is passed down directly from the mother, so its mutations
are easier to track. From this, we can identify your maternal family tree (see map
below).
Testing companies won’t tell you one thing shown on the map below. These maternal
lines can be traced back to three branches, most likely the wives of Noah’s three
sons!
DNA Map
Click for enlarged map.

Two Different Results
You can get test results for either nuclear DNA or mitochondrial DNA. Nuclear DNA
shows that Doug and Pam came from Europe; Sophie and Collin from Asia.
Mitochondrial DNA shows they came from four separate maternal lines (H, K, B, N).
Nuclear
Mitrochondrial
Doug
European
H-Type
Pam
European
K-Type
Sophie
Asia-Pacific
B-Type
Collin
Asia-Pacific
N-Type
Many Letters, Three Moms
The map shows letters for all the mitochondrial DNA types and where they spread. In
orange are the results for Doug (H) and Pam (K) and their adopted children, Sophie
(B) and Collin (N). When you look closer at these four lines of maternal DNA, they
are so similar that they actually belong to the same family tree (“Mom 1” below)!
If you know your mitochondrial DNA type, you can find which mom you come from in
the chart below.
Mom 1
Mom 2
Mom 3
N
M
L3
R
CZ
L2
B
Z
L1
W
C
L0
A
D
L5
U
G
L6
T
Q
L4
J
R0
HV
V
I
Melissa Webb earned a degree in communication print journalism from Liberty

University and spent four years working as a news writer for Liberty’s news and
media relations office. She now edits for Answers magazine.
Human Genome Project: Two Decades of DNA Discovery
on July 1, 2021
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
Twenty years ago, US President Bill Clinton declared the human genome project “the
most wondrous map ever created by humankind.” The ambitious goal of this immense
scientific research project was to identify all of the base pairs that make up
human DNA and to map the sequence of all human genes. The “genome” is the
collection of human DNA found in the nucleus of the cell.
2001: the majority of the human genome sequence was first published (in 2003 the
full human genome was published)
Mapping our genome has already helped geneticists study mutated DNA responsible for
cancers and other conditions. President Clinton predicted, “It will revolutionize
the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.”1 He
was right: “Essentially every new drug and vaccine is now based on genomics.”2 The
human genome project has played an integral part in the development of new drugs
for conditions such as asthma and cystic fibrosis.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
$2.7 billion was spent on the project
More detailed studies of the human genome in the past 20 years have helped us
understand that DNA has multiple layers of information. The genome is like an onion
with many layers and lots of information encoded in each layer. We now know that
the DNA between the genes, once thought of as “junk” DNA, isn’t worthless after
all, but helps regulate the genes. Mutations in “junk” DNA can lead to disease.
This knowledge can help us diagnose disease and find cures to mitigate the effects
of the Genesis 3 fall.
99.9% of human DNA is identical
The human genome project also revealed that there is only a small amount of DNA
differences between any two individuals, and even fewer differences when it comes
to DNA that encodes external characteristics (like skin shade). According to
geneticist and lead researcher Craig Venter, the mapping project also illustrated
that “the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”3 Of course, we
already know from Scripture that we are one race (Genesis 1; Acts 17:26). Now
science confirms that truth.
110 billion miles is how far the DNA in all your cells would stretch if all the
strands were laid end to end
Even 20 years later, we have continued to discover more about our DNA. We can be
certain that the complexity of the human genome could not have come about by random
chance over long periods of time, but rather by divine design. Answers in Genesis
geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom states, “God says he can be known through what he has
created (Romans 1:20), and DNA shows that we have an infinitely intelligent
Creator.”
Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation
by Marvin Lubenow on April 1, 1998
Share:
* *
*
Originally published in Journal of Creation 12, no 1 (April 1998): 87-97.
Abstract
The recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right arm bone of the original
Neandertal fossil discovered in a cave in the Neander Valley has been hailed as a
stunning feat of modern biochemistry.
The recovery of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the right arm bone (humerus) of the
original Neandertal fossil discovered in 1856 in a cave in the Neander Valley, near
Dusseldorf, Germany, has been hailed as a stunning feat of modern biochemistry.
Christopher Stringer (Natural History Museum, London) said: ‘For human evolution,
this is as exciting as the Mars landing’. The achievement was announced in the July
11, 1997 issue of the journal, Cell.1 There is no question that the accomplishment
was both conceptually and experimentally brilliant. However, the brilliance of the
methodology does not guarantee the accuracy of the interpretation which the authors
of the Cell article have placed on the data.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Based upon the differences between the Neandertal mtDNA and modern human mtDNA, the
evolutionary interpretation is that the Neandertal line diverged from the modern
human line about 550,000 to 690,000 years ago and that the Neandertals became
extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans. The implication is that the
Neandertals did not evolve into fully modern humans, that they were a different
species from modern humans, and that they were just one of many proto-human types
that were failed evolutionary experiments. We alone evolved to full humanity.
Two factors make humans unique. We are the only members of our genus, Homo, on the
planet; and we are interfertile world-wide. Biologically, we humans are an oddity.
Almost all other organisms have many kindred species, some living and some extinct.
Since evolutionists believe humans are just a part of nature and of the
evolutionary process, they believe that there must have been a number of proto-
human species at one time, even though we are now alone.
The fossil record is now being reinterpreted to bring human origins more in line
with the rest of nature. Evolutionary trees are out. Evolutionary bushes are in.
Homo habilis is being split into two separate species, Homo habilis and Homo
rudolfensis. Homo erectus is being split into two separate species, Homo erectus
and Homo ergaster. The Neandertals are just one of at least five twigs on the human
evolutionary bush. Evolutionists do not know—and say that they may never know—from
which of the twigs modern humans evolved. However, the Neandertals—through the
interpretation of this mtDNA recovery—have now been eliminated from modern human
ancestry. Since 1964 the Neandertals have been considered a sub-species of modern
humans. They will now almost certainly be moved out of our species and back into a
separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.
The extensive publicity associated with this remarkable biochemistry is certain to
give the concept of human evolution added stature. However, there is solid evidence
for believing that the Neandertals were fully human and the ancestors of at least
some modern humans. The evidence that the Neandertals were members of our species
and were fully human falls into three general categories:
1. the Biblical and cultural evidence,
2. the fossil evidence for gradations, and
3. the flawed interpretation of the mtDNA evidence.
Biblical and Cultural Evidence
No one has had a worse public image to overcome than have the Neandertals. When
that Neander Valley individual was discovered in a cave in Germany in 1856, the
shape of his skull and the curves in the long bones of his body caused
evolutionists to believe that the expected link between apes and humans had been
found. Evolutionary preconceptions also guided the world-famous anatomist,
Marcellin Boule, as he restored the Neandertal skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-
Saints, France, to show the world what a Neandertal looked like—a stooped and
stupid hunchback. This view of the Neandertal ‘Cave Man’ prevailed for 100 years.
In the 1960s Boule’s glaring mistakes were corrected. It was realized that the
Neandertal people, when healthy, stood straight and erect. The physical
‘redemption’ of the Neandertals was accomplished. However, the Neandertals were
still considered to be culturally barren. Even the discovery at Shanidar Cave,
Iraq, that the Neandertals buried their dead with flowers2 did not improve their
general image. Many evolutionists still talk about the Neandertal people as having
been culturally stagnant. They say that about 40,000 years ago, ‘The Great Leap
Forward’ took place. Anatomically modern humans invaded Europe bringing art,
technology, and innovation.3 The Neandertals, being outclassed, disappeared.
In recent years, however, we have witnessed a cultural ‘redemption’ of the
Neandertals is beginning to take place. The year 1996 saw the publication of
discoveries of items of personal ornamentation used by Neandertals4,5 and the first
example of Neandertal musical instrument.6,7 Archaeologist Randall White (New York
University) says of the Neandertals: ‘The more this kind of evidence accumulates,
the more they look like us’.8 It can now be said that every type of evidence that
we can reasonably expect from the fossil and archaeological record showing that the
Neandertals were fully human has already been discovered.
One of the strongest evidences that the Neandertals were fully human relates to
their reputation as ‘Cave Men’. Since so many of their remains have been found in
caves, it was assumed that they lived in caves because they had not evolved enough
to invent more sophisticated dwellings. The public is unaware that Neandertal
dwellings have been found. Nor is the public aware that thousands of people across
the world live in caves today. When Ralph Solecki (Columbia University) excavated
Shanidar Cave, Iraq, he discovered that about 80 Kurds had lived in that cave until
1970, during a time of political unrest.9
The book of Genesis sheds light on the activity of early humans regarding the use
of caves. The first reference to caves is in Genesis 19:30, which states that Lot
and his daughters lived in a cave after fleeing the destruction of Sodom. This is
in keeping with the use of caves throughout human history as temporary or permanent
shelters. However, all other references to caves in Genesis refer to a usage that
is seldom considered today.
Genesis 23:17–20 (NIV) records a business transaction between Abraham and the
Hittite, Ephron. Abraham wanted to purchase property in order to bury Sarah.
So Ephron’s field in Machpelah near Mamre—both the field and the cave in it, and
all the trees within the borders of the field-was deeded to Abraham as his property
in the presence of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of the city. Afterward
Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre
(which is at Hebron) in the land of Canaan. So the field and the cave in it were
deeded to Abraham by the Hittites as a burial site.
Upon his death (Genesis 25:7–11), Abraham was buried in that same cave. In Genesis
49:29–32, Jacob instructs his sons that he, too, is to be buried in that cave where
Abraham and Sarah were buried. We then learn that Jacob buried his wife, Leah
there, and that Isaac and Rebekah were buried there also. Abraham and Sarah, Isaac
and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah were all buried in the cave in the field of
Machpelah which Genesis 23:20 states Abraham purchased ‘as a burial site’. Only
Sarah died in the geographic area of the cave. All of the others had to be
transported some distance to be buried there, and Jacob’s body had to be brought up
from Egypt. It was important then, as it is today, to be buried with family and
loved ones.
The Neandertal fossil evidence shows that the Neandertal practice is in complete
accord with the Genesis record. At least 345 Neandertal fossil individuals have
been discovered so far at 83 sites in Europe, the Near East, and western Asia. Of
these 345 Neandertal individuals, 183 of them (53 per cent) represent burials—all
of them burials in caves or rock shelters. Further, it is obvious that caves were
used as family burial grounds or cemeteries, as the following sites show:
* Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia—75 (minimum) Neandertals buried.
* Arcy-sur-Cure caves, France—26 Neandertals buried.
* Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—21 Neandertals buried.
* Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—12 Neandertals buried.
* La Freesia Rock Shelter, France—8 Neandertals buried.
* Shanidar Cave, Iraq—7 Neandertals buried.
* Maude Cave, Galilee, Israel—7 Neandertals buried.
* Gutter Cave, Monte Circa, Italy—4 Neandertals buried.
* Tsar 'Ail Rock Shelter, Lebanon—3 Neandertals buried.
It is understandable why burial in caves was common in ancient times. Graves in
open areas must be marked so that future generations can return to pay homage to
their ancestors. However, grave markers or reference points can be changed,
destroyed, or moved. Directions to the grave site can become confusing over time.
Landscapes can change, and memories of certain features can become clouded. Just as
Abraham did not always live in one place, so the Neandertals may have moved
seasonally following herds of game. Since caves are usually permanent, it would
have been easy to locate the family burial site if it were in a cave. One could be
sure that he was at the very spot where his ancestors were buried.
Most anthropologists recognize burial as a very human, and a very religious act.
But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is
that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together. In all of
life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people.
Jacob lived in Egypt, but wanted to be buried in the family cemetery in the cave of
Machpelah. Joseph achieved fame in Egypt, but wanted his bones to be taken back to
Israel (Genesis 50:25, Exodus 13:19, Joshua 24:32). Until recently it was the
custom to have a cemetery next to the church so that the church family could be
buried together. For centuries, many cities had separate cemeteries for
Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Jews so that people could be buried with their
own kind.
Skull Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is considered to be a burial site of anatomically
modern Homo sapiens individuals. Yet, Skhul IV and Skhul IX fossil skulls are
closer to the Neandertal configuration than they are to modern humans.10 Jebel-
Qafzeh, Galilee, Israel, is also considered to be an anatomically modern burial
site. However, Qafzeh skull 6 is clearly Neandertal in its morphology.11 Tabun
Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is one of the classic Neandertal burial sites. But the
Tabun C2 mandible is more closely aligned with modern mandibles found elsewhere.12
The Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia, is one of the most studied Neandertal burial
sites. At least 75 individuals were buried there. However, the remains are
fragmentary making diagnosis difficult. The addition of several newly identified
fragments to the Krapina A skull (also known as Krapina 1) reveals it to be much
more modern than was previously thought, indicating that it is closer in shape to
modern humans than it is to the Neandertals.13
That Neandertals and anatomically modern humans were buried together constitutes
strong evidence that they lived together, worked together, intermarried, and were
accepted as members of the same family, clan, and community. The false distinction
made by evolutionists today was not made by the ancients. To call the Neandertals
‘Cave Men’ is to give a false picture of who they were and why caves were
significant in their lives. If genuine mtDNA was recovered from that fossil from
the Neander Valley, the results have been misinterpreted. ‘From one man he (God)
made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.’ (Acts 17:26
(NIV).
In comparing the Neandertal burial practice with Genesis, I do not wish to imply
that Abraham and his descendants were Neandertals. What the relationship was—if any
—between the people of Genesis and the Neandertals we do not know. Young-Earth
creationists tend to believe that the Neandertals were a post-Flood people.
Evolutionists date the Neandertals from about 300,000 to about 33,000 years ago.
What is striking is that the burial practice of the Neandertals seems to be
identical with that of the people of Genesis.
Fossil Evidence for Gradations
What is it that makes a Neandertal a Neandertal in contrast to an anatomically
modern Homo Sapiens? G.A. Clark (Arizona State University) states a problem: ‘That
researchers cannot distinguish a “Neandertal” from a “modern human” might seem
surprising to some, but there is little consensus on what these terms mean’.14
Although anthropologists have yet to agree on a formal definition of the
Neandertals, there is a set of physical characteristics that are used in referring
to a classic Neandertal morphology. They are:
1. The skull is lower, broader, and elongated in contrast to the higher
doming of a modern skull.
2. The average brain size (cranial capacity) is larger than the average
modern human by almost 200 cubic centimetres.
3. The forehead is low, with heavy brow ridges curving over each eye.
4. There is a slight projection at the rear of the skull (occipital bun).
5. The cranial wall is thick compared to modern humans.
6. The facial architecture is heavy, with the mid-face and the upper jaw
projecting forward (prognathism).
7. The nose is prominent and broad.
8. The frontal sinuses are expanded.
9. The lower jaw is large and lacks a definite chin.
10. The body bones are heavy and thick and the long bones somewhat curved.
Any one of these characteristics, several of them, or all of them could be found in
some humans living today, or even perhaps all of them might be found in some humans
living today. There is nothing profoundly distinct about them. In fact, when the
first Neandertal was discovered in 1856, even ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, Thomas Huxley,
recognized that it was fully human and not an evolutionary ancestor. Donald
Johanson, in his book, Lucy’s Child, writes:
From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley was able to select a series with
features leading “by insensible gradations” from an average modern specimen to the
Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn’t qualitatively different from present-
day Homo Sapiens.15
What Huxley was able to do with his collection of skulls more than a century ago,
any anthropologist with a respectable collection of modern skulls could do in his
laboratory today—show that the Neandertals were not qualitatively different from
present-day Homo Sapiens
This same gradation from Neandertals to modern humans can also be seen in the
fossil record. We are not referring to an evolutionary transition from earlier
Neandertals to later modern humans. We are referring to morphological gradations
between Neandertals and modern humans both having the same dates and living at the
same time as contemporaries representing a single human population. Whereas
evolutionists have chosen to divide these humans into two categories—Neandertals
and anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, individual fossils are not always that easy
to categorize. There is a wide range of variation among modern humans, and there is
variation within the Neandertal category as well. A number of fossils in each group
are very close to that subjective line, and could be categorized either way. These
fossils constitute a gradation between Neandertals and modern humans, demonstrating
that the distinction made by evolutionists is an artificial one.
Among fossils usually classified as Neandertal are at least 25 individuals from
five different sites who are clearly close to that subjective line which divides
Neandertals from anatomically modern Homo Sapiens These fossils constitute part of
that continuum or gradation from Neandertals to modern humans found in the fossil
record. Evolutionists recognise these fossils as departing from the classic
Neandertal morphology and describe them as ‘progressive’ or ‘advanced’ Neandertals.
Their shape is sometimes explained as the result of gene flow (hybridization) with
more modern populations. This would refute the interpretation of the mtDNA evidence
that the Neandertals and modern humans are not the same species—since reproduction
is on the species level. Those sites having ‘advanced’ Neandertals are:
* Vindija Cave remains, Croatia—twelve individuals.16
* Hahnofersand frontal bone, Germany—one individual.17,18
* Starosel’e remains, Ukraine, CIS—two individuals.19
* Stetten 3 humerus, cave deposits, Germany—one individual.20
* Ehringsdorf (Weimar) remains, Germany—nine individuals.21
Completing that continuum or gradation from Neandertals to modern humans are at
least 107 individuals from five sites who are usually grouped with fossils of
anatomically modern humans. However, since they are close to the line which divides
them from the Neandertals, they are often described as ‘archaic moderns’ or stated
to have ‘Neandertal affinities’ or ‘Neandertal features’. These five sites are:
* Oberkassel remains, Germany—two individuals.22
* Mladec (Lautsch) cave remains, Czech Republic—minimum of 98
individuals.23,24,25
* Velika Pecina Cave skull fragments, Croatia—one individual.26,27
* Bacho Kiro Cave mandibles, Bulgaria—two individuals.28
* Pontnewydd Cave remains, Wales—four individuals.29
GA Clark summarizes the evidence that the Neandertals are the ancestors of at least
some modern humans:
Those who would argue that Neandertals became extinct without issue should show how
it could have occurred without leaving traces of disjunction in the archaeological
record and in the fossils themselves.11
The mtDNA evidence
Details of Ancient DNA Recovery
DNA is the incredibly complex molecule involved in the genetics of life. Deprived
of the repair mechanisms found in the living cell, there is substantial breakdown
of DNA within a few hours after the death of the organism. Causes of DNA degrading
include water, oxygen, heat, pressure, time, exposure to transition metals (such as
zinc), microbe attack, and radiation. This degrading involves the breakage of the
cross-linking of the DNA molecules, modification of sugars, alteration of bases,
and the breakage of long strands into strands that eventually become so short that
no information can be retrieved from them.
It is uncertain how long retrievable DNA will last. It is thought that it might
last a few thousand years. To last longer, DNA must be removed from degrading
factors soon after biological death and preserved. Under the most favorable
conditions, evolutionists estimate that DNA might last ‘tens of thousands of
years’.30,31 However, even under ideal conditions, background radiation will
eventually erase all genetic information. Sensational reports about the recovery of
DNA millions of years old are now discounted because researchers have not been able
to repeat the results. Even amber is not the fool-proof preservative it was once
thought to be.32
In the past, there was a scarcity of genetic material for experimentation. It was
largely inaccessible because it was always embedded in a living system. Kary B.
Mullis writes: ‘. . . it is difficult to get a well-defined molecule of natural DNA
from any organism except extremely simple viruses’.33 One of the most remarkable
breakthroughs in modern biotechnology was the development in the 1980s of the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Kary Mullis shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in
chemistry for his ‘invention’. The PCR technique can make unlimited copies of a
specific DNA sequence independent of the organism from which it came:
With PCR, tiny bits of embedded, often hidden, genetic information can be amplified
into large quantities of accessible, identifiable, and analyzable material.34
In dealing with the Neandertal specimen, the scientific team, led by Svante Pääbo
(University of Munich), decided to search for mitochondrial DNA rather than nuclear
DNA. Whereas there are only two copies of DNA in the nucleus of each cell, there
are 500 to 1,000 copies of mtDNA in each cell. Hence, the possibility was far
greater that some of the ancient mtDNA might be preserved. Further, because it has
no repair enzymes, mtDNA accumulates mutations at about ten times the rate of
nuclear DNA, making it, evolutionists believe, a more fine-grained index of time.
The most serious problem in analyzing ancient DNA is the possibility of
contamination from modern DNA. This contamination could come from anyone who has
ever handled the fossil since its discovery, from laboratory personnel, from
laboratory equipment, and even from the heating and cooling system in the
laboratory. Even a single cell of modern human contamination would have its DNA
amplified blindly and preferentially by the PCR because of its superior state of
preservation over the older material. The PCR technique is ‘notoriously
contamination-sensitive’.35 The problem is so serious that some contamination from
modern DNA is unavoidable. Ann Gibbons and Patricia Kahn express the problem:
Worst, it’s tough to distinguish DNA intrinsic to an ancient sample from the modern
DNA that unavoidably contaminates it—the source of many false claims in the past.
Ancient human samples are especially tricky, because their sequences might not
differ much from that of contaminating modern human DNA, so it’s hard to get a
believable result.36
Since repeatability is at the heart of experimental science, many have suggested
that what is needed is to retrieve DNA from a second Neandertal specimen in order
to confirm the results of Svante Pääbo and his team. In fact, several other teams
have tried unsuccessfully to retrieve Neandertal DNA. One attempt dealt with a
Neandertal bone fragment from Shanidar, Iraq.37 Pääbo reports that he and his team
have also attempted to retrieve DNA from Neandertal fossils from Zafarraya (Spain),
Krapina (Croatia), and La Chaise (France), as well as from a Cro-Magnon fossil from
Nerja (Spain), all without success. He suggests that the climate in these areas was
too warm for DNA preservation. In contrast, the Neander Valley, Germany, is one of
the northernmost Neandertal sites. It is just south of the limit of maximum
glaciation during the late Pleistocene (Ice Age). Hence, that fossil was likely to
have experienced cold conditions during most of its history. Pääbo states:
Therefore, preserved Neandertal DNA is likely to be rare, and the DNA in the type
specimen [the 1856 Neander Valley Neandertal fossil] may result from its unique
preservation conditions. . . . Most Neandertal specimens are therefore unlikely to
contain amplifiable DNA. . . .38
Whether or not genuine Neandertal mtDNA has been retrieved is impossible for an
outside observer to say at this time. Knowing the unstable nature of the DNA
molecule, if DNA was retrieved from that Neandertal fossil, it is strong evidence
that the fossil is not nearly as old as evolutionists claim—30,000 to 100,000
years. From a scientific point of view, the fact that the recovery may never be
duplicated on another specimen could add a degree of contingency to the results. As
far as the recovery, itself, is concerned, it is possible that the mtDNA is
genuine. However, the evolutionary interpretation of those mtDNA sequences—that the
Neandertals are a separate species and are not closely related to modern humans—is
not scientifically justified.
In the Cell article, Svante Pääbo and his associates explain their findings and
their interpretation:
The Neandertal sequence was compared to 994 contemporary human mitochondrial
lineages, i.e., distinct sequences occurring in one or more individuals, found in
478 Africans, 510 Europeans, 494 Asians, 167 Native Americans and 20 individuals
from Australia and Oceania. Whereas these modern human sequences differ among
themselves by an average of 8.0 ± 3.l (range 1–24) substitutions, the difference
between the humans and the Neandertal sequence is 27.2 ± 2.2 (range 22–36)
substitutions. Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human
sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human
and the Neandertal’.
When the comparison was extended to 16 common chimpanzee lineages, the number of
positions in common among the human and chimpanzee sequences was reduced to 333.
This reduced the number of human lineages to 986. The average number of differences
among humans is 8.0 ± 3.0 (range 1–24), that between humans and the Neandertal,
25.6 ± 2.2 (range 20–34), and that between humans and chimpanzees, 55.0 ± 3.0
(range 46–67). Thus, the average number of mtDNA sequence differences between
modern humans and the Neandertal is about three times that among humans, but about
half of that between modern humans and modern chimpanzees.
To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the
Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated
divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4–5 million years ago and
corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same
nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for
the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age
of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of
120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates.
Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the chimpanzee-human
divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them, they indicate
that the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human
sequences is about four times greater than that of the common ancestor of modern
human mtDNAs.39
Flaws in the Neandertal mtDNA Interpretation
(1) The Problem of Statistical ‘Averages’
The Cell article points out that the sequence differences in modern human mtDNA
range from one to 24 substitutions, with the average being eight substitutions. The
mtDNA sequence differences between modern humans and the Neandertal fossil range
from 22 to 36 substitutions, with the average being 27. Thus, the few modern humans
who have the largest number of substitutions (24) have two more substitutions in
their mtDNA than the smallest number (22) between modern humans and the Neandertal
individual. In other words, there is a slight overlap. However, by comparing the
modern human ‘average’ of eight substitutions and the Neandertal ‘average’ of 27
substitutions, the false impression is given that the Neandertal mtDNA variation is
three times as great as that among modern humans. Using averages allows Kahn and
Gibbons to write in Science:
These data put the Neandertal sequence outside the statistical range of modern
human variation . . . .40 (Emphasis added.)
Statistics has been used to cloud a relationship between Neandertals and modern
humans. It is improper to use statistical ‘averages’ in a situation where many
entities are being compared with only one entity. In this case, 994 sequences from
1669 modern humans are compared with one sequence from one Neandertal. Thus, there
cannot be a Neandertal ‘average’, and the comparison is not valid. Although it may
not be the intention, the result of such a comparison could not help but be
deceptive. The biochemistry in the experiment is brilliant but the mathematics
leaves much to be desired.
This inappropriate and deceptive use of averages has carried over into the popular
press. Science writer Robert Kunzig, describing the Neandertal mtDNA results in the
January 1998 issue of Discover, first states that the Neandertal individual ‘. . .
differed at 27 positions, on average, from the modern human sequences . . . .’ He
then goes on to say:
Among themselves the modern sequences differed by an average of only eight places.
Picture a crowd of modern humans huddled around a campfire, with nobody more than
eight yards from the centre; then the Neanderthal is 27 yards away, well outside
the circle, in the shadows at the edge of the woods.41
Kunzig’s illustration is misleading and totally inaccurate. Since, we are dealing
with modern human ‘averages’, only a few of the modern humans would be exactly
eight yards (eight sequences) from the centre. Almost half of them would be less
than eight yards from the centre, with a few of them just one yard (one sequence)
from the fire. Instead of ‘nobody more than eight yards from the center’, the rest
of them would be more than eight yards from the centre, with a few of them 24 yards
(24 sequences) from the centre. Since there is only one Neandertal individual, he
would have to be spread out from 22 to 36 yards from the centre. But instead of the
large gap between modern humans and the Neandertal that Kunzig was trying to
illustrate, there would actually be a slight overlap of the modern humans with the
Neandertal.
Science writer Kate Wong, in the January 1998 Scientific American, states that the
mtDNA variation between the Neandertal and modern humans was, on average, four
times greater than that found between any two modern humans.42 The Cell authors
said it was, on average, three times greater. Thus in the two most popular science
magazines in the United States, mistakes were made in describing the interpretation
of the Neandertal mtDNA. In both cases, the mistakes portrayed the genetic distance
between modern humans and the Neandertal as being even greater than was originally
reported in Cell. However, both mistakes were the result of the misleading and
improper use of ‘averages’ by the Cell authors.
(2) The Problem of Species Distance
Based upon an improper use of statistical averages, the authors of the mtDNA
Neandertal study arrive at a fallacious interpretation of the nature of the
Neandertals by using mtDNA sequence differences as a measure of species
differences. They write:
The Neandertal mtDNA sequence thus supports a scenario in which modern humans arose
recently in Africa as a distinct species and replaced Neandertals with little or no
interbreeding.43
Modern humans have an average of eight mtDNA substitution differences. The
Neandertal individual has a minimum of 22 mtDNA substitution differences from the
modern human average. That implies that 14 mtDNA substitution differences
delineates a new or different species, and that the Neandertals should be so
classified. However, mtDNA substitution differences in modern humans range from 1
to 24. That means that there are a few modern humans who differ by 16 substitutions
from the modern human average—two substitutions inside the range of the Neandertal
individual. Would not logic demand that those few modern humans living today should
also be placed in a separate species? To state the question is to reveal the
absurdity of using such differences as a measure of species distinctions. Maryellen
Ruvolo (Harvard University) points out that the genetic variation between the
modern and Neandertal sequences is within the range of other single species of
primates. She goes on to say: ‘. . . there isn’t a yardstick for genetic difference
upon which you can define a species’.40
(3) The Problem of Evolutionary Time and Distance
Based upon their improper use of statistical averages, the authors of the mtDNA
Neandertal study arrive at another fallacious conclusion from their experiment.
They use mtDNA sequence differences as a measure of evolutionary time and distance.
This is a universal practice in evolutionary studies. Hence, the Neandertals are
placed in an evolutionary sequence between modern humans and chimpanzees. However,
as we saw above, there are a few modern humans living today who have mtDNA
substitutions inside the range of the Neandertal individual. Would not logic also
demand that we say that there are a few humans living today who are less evolved
than were the Neandertals, and who are more closely related to chimpanzees than
were the Neandertals?
Australian biochemist John P. Marcus makes a significant observation about a graph
in the Cell article. He writes:
This graph might lead one to think that Neandertal sequences are somewhere between
modern human and chimp sequences. This could then give the impression that
Neandertal is a link between chimps and humans. On closer examination, however,
this is not the case. As labelled, the graph shows the number of differences
between human-human, human-Neandertal, and human-chimp pairs. Significantly, the
authors do not show the distribution of Neandertal-chimp differences. The reason
they do not show this last of four possible comparisons between the populations is
not clear to me. What is clear, however, from the DNA distance comparisons that I
performed, is that the Neandertal sequence is actually further away from either of
the two chimpanzee sequences than the modern human sequences are. My calculations
show that every one of the human isolates that I used was “closer” to chimp than
was the Neandertal. The fact that Neandertal and modern human sequences are
approximately equidistant from the chimpanzee outgroup seems to be a good
indication that Neandertal and modern humans comprise one species. Clearly, the
Neandertal is no more related to chimps than any of the humans. If anything,
Neandertal is less related to chimps.44
(4) The Problem of the Molecular ‘Clock’
The basis of the interpretation that modern humans and the Neandertals are separate
species is the unconditional acceptance, by evolutionists, of the concept of the
molecular ‘clock’. Yet, the authors of the mtDNA Neandertal study admit (in the
lengthy quotation cited above) that ‘. . . these dates rely on the calibration
point of the chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude
associated with them’. Their interpretation assumes the legitimacy of the molecular
‘clock’ as a means of determining the relationship of modern humans to chimpanzees
and to Neandertals. GA Clark writes:
Molecular clock models are full of problematic assumptions. Leaving aside
differences of opinion about the rate of base pair substitutions, how to calibrate
a molecular clock, and whether or not mtDNA mutations are neutral, the fact that
the Neandertal sequence . . . differs from those of modern humans does not resolve
the question of whether or not “moderns” and “Neandertals” were different
species.11
Karl J. Niklas (Cornell University) refers to using mutation rate calibration to
determine species relationships as: ‘. . . a research area that is at present
characterized by too much speculation chasing too few data’.45
The most amazing development regarding the molecular ‘clock’ is the possibility
that mtDNA may mutate much faster than has been estimated. A recent article in
Science states that the ‘clock’ may be in error by as much as twenty-fold. Neil
Howard (University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston) says:
‘We've been treating this like a stop-watch, and I’m concerned that it’s as precise
as a sun dial’.46
If the new rates hold up, the results for evolutionary time estimates, such as for
‘mitochondrial Eve’, could be startling. ‘Using the new clock, she would be a mere
6000 years old’.47
(5) The Problem of Using mtDNA to Determine Relationships
Evolutionists, themselves, are questioning the use of mtDNA as a proper method of
determining relationships. Geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza (Stanford University)
and his associates write: . . . the mitochondrial genome represents only a small
fraction of an individual’s genetic material and may not be representative of the
whole’.48
After testing the assumptions involved in the use of mtDNA to determine primate
relationships, D. Melnick and G. Hoelzer (Columbia University) state:
Our results suggest serious problems with use of mtDNA to estimate “true”
population genetic structure, to date cladogenic events, and in some cases, to
construct phylogenies.49
Jonathan Marks (Yale University) emphasizes the subjectivity involved in using
mtDNA to determine relationships. He comments:
Most analysis of mitochondrial DNA are so equivocal as to render a clear solution
impossible, the preferred phylogeny relying critically on the choice of outgroup
and clustering technique.50
(6) The Possibility of PCR Copying Errors
PCR copying errors on oxygen-damaged residues in the Neandertal mtDNA could result
in the Neandertal mtDNA appearing to be more distant from that of modern humans
than it actually is. John Marcus sees evidence of this in his own study of the Cell
report. He observes possible PCR induced systematic errors due to a uniform
oxidation of particular residues in particular sequence contexts. He explains:
When the nature of the differences between the modern human reference sequence and
the Neandertal sequence was compared, it was noted that there were 27 differences.
Twenty-four of these were transitions (G to A, and C to T) changes. Apparently it
is easier for DNA polymerase to make this kind of substitution as it copies the
template DNA. Since PCR also makes use of DNA polymerase to amplify the original
template DNA, it is possible that the differences seen with the mtDNA from the
Neandertal is actually a result of PCR induced errors. Some phenomena in the
ancient DNA could actually cause a consistent misamplification of the DNA template
present in the Neandertal bone. A possible example of this in the Cell paper can be
seen in Figure 4 of the paper. At positions 107 and 108 as well as 111 and 112
there were a number of consistent variations that could be the result of bad
copying by the DNA polymerase used. Tomas Lindahl, who writes a mini-review at the
beginning of the Cell volume, comments on this. Is it not then possible that a
somewhat uniform oxidative process might damage the DNA in such a way that the
original information present in the Neandertal mtDNA would be reproducibly “copied”
wrongly?51
(7) The Problem of Philosophical Biases
Little attempt was made by Pääbo and his associates to hide their philosophical
biases. These are:
1. A bias toward molecules over fossils;
2. A bias toward the more politically correct ‘Out of Africa’ model of modern
human origins, which demands a separation of the Neandertals from anatomically
modern humans.
(a) The bias toward molecules over fossils. Ever since the advent of molecular
taxonomy, paleontologists have been divided over which method is the better
interpreter of evolutionary history. Molecules seem so neat and tidy, so precise
and objective. Their use is based upon the unproven assumption that every
organism’s evolutionary history is encoded in their genes. Fossils, on the other
hand, seem so dirty and messy. Their interpretation is anything but objective.
Palaeontologists have felt the sting of the charge that their discipline is ‘non-
experimental’ and ‘resistant to falsification’.52 The newer fossil discoveries have
not fulfilled their promise to clarify the picture of human origins. Instead, they
have brought more confusion. Christopher B. Stringer explains the appeal of the
molecules over the fossils:
The study of human origins seems to be a field in which each discovery raises the
debate to a more sophisticated level of uncertainty. Such appears to be the effect
of the Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian [fossil] finds.53
However, the search for objectivity is an illusive one. Although the molecular data
appears to be very objective and precise, John Marcus states that the
interpretation of the molecular data is just as subjective as is the interpretation
of the fossils. Not only is the molecular evidence unfalsifiable, but
. . . the scientist must always choose which piece(s) of DNA he is going to use to
do his comparisons. Very often a particular piece of DNA will not give the “right”
answer and so it is dismissed as a poor indicator of the evolutionary process.54
Kenneth A.R. Kennedy (Cornell University) comments:
This practice of forcing the paleontological and archaeological data to conform to
the evolutionary and genetic models continues in reinterpretations of dates based
upon the molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA as well as radiometric
samples. . . .55
The misinterpretation of the mtDNA data is seen in the work of Pääbo and his
associates. We have earlier shown that the Neandertal fossil evidence contradicts
their interpretation of the mtDNA evidence.
(b) The bias toward the more politically correct ‘Out of Africa’ model of modern
human origins. The popularity of the ‘Out of Africa’ model is due, in part, to its
being so politically correct.
1. Modern humans are said to have originated in Africa, a source of
satisfaction to non-Western people who may feel that they have been exploited by
Westerners.
2. The model emphasizes the unity of all humans despite differences in
external appearance.
3. For many people it is an advantage to have the Neandertals removed from
their ancestry. After all, who wants to be related to a Neandertal?
4. A woman, mitochondrial Eve, is the hero of the plot. We all owe our
existence to her. And,
5. The sudden replacement of the Neandertals by modern humans favors the
newer and more popular punctuated equilibrium evolution model.
We seem to be witnessing a classic struggle in palaeoanthropology between the
molecules and the fossils. Some palaeoanthropologists themselves are bewildered at
how rapidly their fellows have forsaken the fossils for the molecules. It is all
the more surprising because the human fossil evidence clearly contradicts the ‘Out
of Africa’ model. The European fossil evidence is against it, as we have shown in
this paper. The Chinese fossil evidence is strongly against it, as Xinzhi Wu and
Frank E. Poirier demonstrate.56 The Javanese and Australian fossils also witness
against it.57 With the African fossils, the jury is still out. The reason is that
the ‘Out of Africa’ model demands that the fossils fall within a certain time-
frame. However, many of the fossils upon which the ‘Out of Africa’ model is based,
such as the Border Cave fossils and the Klasies River Mouth Caves fossils, are very
difficult to date.
Other possible interpretations of the data
The fossil record clearly supports a close relationship between the Neandertals and
modern humans. However, the mtDNA data, if accurate, shows some differences between
the two groups. For political reasons, these differences have been over-interpreted
by Pääbo and his associates who claim that the Neandertals were a separate species
from modern humans. Geneticist Simon Easteal (Australian National University)
noting that chimpanzees, gorillas, and other primates have much more within-species
mtDNA diversity than modern humans do, states: ‘The amount of diversity between
Neanderthals and living humans is not exceptional’.42
Regarding these differences, there are a number of legitimate interpretations of
the mtDNA Neandertal data that have been ignored by Pääbo and his associates. Some
of these interpretations may be more likely than others, but all are possibilities.
1. That this particular Neandertal individual was from a small, isolated
group. The Neander Valley of Germany is one of the northernmost Neandertal sites,
close to the ice-age glaciers. Of the 345 Neandertal individuals discovered to
date, only 14 are from Germany, and 12 of them were far to the south of this
individual.
2. That the Neandertals did contribute to the modern gene pool, but that
their sequences disappeared through random genetic loss, selection, or both. John
Marcus feels that the human race had much greater mtDNA sequence variation in the
past. Being genetically stronger, ancient humans were able to cope with greater
genetic variation. Today, because of many more mutations, we are a weaker race.
Perhaps greater mtDNA variation in this area was deleterious to health and
stabilizing selective pressure has reduced the variation.58
3. That this particular Neandertal from whom sequences were derived was at
one extreme end of a diverse spectrum in Neandertals that includes other more
modern-like sequences. The recovery of mtDNA from other Neandertal individuals, if
possible, may confirm whether or not this is true.
4. That while Neandertal mothers did not contribute mtDNA to the modern gene
pool, Neandertal fathers may have contributed nuclear genes to the modern gene
pool. Throughout history, warfare, conducted by men, has been characterized by the
victimizing of conquered women. Hence, Neandertal men may have made ‘unsolicited
contributions’ to the modern human gene pool. Further, most migrations in history
have initially involved men.
5. That our ancestors underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out a
great deal of the original genetic variation. Kahn and Gibbons write:
Living humans are strangely homogeneous genetically, presumably because . . . their
ancestors underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out many variations.59
Iceland illustrates an isolated population whose genetic homogeneity increased when
it experienced two bottlenecks, one cause by bubonic plague and the other by
famine.60
Future Neandertal mtDNA recovery
The PCR technique is, says Tomas Lindahl, ‘notoriously contamination-sensitive’.
What is most needed is an independent test of ancient DNA authenticity.
Researchers, including Pääbo, believe they might have devised such a technique,
based upon the ratio of amino acid racemization to DNA depurination, to determine
if a particular ancient specimen might still contain retrievable DNA. In testing
this new method for DNA in ancient specimens, they write: ‘. . . we excluded human
remains because of the inherent difficulty of recognizing contamination from
contemporary humans’.61 In other words, it is much easier to recognize modern human
DNA contamination in ancient non-human specimens than in ancient human specimens.
It is obvious that much of the contaminating DNA would come from modern humans
because modern humans are doing the research and handling the ancient DNA. The
closer ancient human DNA sequences are to modern ones, the harder it is to tell if
they are truly ancient or if they are just the result of modern human
contamination.
The fossil evidence shows that the Neandertals were closely related to anatomically
modern humans. Since the mtDNA evidence is being used to challenge that
relationship, almost all observers recognise the need to obtain mtDNA from other
Neandertal specimens. Robert DeSalle (American Museum of Natural History) states:
‘But it’s possible that you could see something quite different if you looked at
DNA from another Neanderthal sample’.62 It is at this point that biochemist John P.
Marcus sees a problem. He states:
Knowing the bias of evolutionists, it would not be surprising if, in the future,
true Neandertal mtDNA sequences were rejected on account of their being too close
to modern human ones and therefore suspected of arising from modern human mtDNA
contamination.63
Such concerns are justified since most evolutionists involved in mtDNA recovery
favor the ‘Out of Africa’ model of human evolution which demands a separation of
the Neandertals from anatomically modern humans. Hence, any future mtDNA evidence
showing a close relationship of Neandertals to modern humans could be dismissed as
contamination from modern human mtDNA and the results not reported. This would
perpetuate the false idea that Neandertals and modern humans were not closely
related.
Conclusion
The words of anthropologist Robert Foley (University of Cambridge) written about a
book by geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (Stanford University) sums up the work
of Svante Pääbo and his team, who in spite of brilliant biochemistry,
. . . shows plainly the futility of trying to interpret genes without knowing so
much more—about selection and drift, about processes of cultural transmission,
about history and geography, about fossils, about anthropology, about statistics.64
After 140 years, the Neandertals are still having to fight for their reputation. If
genuine mtDNA has been recovered from the fossil from the Neander Valley, the
results have been misinterpreted—both in a statistical and cultural sense. However,
within the context of the Biblical record of human history, this individual is
likely to post-date the dispersion from Babel (Genesis 11:8,9). This being the
case, we can conclude that he, like all human kind, was a direct descendant of one
of the sons of Noah (Genesis 9:19, 10:32).
The Living Database
A Software Engineer Looks at God's Blueprint for a Human Being
by Mark Johansen on September 1, 2000
Share:
* *
*
Originally published in Creation 22, no 4 (September 2000): 33-35.
When a new human being is conceived, he or she consists of only one tiny
microscopic cell. How does that single cell grow into a complete body?
I am a software engineer by profession (i.e. a 'computer geek'), so perhaps it is
inevitable that I would look at the human body from an information-processing point
of view.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
When a new human being is conceived, he or she consists of only one tiny
microscopic cell. How does that single cell grow into a complete body? As that one
cell becomes many, how does each one 'know' whether it is supposed to be bones, or
skin, or parts of the eye or lung or heart, all arranged in the correct places?
As with any building project, the first essential step is to have a plan, a
blueprint. For a human being, this blueprint is called the 'genome'. Every cell in
your body has a copy of this blueprint, 'written' on the long chain molecule called
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) that makes up your chromosomes.
Only in the last half of the 20th century have we begun to understand this
blueprint. Before then, people could only guess that such even existed.
What biologists have learned so far displays what software engineers would call
amazingly 'elegant' design.
At the lowest level, the genome is built from just four different chemicals, called
'bases' (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine), chemically bound to a molecular
backbone. These bases are combined into groups of three, called 'codons'. Codons
are combined into groups of various length called 'genes'. The average gene has
about a 1,000 codons. Genes of related function are often grouped, together with
genes that control whether they are active or not, into 'operons'. Operons are
combined into chromosomes. And all the chromosomes make up the genome. The entire
human genome includes about one billion codons, or three billion bases.
Notice how similar this organization is to a written language. A base is like a
letter. A codon is like a word, a gene like a sentence. An operon can perhaps be
likened to a paragraph, and a chromosome is like a chapter. And the genome would
then be the entire book.
Actually reading this 'book' is another matter. By studying chromosomes under a
microscope, a skilled technician can tell a few basic things about the person they
came from, like whether this person is male or female — one of the chromosomes
looks distinctly different. It is also possible to recognize some types of birth
defects. For example, Down's syndrome can be recognized by a certain extra
chromosome.
But until recently, that was about it. It was like someone who had lost his glasses
trying to read a book: he might be able to tell how long the chapters are, or
notice that a page was torn out, but that was all.
In recent years biologists have learned to read the 'letters'. That is, with much
high tech equipment and sophisticated techniques, they can find exactly which bases
make up almost any given section of the genome. The 'book' is so long that it's
taken years to (almost) decipher with the help of supercomputers. But for the most
part, it's like reading a book written in a foreign language; just knowing the
alphabet isn't enough.
We do understand the function of one important part of the human genome: some
sections control the manufacture of proteins. Proteins are key chemicals in your
body, made of smaller pieces called amino acids; often thousands of them, strung
together in a long chain. This then folds to make the protein.
There are 20 amino acids, and the sequence in which they are assembled determines
the structure and function of the resultant protein. A gene is that stretch of DNA
coding for one particular protein, with each of the codons in that gene coding for
one amino acid.
This only accounts for a small percentage of the human genome. The figure given
varies, but evolutionists generally say that the remainder, 90% or so, must
therefore be left-overs ('junk' DNA) from earlier stages of evolution, no longer
used or needed. But this is an argument based on ignorance: 'We don't know what its
purpose is, therefore it has no purpose.' It would seem more reasonable to withhold
judgment until there has been more research, especially considering that it is only
in the last few years that we have begun to understand the function of the protein-
making sections.
There are plenty of parts in my car that I don't understand. But I do not therefore
conclude that they are useless leftovers from an earlier era in automobile design,
carelessly included despite no longer having any purpose.1
Computer experts often strive for what we call an 'elegant' design. By that we mean
a system which solves a complex problem, but which at heart is simple and
consistent. The ideal design uses the fewest different pieces, and combines them in
consistent ways.
Look at the elegance of the genome. At the lowest level, there are only four
different bases. These are always combined in groups of three. Never two, never
four, always three.
But why three bases in a codon, you might ask? What's special about that number?
Well, there are 20 different amino acids in human proteins. One base to specify
each amino acid would not be enough; there are only four different bases, but 20
amino acids. Two would give 4 x 4 = 16 possibilities, still not quite enough. Three
is enough: 4 x 4 x 4 = 64, which of course is more than 20.2 Four would have been
overkill, far more possibilities than necessary.
And of all the billion billion possible ways that 64 codons could code for 20 amino
acids, ours turns out to be among the very best (see DNA below).
In short, this is exactly the sort of design that a computer expert would admire. A
minimal number of different pieces to keep it simple, combined into groups of
exactly the right size to be just enough to express the desired information with no
waste, and with a consistent method of interpreting the data.
Could such a system have arisen by chance? The scheme is so neat and tidy. Random
processes rarely result in neatness. Few computer systems designed by experts
display as much elegance and sophistication as we find in the human genome.
How much information is in the human genome? If we were to type it out, one letter
for each of one person's three billion bases, it would take 500,000 pages — single-
spaced, both sides of the paper. Stored on a computer, using one byte (the amount
for storing a letter or digit of text) per base, we would need three billion bytes,
or three 'gigabytes'. As little as five or six years ago, only the largest
computers could handle this much data. And actually doing anything with this amount
of information is another story. The most complex computer programs written today —
compilers, the programs used to write other programs — now require as much as 150
million bytes. This is about one twentieth of the amount of information in the
human genome — i.e. in each cell.
In short, it is just within the last few years that human beings have reached the
point where we can even hope to process the amount of information that is contained
in a human genome. Our most sophisticated 'machines' — computer software — are just
now reaching the same scale.
DNA is vastly more efficient at storing information than is our present technology.
In the amount of DNA which would fill a pinhead, one could store the information
which, typed out, would make a pile of paperback-size pages so high that it would
reach from here to the moon 500 times!3
It is perhaps possible that people alive now may live to see the day when human
beings will create a code as sophisticated as the blueprint for a human body.
However, our body is much more than a code. The blueprint is only expressed within
an existing cell which has all the machinery to manufacture the proteins and other
components specified by the code. Constructing even a single cell 'from scratch'
would be a very, very tall order.
If mankind ever achieves such a feat, it would just underline the incredible
intelligence of our wonderful Creator God, who created all kinds of living things
in just a few days during Creation Week.
References and notes
1. Mutations in non-coding DNA have been found to cause cancer, which
suggests that this DNA is very important.
2. The extra codes are not wasted. There is more than one code for different
amino acids. The extra codes make the system robust so that mutations (copying
errors during reproduction) which change one base are less likely to change the
amino acid coded for.
3. Gitt W., Dazzling Design in Miniature, Creation 20(1):6, 1997.
The statistics on human genetics used in this article all came from:
Primer on Molecular Genetics, by the United States Department of Energy Human
Genome Program, Washington D.C., USA, June 1992.
________________
DNA's chosen language ... an evolutionary conundrum.

Evolutionists have often pondered the 'why' of the actual DNA code, the 'language
convention' universal to all living things, which prescribes which triplet codon
specifies which amino acid. There are many other possible conventions which could
have been used, but it has now been discovered that the existing one 'resists error
better than a million other possible codes'.1
Such incredible error-proof efficiency should shout 'design' to them, but instead
they see it as evidence that the choice of code must have been shaped by natural
selection, i.e. approaching its current perfection by trial and error.
But herein is a conundrum for them. As some have pointed out, once there was an
existing language convention, no matter how error-prone, any subsequent changes by
chance would have been 'like switching the keys on a typewriter, leading to
hopelessly garbled proteins'.1 Thus, however the code began is how it would have
stayed. In the evolutionary scenario, that means that a random origin just
'happened' to fluke odds of a million or so to one to arrive at the best possible
code. This is good evidence against evolution — the code convention is clearly the
result of deliberate, creative design.
Reference
1. Tracking the History of the Genetic Code, Science 281:329-331, July 17,
1998.
________________
The chicken or the egg?

The complex mechanisms needed to decode the DNA, and to proof-read it for errors
are themselves proteins, coded in the DNA. Thus we have the classic chicken and egg
problem: since proteins are needed to read, check and manufacture DNA, and DNA is
needed to make proteins, which came first in the alleged evolutionary process?
The obvious answer is that they did not evolve, but were created together. Some
have tried to suggest that originally, something like RNA (a chemical related to
DNA) was able to be both code and replicator, i.e. chicken and egg. But there are
huge problems with this and related suggestions:
See CEN Technical Journals:
10(3):300-314, 1996;
11(1):4-6, 1997;
12(3):263-266, 281-284, 1998;
13(2):5-6, 124-127, 1999.
Human Genome Project Complete ... Again
on April 16, 2003
Share:
* *
*
The Human Genome Project has officially finished its task of sequencing the human
genome, according to a press conference on Monday, 14 April 2003. A ‘working draft’
was completed in June 2000 (see Genome Mania), to much fanfare, but this new
sequence is much more accurate.
Does this mean that the work is over? Definitely not. First, it could take another
10 to 20 years before every last ‘letter’ in the human genetic code is in place
(the current researchers intentionally ignored some of the more complex areas of
DNA because they don’t produce proteins). Moreover, biologists have only begun to
explore a much deeper mystery: how does the human body actually ‘read’ the
instructions in human genes to produce the complex variety of proteins essential
for life? And how do these genes direct the production of the hundreds of thousands
of components that make up a human body?
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Despite years of continuing investigation by a host of brilliant scientists, they
still can’t explain how the human genome works. Yet throughout the project, many
biologists argued that the sequence has resulted from mere chance and natural
selection. It’s sad to see how evolutionary assumptions have blinded so many
scientists to the most obvious message of DNA. Design by an intelligent Creator.
Do Genetic Differences Disprove that Neandertals and Modern Humans Interbred?
by Michael J. Oard on June 18, 2003
Share:
* *
*
New research results comparing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have shown substantial
divergence between Neandertals and modern humans, including the Cro-Magnons of ice
age Europe.1,2,3 (Mitochondrial DNA, which is not the same as that carried on the
chromosomes (nuclear DNA), is generally inherited unchanged from the mother.
Evolutionists believe that the more differences between the mtDNA of two organisms,
the longer ago their ancestors branched off from a common ancestor.) The large
differences have been taken as evidence that Neandertals were a different ‘species’
from humans.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
However, even some evolutionary scientists are more cautious in their conclusions
of the new mtDNA genetic results. Mark Stoneking, a supporter of the mitochondrial
Eve hypothesis (which actually favours the idea of Neandertal non-humanity4), is a
bit nervous about the possible DNA contamination that can occur easily.5
Furthermore, the sample size of Neandertals and Cro-Magnons was quite small, and
certain modern people groups are over-represented. Therefore, the results may not
apply to larger populations.
Alan Cooper, an evolutionary molecular biologist at Oxford University, believes
there is a slim possibility that Neandertals are ancestors of modern humans and may
have contributed mtDNA to modern human populations which was lost during human
population bottlenecks at the end of the ice age.6
This is quite possible according to creationist biologist, David DeWitt, who has
discovered that many of the mitochondrial DNA differences are at mutational
‘hotspots,’ unlike the differences between modern humans and chimps.7,8These are
sectors where substantial mutational change can occur in short periods of time.
Last year, Gutierrez et al. showed that the ‘Neanderthal–Human and Human–Human
pairwise distance distributions overlap more than previous studies suggest.’9 They
also say, ‘The separate phylogenetic position of Neanderthals is not supported when
these (other) factors are considered [i.e. the high substitution rate variation at
these hot spots].’ This is similar to recently discovered rapid mtDNA changes in
mice from the Chicago area.10,11 Thus, these mtDNA findings are not inconsistent
with the conclusion from the evidence of fossil hybrids12 and artifacts that
Neandertals were fully human.
More Than Meets the Eye: The Human Genome
on June 16, 2007
Share:
* *
*
News Source
* BBC NEWS: “Human Genome Further Unravelled”
One of the most frequently posited arguments for evolution is the supposed
similarity of ape and human DNA. For instance, it seems that nearly any article
about “human-like” chimpanzee behavior manages to squeeze in a mention of ninety-
some percent similarity between chimp and human genomes.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Answers in Genesis has long tried to show both the illogic and misunderstanding
such claims spread. For one thing, similar genomes do indicate similar biological
construction, but do not indicate common descent any more than they indicate common
design. For another thing, the supposed similarity is often referenced without
explanation of how the genomes are dissimilar.
Evolutionary science is just now catching up with the conclusions creationists have
already drawn. “A close-up view of the human genome has revealed its innermost
workings to be far more complex than first thought,” reports a BBC NEWS article on
a recent Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (Encode) study. Encode’s goal is to build
upon the successful mapping of the human genome by understanding exactly how the
genome works. The article explains:
The surprising results, explained Tim Hubbard from the Wellcome Trust Sanger
Institute, “transform our view of the genome fabric.”
Previously, genome activity was thought of in terms of the 22,000 genes that make
proteins—the functional building blocks in our cells—along with patches of DNA that
control, or regulate, the genes.
The other 97% or so of the genome was said to be made up of “junk” DNA—so called
because it had no known biological function. . . .
Dr Hubbard said: “We are now seeing the majority of the rest of the genome is
active to some extent.”
The reality is that human understanding of how genes actually control biological
construction is woefully inadequate, albeit advancing more each year. Claims that
genome similarity between chimps and humans “prove” evolution are not only
misleading; they are based on a considerably immature field of science.
Claims that genome similarity between chimps and humans “prove” evolution are not
only misleading.
Beyond the chimp-human relatedness debate, this genomic revelation reminds us of
the incredible information processing going on inside our bodies at each moment—
information processing that puts human computing efforts to shame. Not only does
evolution not explain how such intricate information could have evolved from
scratch, it also fails to explain how such an advanced information-management
system could have evolved before or concurrently with the information so that the
genes could actually be “read” and used by cells. Design perfectly explains both
the presence of such vast amounts of data and the awe-inspiring system used to
decode it.
To find more on this latest discovery, return to this website in early July for a
more in-depth article by AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom.
The Highly Efficient Genome
by Dr. Jean Lightner on July 11, 2007
PDF DOWNLOAD
Share:
* *
*
Abstract
A number of genes are now known to be polycistronic, that is, they produce more
than one protein.
Keywords: genome, human genome project, genetics, proteins, polycistronic,
proopiomelanocortin gene, POMC, prohormone, hormones, melanocortin,
adrenocorticotropic, pigmentation
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
When the human genome project began, it had been estimated that around 100,000
genes would be found. To the surprise of scientists, less than 25,000 have been
found despite the fact that the human body is known to have the ability to produce
several times this many proteins.1 A number of genes are now known to be
polycistronic; that is, they produce more than one protein. One interesting example
is the proopiomelanocortin (POMC) gene which gives rise to a prohormone which may
be cut into a number of different hormone proteins. The pro prefix refers to the
fact that further processing is necessary for the final product, opio refers to the
opiate peptide β-endorphin, and melanocortin refers to four related peptides: α-
melanocyte stimulating hormone (MSH), β-MSH, γ-MSH, and adrenocorticotropic hormone
(ACTH).2
Hormone formation
Illustration
* View offsite image of proopiomelanocortin cleavage
After translation, the POMC prohormone may be enzymatically cleaved to form γ-MSH,
ACTH, and β-lipotropin. A different enzyme is used to cleave ACTH to form α-MSH and
corticotrophin-like intermediate lobe peptide (CLIP). Additionally, β-lipotropin
may be cleaved to form γ-lipotropin and β-endorphin. Further cleavage of γ-
lipotropin yields β-MSH. Each of these hormones must undergo further processing to
reach their biologically active form.3 Currently there are 10 known products of
this gene. The products formed are tissue specific and are controlled by available
enzymes.4
Melanocortins and pigmentation
The melanocortins are the most studied products of this gene. They are similar in
that all contain the amino acid sequence Histadine-Phenylalanine-Arginine-
Tryptophan and they have some overlap in their activity. In fur-bearing mammals α-
MSH has been shown to stimulate melanocyte (pigment cell) differentiation and
eumelanin (a dark brown to black pigment) synthesis. Without this stimulation these
cells produce pheomelanin (a yellow to red pigment).
Studies in humans reveal that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation causes an
increase in ACTH and α-MSH production in keratinocytes (skin cells). This, in turn,
causes an increase in eumelanin production and a darkening of the skin. This
response depends on a functional melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R). Some people have a
mutation in the MC1R gene which makes the receptor unresponsive to these hormones.
These people have red hair (from pheomelanin), fair skin, and burn easily when
exposed to UV light.5
Melanocortins and body weight regulation
Pigmentation is not the only thing affected by these hormones. ACTH is an important
hormone produced in the pituitary gland of the brain which signals the adrenal
glands to produce glucocorticoids. In patients with pituitary disease where ACTH is
not secreted normally, anorexia and weight loss occur.
In contrast, there are several mutations in the POMC gene that result in early-
onset obesity and red hair along with adrenal insufficiency. These mutations result
in a defective ACTH molecule which explains the adrenal insufficiency. The other
symptoms relate to the loss of α-MSH activity. α-MSH is derived from ACTH and plays
an important role in suppressing appetite via the melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R) in
the brain. The loss of α-MSH means there is no suppression of appetite, resulting
in obesity, and no signal for eumelanin synthesis, resulting in red hair.6
Melanocortins and inflammation
Recent research has revealed that melanocortins play a critical and diverse role in
modulating immune function and inflammation. As mentioned above, ACTH is a hormone
that is released from the pituitary. It travels via the blood stream and signals
the adrenal glands to produce glucocorticoids. Glucocorticoids have a number of
important functions which include a systemic anti-inflammatory effect. In addition
to this endocrine pathway, melanocortins can act centrally through several
neurogenic pathways. Research has shown that α-MSH within the brain can signal via
the sympathetic nervous system to control acute inflammation of the skin in mice.
Additionally, cholinergic pathways, specifically through the vagus nerve, have been
shown to protect from hemorrhagic shock and tissue reperfusion injury.
In addition to the anti-inflammatory effects that are controlled centrally,
melanocortins can exert control locally. When the anti-inflammatory effects of
melanocortins were first being studied, researchers were amazed at the wide variety
of effects they had. It was discovered that they exert their influence very early
in the chain of events leading to inflammation. Within inflammatory cells (e.g.
macrophages) there is a nuclear factor (NF-κB) which is normally bound to a
molecule (IκBα) inside the cell membrane. Cytokines, endotoxin, and other compounds
that stimulate an inflammatory response do so by phosphorylating IκBα. This causes
the molecule to break down, releasing NF-κB, which travels to the nucleus and
signals the transcription of numerous genes involved in the inflammatory response.7
Melanocortins stabilize the bond between NF-κB and IκBα which inhibits this
response. Without the control of melanocortins, the inflammatory response could
easily run out of control and harm the very life it was designed to protect.
Melanocortins and sexual function
Melanocortins have also been documented to play a role in sexual function. Both α-
MSH and ACTH injected into various portions of the brain caused penile erection in
rats. In men with psychogenic or organic erectile dysfunction, peripherally
administered MT-II, a MCR agonist produced by a different gene, caused penile
erection. Further studies implicate the MC4R as playing an important role in this
response. There is an interest in developing drugs that specifically target the
MC4R for treatment of sexual dysfunction. Since this receptor also plays a role in
body weight regulation, as mentioned above, drugs targeting it have been considered
for controlling obesity.8 The fact that MC4R agonists can have pleiotropic effects
could result in undesirable side effects.
Melanocortins also play a role in female sexual behavior. Studies in rats indicate
that they can either increase or decrease sexual behavior depending on the
receptivity of the female at the time. It appears there are no results from human
females at present.
Other POMC hormones and their functions
In addition to melanocortins, the POMC gene produces lipotropins, endorphins, and
several other less-well-studied peptides. Lipotropins promote the usage of fat by
the body and β-lipotropin can be cleaved to form β-endorphin. Endorphins are
secreted in the brain and bind opioid receptors to decrease pain, increase
relaxation, and provide an overall sense of well-being.9 Additionally, β-endorphin
has been found in various immune cells responding to peripheral inflammation.
Stressful stimuli signal the release of endorphin which binds peripheral opioid
receptors to inhibit pain.10
Conclusion
Polycistronic genes such as POMC make the genome very efficient because less space
is needed to code for the proteins than if each were coded by a separate gene. The
fact that different enzymes are used to cleave POMC into different products allows
the body to control the final product by controlling which enzymes are present.
Sometimes these proteins act in diverse locations to bring about the same basic
effect (e.g., the anti-inflammatory effects of melanocortins both within the
central nervous system and peripherally). Other times the same protein exhibits a
diverse range of effects (e.g., α-MSH affects pigmentation, food intake,
inflammation, etc.). From this brief overview it should be apparent that we are
looking at an irreducible complex system. Both receptors and their ligands (the
proteins that bind to them) need to be in the right locations for these systems to
work. The proper enzymes need to be available in the proper locations too, so the
POMC molecule can be cleaved to form the appropriate product. These undergo further
processing to bring the protein to its final biologically active form. These are
not the types of things one would expect to see as a result of random, chance
processes. The complexity of interactions far exceeds what is described here. These
astoundingly well integrated and complex interactions certainly inspire awe for the
Creator and provide plenty of fascinating questions to be answered by scientific
investigation.
Human Evolution—Faster than a Speeding Bullet
by Dr. Georgia Purdom on January 30, 2008
PDF DOWNLOAD
Share:
* *
*
Abstract
A recent study claims that the rate of mutation has sharply increased over the last
10,000 years. But what is the reason for this change?
Keywords: human evolution, adaptation, descent, modification, chromosomes, DNA,
population growth, climate changes, genome, adaptive mutations, ethics
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Recent news reports have flashed headlines of speedy human evolution with the
implication that instead of becoming more alike, humans are becoming more
different.1, 2 In a paper published in PNAS,3 researchers reported the comparison
of the genomes of several different people groups and showed that many genes appear
to have recent mutations and that the rate of mutation has sharply increased over
the last 10,000 years. Population growth and migration, followed by the need to
adapt to different climates, are given as possible reasons for these so-called
adaptive mutations. But is this an example of evolution or adaptation?
Defining Terms
Again, it becomes crucial to define what is meant by evolution. The common
definition is “descent with modification,” which results in a single-celled
organism becoming man via time, chance, and natural laws. Although the title of the
paper is, “Recent Acceleration of Human Adaptive Evolution,” the evidence instead
supports the idea of adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation implies changes in the
genetic makeup which allow an organism to survive better in a given environment.
The changes or mutations do not add information but instead alter current genetic
information which offers no mechanism for the common descent of all living things
from single-celled ancestors. Perhaps the authors define evolution as “change in
genetic makeup over time” in which case their title is accurate. However, to an
undiscerning public it is likely that evolution will mean the molecules-to-man
variety and that this research is further proof of it.
Determining Recent, Rapid Human Evolution
The authors compared the genomes of people belonging to four different people
groups: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa Yoruba, and Northern Europeans. They
specifically focused on looking at similarities and differences in the patterns of
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The following is a description of a SNP:
Imagine walking along two chromosomes—the same chromosome from two different
people. Chromosomes are made of DNA, a twisting, ladder-like structure in which
each rung is made of a “base pair” of amino acids [sic, nucleotides], either G-C or
A-T. Harpending [an author of the paper] says that about every 1,000 base pairs,
there will be a difference between the two chromosomes. That is known as a SNP.4
If the pattern of SNPs on a particular stretch of chromosome is identical among
people, then the SNP pattern occurred recently. Older SNPs would not show identical
patterns among people groups. DNA is actively shuffled and rearranged and so the
SNP patterns become more dissimilar among people as time passes. To illustrate this
idea further let me use an example from the wonderful world of motherhood. If I
organize my daughter’s toy room and take a picture of it each hour following my
clean up, I would see a continual progression of increasing disorder. The picture
from the first hour might not show any changes (maybe she was taking a nap!); the
third hour might show some toys out of place; the fifth hour would show more toys
out of place; and by the seventh hour it would be total chaos. The more time that
passes since the initial organization, the more differences there would be. The
same is true for the pattern of SNPs on the chromosomes: the less time that has
passed, the more similar the SNP patterns among people, and the more time that has
passed, the less similar the SNP patterns.
The authors found 7% of the genes (in the human genome) show signs of “rapid,
recent evolution.”4 In other words, the SNP patterns in these genes are identical
among the different people groups studied and have been termed adaptive mutations.
While it is obvious why they believe the changes in these genes are recent (less
than 10,000 years ago), why do the authors consider these changes to have occurred
quickly? The authors predicted that adaptive mutations would occur at a constant
rate throughout human evolutionary history. They give several reasons as to why,
based on their findings, the rate is not constant, but the most intriguing one is
related to our proposed chimpanzee ancestors.
Using the mutation rate that they are suggesting began less than 10,000 years ago
and extrapolating back 6 million years ago when humans supposedly split from chimps
gives an “implausible” number of adaptive mutations. So, the rate observed in the
past 10,000 years is much faster than the rate for the previous 6 million years.
The problem with their conclusion is it is based on the false assumptions that
humans evolved from chimps and the earth has existed for billions of years. From a
creationist perspective it is plausible that this has been the rate of adaptive
mutation in humans since the Fall and was necessary to allow humans to adapt and
survive in a post-Fall world.
Population Growth and Climate Changes
The authors propose two mechanisms that may have been responsible for the recent
speedy human evolution: population growth (more people, more mutations) and
migrating human populations that needed to adapt to varying climates. From a
biblical perspective these events would have occurred shortly after the Flood. God
told Noah and his sons to “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.”
(Genesis 9:3).
After the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11), people groups
of the same language would have migrated to different parts of the world and needed
to adapt to a world that had been drastically altered by the Flood. It is plausible
that the rate of adaptive mutations increased shortly after the Tower of Babel
(possibly as part of a stress response) approximately 4500 years ago. Another
possibility is that the SNP patterns actually represent created genetic diversity
(by God) instead of adaptive mutations. This created genetic diversity would be
either selected for or against depending on the environmental conditions. God
foreknew that people would need to be able to adapt and survive in a dramatically
different world than the perfect world He originally created.
Ethical Implications
Some are worried about the ethical implications of this research. If humans are
becoming more dissimilar (based on genetic differences) then there will be a basis
for discrimination. From an evolutionary perspective, this should be considered a
real scenario. It is plausible within an evolutionary framework that some people
groups are “evolving” faster than others, and so, we are not all equal. This racist
idea was widely held by Darwin and his contemporaries.5
Harpending, one of the paper’s authors, states, “[genetic differences among humans]
cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution aren’t
predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities
whatever their group.”4 Agreed, but what is the basis for this idea using an
evolutionary worldview?
[I]f we evolved from an ape-like ancestor and are nothing more than animals
ourselves, where do we draw the line concerning who has “rights”?
Using a biblical worldview, the Bible is the basis for saying that all people are
equal (Acts 17:26) and that we are different from animals because we are made in
the image of God (Genesis 1:26). If there is no basis for determining truth, then
it is only Harpending’s opinion that people should have rights no matter their
group. In addition, if we evolved from an ape-like ancestor and are nothing more
than animals ourselves, where do we draw the line concerning who has “rights”?
Maybe the apes and chimps in the zoo should also have the rights afforded to
people. And why stop there because then we are discriminating against the lowly
bacteria, with whom we share a common ancestry. Humans would be guilty of
committing genocide every time they washed their hands with anti-bacterial soap!
Conclusion
Co-author of the paper Gregory Cochran stated:
“History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants
repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans—sometimes quietly, by surviving
starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those
mutants.”4
In some ways this is an accurate description of what has occurred with humanity
since the Fall. Post-Fall humans (mutant humans) have definitely replaced
originally created-perfect humans (normal humans)! However, God in His providence
has provided ways that allow us to adapt and survive in a sin-cursed world. More
importantly, God provided His Son Jesus Christ so that we would not endure an
eternity in Hell, but have the opportunity to enjoy an eternity with Him in Heaven.
Note/disclaimer:
As a creation geneticist who has studied extensively the role of adaptive mutations
in bacteria, I find the role of adaptive mutation in humans to be highly
speculative (which is why I suggested the possibility of created genetic
diversity). I have co-authored two papers on this topic that have been accepted by
the 2008 International Conference on Creationism (ICC). ICC papers will be
available for purchase later this year.
Racing to a Conclusion
on May 9, 2009
Share:
* *
*
Africa may be the most genetically diverse place on earth. Is that evidence of
evolutionary origins?
News Source
* BBC News: “Africa’s Genetic Secrets Unlocked”
Evolutionists have long called Africa the “cradle of humanity,” a reference to
several supposed apeman fossils found on the continent. Now, the largest genetic
study ever undertaken on Africa reveals the extent of genetic diversity there.
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
The study began with more than 3,000 samples of genetic material taken from 121
African populations, including from remote groups. Among those, the researchers
identified 14 “ancestral population clusters” whose members share
ancestry/ethnicity as well as cultural and linguistic similarities.
Because of the evolutionary presupposition that the group with the most genetic
diversity is also the oldest population (the idea being it has had “the longest to
evolve,” BBC News explains), the researchers believe the study supports the idea
that humankind first evolved in Africa. The scientists even go a step farther,
claiming to identify an aboriginal group of Africans (the San) as possibly
“descendents of a population ancestral to all modern humans,” said the University
of Pennsylvania’s Sarah Tishkoff, the team leader.
Evolutionary assertions like Tishkoff’s remind us of why Darwinism (not necessarily
Darwin) promoted and reinforced racism for more than a century: the idea that
certain groups’ ancestors diverged earlier than others, showing them to be inferior
to more “highly evolved” races. While even modern evolutionists dismiss such
conclusions, the underlying principles remain.
Several factors could account for the wide range of genetic diversity in Africa,
including the fact that it is the second-largest continent with a wide range of
geography, as well as that its history includes ongoing trade and migration between
Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Furthermore, it is not clear whether studies of
equivalent rigor have been conducted on other continents (for instance, targeting
remote groups as this study did).
After Noah and his family departed from the Ark, their descendants would have
steadily diversified, especially after the Confusion event at Babel. In the
millennia since, a litany of factors—wars, mass migrations, trade, disease, and
more—have continued to alter genetic diversity. What we observe today is a result
of both biology and history, all of which we can understand through the biblical
worldview.
Three Genetic Groupings
on July 4, 2009
Share:
* *
*
Washington Post: “Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety” A new genetic study
of 53 human populations shows that each falls into one of three genetic groups—yet
that the three groups aren’t as different as was thought. The legacy of Shem, Ham,
and Japheth (Noah’s three sons), perhaps?
Washington Post writer David Brown reviews a recent study that analyzes genetic
information from 53 human groups, comparing and contrasting what makes us human.
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Brown reports.
Brown reports. According to evolutionists, this tripartite division originated when
humans left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, splitting into African,
Eurasian, and East Asian groups (the third of which includes Pacific Islander and
Native American groups).
For creationists, that division makes plain sense as reflective of the people
groups that split off after Babel, all descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Of
course, in the millennia since, those people groups have migrated and interbred, so
it’s difficult to say perfectly what modern groups belong to what ancestor—or even
to imply that the ordinary human descends from just one of Noah’s three
sons/daughters-in-law. Additionally, the genomes have been influenced over the
years by environment. So a population of Shem’s descendants and a population of
Japheth’s descendants living in the same environment for millennia would come to
resemble one another. Brown makes the point, albeit from an evolutionary
perspective:
People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through
natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our
genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the
African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food
availability, parasites, infectious diseases, and lots of other things.
Nonetheless, the study is an exciting reminder of the reality of the Genesis
account.
But what else is interesting is that the three broad groupings in the study aren’t
as different as evolutionists expected. Brown writes, “Scientists have long known
that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone’s genes are pretty much
alike. We’re all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.” Brown
identifies skin color as the “most obvious” of these details. Of course, that
reflects what creationists have emphasized, but differs from what some
evolutionists originally preached (see Darwin’s Plantation for more). He goes on,
“Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences . . . [but] that’s
not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns
out to be extremely rare.”
The entire study reminds us of how the variation we see among human populations
today could have arisen as our forbears left Babel. Genetic drift and natural
selection played important roles over time, which is why any two humans randomly
selected may differ in stature, skin color, disease susceptibility, lactose
tolerance, and so forth—even while all of us remain entirely and equally human. The
Bible’s message in Acts 17:26—that we are all of one blood, descendants of Adam
through Noah—is a powerful truth explaining our world.
Predisposition to Religion?
on January 22, 2011
Share:
* *
*
Watch as one researcher tries desperately to implicate population biology and
genetics in the spread of religion.
News Source
* LiveScience: “Predisposition for Religion Can Spread Quickly”
Cambridge University economist Robert Rowthorn has developed mathematical models to
investigate the spread of religion based on two simple variables. First, Rowthorn
notes higher birth rates among the religious. Second, he adds in a genetic
“predisposition” for religion that is passed on in religious families. Together,
this leads to a rapid increase in the proportion of religious individuals in a
society.
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
For example, the model shows that a religious group encompassing just one half of
one percent of the members of a society can swell to half of the entire population
within ten generations.
The key assumption in the model is that it’s genetics that predisposes individuals
for being religious (although we presume that being raised in a religious family
may have the same effect). Otherwise, the offspring born to religious parents are
no more likely to adopt religion than are others in society. “All people who work
in this area know there is a genetic basis to being religious, in the sense there
is a genetic basis to all human behavior,” Rowthorn argued.
The model shows that a religious group encompassing just one half of one percent of
the members of a society can swell to half of the entire population within ten
generations.
For “secularists,” perhaps including Rowthorn, the combination of differential
reproduction rates among the religious and a genetic basis for religious belief are
a dangerous combination. Even if more people “defect” (his term) away from
religion, their lower rate of reproduction may doom secularism to perpetual
minority status. Of course, we frequently note that secularism is itself a
religious view, given that it begins with by-faith assumptions about the
nonexistence or irrelevance of the supernatural world. And while Rowthorn’s fears
may be justified in one sense, his analysis ignores the great secularization that
has occurred during the past century. Even if the masses remain “religious,” in
many circles that “religion” has become diluted and secularized through compromise
with the world (see our reports in Christian Post: “Survey Offers In-Depth Look at
Mainline Protestant Clergy” and No Religion Rising and Lack of Knowledge of Church
History and Other Faiths).
Twin Mixes Becoming More Prominent
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 15, 2011
Share:
* *
*
Twin mixes are on the rise in the UK.
News Source
* Daily Mail: “The Science Behind Our Amazing Twins - One Black, One White”
The BBC recently aired a documentary, Twincredibles, following the stories of five
families with fraternal twins whose skin doesn’t match. Just half a century ago,
“mixed twins” were almost unheard of. The number is on the rise, however, as a
consequence of the rising percentage of so-called mixed race people in the British
population. And as a bonus to this demographic change, population geneticists
predict a medical benefit to the gene pool.
flood.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Even to refer to these children as “black” and “white” or “mixed race” is a
misnomer. As the Bible clearly teaches (and as the Human Genome Project confirms),
“There is only one race—the human race.” Racial designations are human inventions,
and the slurs and prejudices which often accompany them are the products of
ignorance and sin.
University of Edinburgh population geneticist Dr. Jim Wilson explains, “There are
about 20 genes [from a total of about 20,000] known to control skin and eye colour.
In each gene you have a light-skinned variant and a dark-skinned variant. If you
have more of the dark-skinned variant in your DNA, you’ll inherit dark skin. If
there’s more light-skin variant, you’ll inherit light skin. Since parents
contribute 50 per cent of the genes each to an offspring, the first generation born
to a mixed-race couple will definitely be midway in colour between the two. But
second-generation children are different. If one of the offspring marries a white
person, it is possible for them to have a white child because you no longer have
50/50 white and black variants. Where you have one mixed-race parent and one white
parent it’s still unlikely for a white baby to be born.”
With fraternal twins, as with any pair of siblings, each child inherits an
assortment of genes for skin pigmentation, and the result can be significantly
different skin tones.
Likely or not, the twins featured in the article, Kaydon and Layton Wood, are the
children of a white father and a mom with Nigerian and white parents. With
fraternal twins, as with any pair of siblings, each child inherits an assortment of
genes for skin pigmentation, and the result can be significantly different skin
tones. Actually, the skin color of all of us is determined primarily by the amount
of brown melanin pigment in the skin. Therefore, no one is fully “white” or “black”
but just varying shades of brown. The presence of pigment is the dominant feature,
so the likelihood of a mixed race couple producing a “white” child is fairly low.
Statistically, a couple like the Woods (with one “white” and one “mixed race”)
expecting non-identical twins has about a one in 500 chance that the babies will
have different skin colors.1
With an increasingly “racially mixed” population, the number of mixed twins is
naturally on the rise. The Office of National Statistics now says, “There may be
around two million mixed-race people living in the UK – 3 per cent of the
population and therefore a larger group than any of the defined ethnic
minorities.”2
Sadly, many orphaned children have been denied adoption due to social policies
prohibiting mixed “race” adoptions. Hopefully, those policies will be changing.
On a happier note, Dr. Jim Wilson points out that the increasingly mixed population
could decrease the incidence of several inherited diseases that, along with skin
color, have accumulated in certain segments of the population. Cystic fibrosis is
common only among white people, and it along with a number of other genetically
related illnesses should decrease in the population if trends continue.
The Bible teaches that all people are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve had
an assortment of the “skin color genes” which get reshuffled in every person
conceived and produce all the skin tones we see. When the descendants of Noah were
dispersed from the tower of Babel into smaller groups, the limited genetic
variability available in each group eventually resulted in people groups with a
preponderance of particular skin tones.
While other features such as hair and eye color are sometimes also found as
dominant features in certain people groups, neither the mental capacity nor the
spiritual condition of such people groups differ in the sight of God. All so-called
races of people are blessed with the wonderful potential God has granted human
beings to learn and achieve great things. And all so-called races are sinners in
the sight of God and blessed to have the grace of God through Jesus Christ freely
available to them. God is no respecter of persons on the basis of skin color or
intellect, but He promises to see every person in terms of his relationship with
Jesus Christ. Read more about salvation though Christ at Good News.
Modern East Asians and Denisovans Share Genes
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on November 5, 2011
Share:
* *
*
Net of Denisovan cousins widens.
News Source
* ScienceDaily: “Shared Genes With Neanderthal Relatives: Modern East Asians
Share Genetic Material With Prehistoric Denisovans”
Denisovan people—considered “archaic humans” by most anthropologists—are known only
on the basis of a finger bone and a couple of teeth from a Siberian cave. The
discovery of Denisovan genes in natives of Oceania has now been joined by research
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to compel further
adjustments in the popular model for human evolution.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Although Denisovan people apparently left little in the way of an archaeological or
anthropological footprint, their legacy is a fairly wide ancestral contribution.
Although Denisovan people apparently left little in the way of an archaeological or
anthropological footprint, their legacy is a fairly wide ancestral contribution.
Mattias Jakobsson and Pontus Skoglund of Uppsala University, analyzing genotype
data from around the world, have found that Denisovan genes are not only found in
Melanesian people but also in Southeast Asians.
“We found that individuals from mainly Southeast Asia have a higher proportion of
Denisova-related genetic variants than people from other parts of the world, such
as Europe, America, West and Central Asia, and Africa. The findings show that gene
flow from archaic human groups also occurred on the Asian mainland,” says
Jakobsson.
“Our study covers a larger part of the world than earlier studies, and it is clear
that it is not as simple as we previously thought. Hybridization took place at
several points in evolution, and the genetic traces of this can be found in several
places in the world. We'll probably be uncovering more events like these.”
Because complete genomes of modern humans “are only available from some dozen
individuals today,” Skoglund and Jakobsson cast a wider net by searching genotype
databases. Genotype information is less complete than full sequences, but a vast
amount of genotype data exists. Analysis using genotypes can overlook “unusual
variants” and thus prejudice results, but genotype data provided a way to screen a
large worldwide sample for Denisovan genes.
“While we can see that genetic material of archaic humans lives on to a greater
extent than what was previously thought, we still know very little about the
history of these groups and when their contacts with modern humans occurred,” says
Skoglund. The absence of Denisovan genes in other parts of the world coupled with
the wide presence in Asia and Oceania is prompting anthropologists to consider
other permutations of the “Out of Africa” model. That model has already had to
morph to conform to the admission of Neanderthals to ranks of people co-existing
with modern humans.
Evolutionary anthropologists suggest modern humans diverged from the Neanderthal-
Denisovan branch 300,000 to 500,000 years ago. And they suggest the “hybridization”
of Denisovans with those moderns occurred 20,000 to 40,000 years ago. However, the
latter estimate, like the initial divergence, “is based on models of the rates that
genes typically mutate and could be off the mark.”1
As the “Out of Africa” model for humans evolving in Africa gets adjusted to allow
multiple migrations of co-existing interbreeding people groups, we need to realize
that the model is based on the notion that humans share a common ancestor with
apes.
As the “Out of Africa” model for humans evolving in Africa gets adjusted to allow
multiple migrations of co-existing interbreeding people groups, we need to realize
that the model is based on the notion that humans share a common ancestor with
apes. Museums abound with assertions that the fossil record proves this connection.
In reality, the only ape-men are ape fossils mislabeled as human-related and human
fossils misidentified as apes.
Jakobsson says, “It is not as simple as we previously thought. Hybridization took
place at several points in evolution, and the genetic traces of this can be found
in several places in the world.” In fact, the story is actually quite simple. The
Bible tells it.
Emerging genetic data on Neanderthals and now Denisovans is increasingly
demonstrating that humans are all of one race. “Hybridization” is a terrible term
for this genetic mixing since all people groups—whether classified “archaic” and
modern—descended from Adam. All those descended from Noah’s family—the only people
to survive the Flood—supplied the gene pool we see today, unmixed with ape or any
sort of transitional subhuman. Noah’s descendants dispersed from the tower of
Babel. As people groups became isolated, limitations in genetic variability
combined with other genetic phenomena such as founder effects produced the people
groups in anthropological catalogues, including Neanderthals and Denisovans. The
fact that their genetic presence can now be tracked across the world’s geography
testifies to the fact they and all other people are related, some more closely than
others, with dispersal patterns now being found not representing evolutionary
emergence from Africa but dispersal from the plains of Shinar.
Denisovan DNA’s Secrets
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 8, 2012
Share:
* *
*
Denisovan DNA’s secrets—unveiled and interpreted
News Source
* Nature: “New DNA analysis shows ancient humans interbred with Denisovans”
Denisovans are a recently discovered member of the human family, represented so far
by only a finger bone and two teeth from Siberia. However, Denisovan DNA is already
better studied than that of Neanderthals. Researchers sequencing their DNA with a
new technique confirm that a substantial portion of modern Papuan DNA seems to have
been obtained from Denisovans and that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and early modern
humans all intermingled. By comparing the number of mutations in the Denisovan DNA
with those in modern human DNA, they estimate the Denisovan girl died 75,000 years
ago. Furthermore, they now claim to have additional evidence tracing the evolution
of humans from an ape-like ancestor.
FREE Bible Guide
DOWNLOAD NOW
Efforts to sequence Neanderthals have been hampered by contamination with bacterial
and modern human DNA. Only about 5% of the DNA from Neanderthal samples is actually
Neanderthal DNA. By contrast, 70% of the DNA obtained from the Denisovan fragments
seems to belong to the original owner. The partial sampling of her DNA in 2010
revealed that the Denisovan was a previously unknown archaic human. Now, a
practically complete DNA sequence has been obtained using a new “high-coverage”
technique. Results are consistent with a somewhat dark-skinned female with brown
hair and eyes.
They believe any genomic similarity between modern humans and Denisovans to be
evidence of changes that occurred as humans and chimps diverged from their common
ancestor.
The researchers compared Denisovan DNA with that of chimps and modern humans. They
believe any genomic similarity between modern humans and Denisovans to be evidence
of changes that occurred as humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor.
For instance, they believe that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two chromosomes
that remain separate in chimps. Since Denisovan DNA is just like a modern human in
this respect, they place the chromosomal fusion deeper in the genetic past than the
Denisovan-modern human split.1
Comparing Denisovan DNA to modern human DNA, less than a tenth of a percent of the
differences were in regions “known to affect the expression or structure of genes.”
Many were in areas affecting the nervous system. And many of these differences were
in areas of the genome associated with various skin and eye pathology. The rest of
the differences were insignificant. Furthermore, the minimal evidence of genetic
diversity in the DNA suggests that the Denisovan population was quite small.
Thus it seems that Denisovans and modern humans had a great deal in common, as did
Denisovans and Neanderthals.2 Estimates of the antiquity of the DNA are based on a
number of unverifiable assumptions about human evolution in general and about
mutation rates in particular. Therefore, even though the number of differences
between Denisovan DNA and that of modern humans can be assessed, interpretations
about the age those differences represent are based on unverifiable assumptions.
According to the Bible, all human beings are descended from Adam, so we are not
surprised to find that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans share genetic
characteristics. Their similarities with each other and their differences from
chimps are not evidence that chimps, Denisovans, and modern humans share an ape-
like ancestor or that one human chromosome is an evolution-derived chromosomal
fusion. Humans (including Denisovans) and apes are simply different and were
created differently by God from the beginning.

AiG - Genetics - Human Genome

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AiG - Genetics - Human Genome

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Denisovan DNA’s Secrets

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 8, 2012

Click for enlarged map.

Melissa Webb earned a degree in communication print journalism from Liberty

DNA's chosen language ... an evolutionary conundrum.

The chicken or the egg?

You might also like