Nothing new under the sun: media report hypes evolution claims
Topic: Evolution

Guest article by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., Director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA

October 12, 2005

A recent article from the Washington Post had the headline: “New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory.”1 In it, Rick Weiss and David Brown boast about evolution’s “power to predict the unexpected” and how well the theory of evolution stands up to “some tough new tests.” They also marvel at the audacity of the Dover, Pennsylvania, USA school board to question evolution by putting it “on par with ‘alternative’ explanations such as Intelligent Design.”2

Although there are some new evolutionary arguments discussed, the article offers the usual hype that “evolution has been proven” and the creationists should just give up and go home.3

Front and center in the article is the report on the recent sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and the 96% similarity to human DNA. Evolution supporters now insist that the 4% difference came as no surprise and “proves” that humans and apes share a common ancestor in spite of the fact that it is essentially double the difference of previous estimates.4 One would suspect that researchers such as Morris Goodman must have been disappointed. Goodman and his research team had noted much higher similarity between coding DNA from chimps and humans. Indeed, they saw the similarity as so great that the researchers even suggested that chimpanzees should rightfully be placed in the same genus as man.5

In addition, there are numerous significant differences between the chimp and human genomes.6

A new evolution argument based on the chimpanzee genome
Nonetheless a new argument that makes use of the chimpanzee sequence has arisen. Researchers were able to “predict the number of harmful mutations in the chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population size.” The work was done by Eric Lander and colleagues who confirmed that “a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual’s odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species.”

Scientists had previously determined the values for mice and are working them out for dogs. As it turns out, dogs have a population number between apes (which are fewer) and mice (which are more numerous) and likewise have an intermediate number of harmful mutations. Exactly why this is such a great victory for evolution is far from clear.

First, such a hypothesis is also completely consistent with a creationist model. The number of harmful mutations (sometimes referred to as “genetic load”) that a population can carry should be proportional to the size of the population and be limited by how deleterious the mutation is. Predicting the number of harmful mutations only demonstrates common features of population genetics, which is a mathematical, operational science accepted by creationists and evolutionists alike. The fact that this can be done using different species does not provide evidence of common ancestry between the different species. It simply demonstrates the role of population size on the amount of genetic load that a population can bear. Since creationists recognize deterioration and mutations since the Fall, there is no uniquely evolutionist prediction here.

Second, predicting the maximum genetic load of a population does not really help with evolution’s greatest obstacle. The important issue is not the number of harmful mutations that can exist in a population but the number of necessary “beneficial” mutations that can become fixed in a population. One would expect that a similar rule applies to beneficial mutations. In other words, for such a beneficial mutation to become fixed in the population, it will have to increase an individual’s fitness. Further, just because an individual has a beneficial mutation for one gene does not mean that it will not have a harmful mutation in another gene.

The same population dynamics that make it difficult to eliminate slightly harmful mutations also make it difficult for beneficial mutations to become present in all members of the population.7 Since any mutation begins in one chromosome in one individual in the whole population, it is believed to take many thousands to millions of generations to become fixed unless it is a massive advantage like resistance to a toxin or diseases.8 In this or other cases, the population must go through a huge population bottleneck (serious decrease in the population size), which then means that it takes many generations to rebuild the population. This also would eliminate other putative evolving genes which have not become fixed (i.e., universal) in the population.

Thus, scientists believe that most mutations that become fixed in the population do so through random genetic drift. Indeed, this is the explanation offered for the majority of the fixed differences between chimpanzees and man in the report on the chimp genome sequence.9 A conclusion from evolution by random genetic drift is that genetic variation is eventually lost in a population as one or the other form of a gene is lost.10 Therefore, both random genetic drift and population bottlenecks severely limit the genetic variation which is the raw material of evolution by natural selection.

Rather than a glowing demonstration of the “power” of evolution, this argument highlights its intrinsic weakness. Moreover, there is no evidence for common ancestry provided from such analysis.

“Junk” DNA: the argument that refuses to die
Weiss and Brown interviewed John West of the Discovery Institute (the leading intelligent design think tank) for their article and asked for examples of “non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design.” West correctly noted an ID prediction that “junk” DNA would be shown to have functions since “an intelligent designer would not fill animals’ genomes with DNA that had no use.” However, the authors appeared unsatisfied with this answer perhaps because it demonstrates that ID could qualify as science. They rebut West with the statement that although “some ‘junk’ DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent years … more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of biological history.” The authors imply that there is 90% of human DNA which is still “junk.” This is completely false.

While only about 1% of human DNA codes for the amino acid sequence of proteins,11 substantially more than 10% has been assigned functions. In addition to the genes, there are stretches of DNA that serve as regulatory regions which help determine when, where and how much of each protein is made. Much of the repeating sequences have functions, including the telomeres that protect the end of chromosomes as well as the satellite DNA at the centromere, which serves as the binding site for the protein complex that separates chromosomes during cell division.12 Other repetitive elements including Alu and L1 are believed to have functions serving as cohesion binding sites and DNA repair respectively. Still more, possibly 30% or more, DNA functions during development.13 Altogether this brings the percent of functional DNA significantly higher. The amount of functional DNA is expected to climb as more and more functions are uncovered.

Giraffes: the myth that refuses to die
In discussing the role of natural selection in evolution, the Washington Post writers used the giraffe as a prime example.

Giraffes do not decide to grow long necks to browse the high branches above the competition. But a four-legged mammal on the savannah once upon a time was endowed with a longer neck than its brother and sisters. It ate better. We call its descendants giraffes.

The giraffe is often used as an example of contrast between Lamarck’s idea of acquired characteristics with Darwin’s natural selection. According to Lamarck, as the giraffe stretched its neck to reach leaves on taller trees, it passed this trait on to its offspring. Darwin’s Origin seemed to accept Lamarck’s idea of inheritance (which we now know to be wrong) to explain the fact that giraffes had a variety of neck lengths. (Today, in the neo-Darwinian view, the reason for variety is ultimately mutation—genetic copying mistakes). But he added the seemingly obvious factor of natural selection. The scenario is that during drought, short-necked giraffes would be selected against which would leave only those with long necks to survive and reproduce.

This classic example of the power of evolution, however, cannot possibly work in the way most people have believed. In a very interesting article about selection and the giraffe,14 Craig Holdrege reviews some very serious challenges to the widely accepted story of the origin of the giraffe’s long neck. Some of the problems include:

If only leaves from the highest branches were available to giraffes for food, then multiple species of browsing and grazing animals including antelope would have been eliminated. This is not the case.

Giraffes with long necks are larger overall and would require more food than the ones that were smaller and had shorter necks.

Male giraffes are typically up to a meter taller than the female giraffes. Baby giraffes of both genders are obviously short until they grow up. If the selection pressure for long necks is so great, it would seem to favor the elimination of the females. More importantly, what do the baby giraffes eat until they grow up? This type of selective pressure would seem to eliminate the offspring.

Giraffes today do not exclusively eat from the high branches. In fact, giraffes often eat at or below shoulder height.

From the perspective of drinking water, giraffes would actually seem to have necks that are too short since it is very awkward for them to bend over to reach the ground. To do so requires that their legs are splayed quite far apart in order for them to bring their head to ground level. Being able to reach water during a drought seems to be more important than reaching high branches for food.

An additional point that was not included in Holdrege’s article is that there is no fossil record demonstrating that giraffes with short necks ever existed.

There is also a problem of new structures being required in addition to the neck lengthening. A very large blood pressure, about double that of a normal mammal, is required to pump blood to the brain when the giraffe is upright. But when the giraffe bends down to drink, this blood pressure would be expected to blow its brains out. However, the giraffe neck has a rete mirabile (Latin for “wonderful net”), a complex network of blood vessels, which helps to equalize the pressure. Giraffe legs also have a thick sheath of skin, like an astronaut’s G-suit, to prevent the high blood pressure from forcing blood to leak through capillaries.

Thus, this classic story of Darwinian evolution is largely myth. In spite of a number of scientific studies documenting the feeding behavior of giraffes and that it is inconsistent with the widely held explanation for the origin of the long neck, this notion persists. Media reports and textbooks which continue to promote it ensure its survival. In addition, there are many other aspects of giraffe biology that are better interpreted within a creationist framework.15

Conclusion
The writer of Ecclesiastes wisely noted, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV). In spite of media hype and exaggeration; regardless of “new analyses” and claims of “tough new tests,” there is still no good evidence to prove “from goo to the zoo” evolution. Upon further inspection, many such claims tend to support a creation model instead.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. DeWitt is the director of the Center for Creation Studies and an associate professor of biology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA. His Ph.D. is in neurosciences from Case Western Reserve University and the focus of his research is the cell biology of Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. DeWitt is the featured speaker on the video/DVD “Junk” DNA is not Junk from Answers in Genesis.

References and notes
Washington Post, Monday, Sept. 26, 2005. Return to text.
Sheppard, P., Defending “design” in Dover (Pennsylvania, USA). The Dover School Board was not putting evolution on par with Intelligent Design. They only wanted a statement read informing students about an ID book that was available in the library. ID was not taught in the classroom at all. Students were only made aware of available resources on it. Return to text.
DeWitt, D.A., Hox Hype: Has macroevolution been proven? Return to text.
DeWitt, D.A., Greater than 98% chimp/human DNA similarity? Not anymore, TJ 17(1):8–10. Return to text.
Wildman, D.E., Uddin, M., Liu, G., Grossman, L.I. and Goodman, M., Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(12):7181–7188, 2003. Return to text.
DeWitt, D.A., Chimp genome sequence very different from man. A more detailed analysis of the chimp genome study is currently in press in the next issue of TJ. Return to text.
Spetner, L.M., Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY, 1996, 1997. See online review. Return to text.
Remine, W.J., Cost theory and the cost of substitution—a clarification, TJ 19(1):113–125, 2005. Return to text.
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” Nature 437:69–87, 2005. Return to text.
Futuyma, D.J., Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed., p. 299, 1998. Return to text.
Venter et al., The Sequence of the Human Genome, Science 291:1304–1351. Return to text.
There are numerous articles and reviews about “junk” DNA function in TJ and Q&A: “Vestigial” Organs. Return to text.
Batten, D., No joy for junkies; Sarfati, J., DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess? Return to text.
Holdrege, C., The Giraffe’s Short Neck, In Context #10, pp. 14–19 (Fall 2003) by The Nature Institute. Return to text.
Hofland, L., Giraffes … animals that stand out in a crowd, Creation 18(4):10–13, 1996. Return to text.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available online at:
click here

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
Topic: Evolution
Political cartoon from the Montgomery Avertiser


Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)—150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an ‘ape-man’. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus—once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)—a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)—based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man)—now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus—this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus—there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil ‘Lucy’. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis—there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types—such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such.
Homo erectus—many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, “then 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.” (Genesis 2:7).

God and evolution: do they mix?
Topic: Evolution

Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
by Nancy Pearcey

How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists—meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists.

Not that they would all use the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I have met people who do not even know what the term means. 'Theistic' comes from theos, the Greek word for God. So theistic evolution is the idea that God used evolution to create the world. Life supposedly originated from non-living chemicals, just as the atheistic evolutionist says it did, and all modern forms of life are thought to have then developed from the first one-celled organism by mutation and natural selection. The difference is that God supposedly created the initial materials and set up the natural laws, then guided the whole process.

Theistic evolution has enormous appeal. It seems to offer the best of both worlds. It offers the comfort and fulfilment of believing in God, and at the same time the security of fitting in with the major scientific consensus.

The difficult part about covering this topic is that there exist so many different forms of theistic evolution. It is probably no exaggeration to say that there is a different form for every theistic evolutionist around. Our approach here will be to group them in general categories, and to present the weaknesses of each.

WHICH GOD IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION?
We could set the various forms of theistic evolution on a continuum. If we put atheistic evolution on one end, the next would be some form of non-Christian theistic evolution. Then we come to a very minimal kind of Christian theistic evolution (God is no more than a distant First Cause who started it all). People in this group are quite liberal in their theology as well. Then we come to Christians who hold on to a relatively orthodox view of the Bible and theistic evolution.

If we were to continue, the next group would be the old-Earth creationists, or progressive creationists, who believe God created the major kinds of living organisms, but that He did it over millions of years. Finally, separate from those above, are the young-Earth creationists, who believe God created the world in six literal days and that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old.


CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?
In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?

In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a 'true' picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.

Take Genesis, for example. Liberalism rejects the Bible's own claim that God told Moses what to write (Exodus 24:4; Numbers 33:2; etc.). Instead, it assumes that Genesis is a collection of writings by authors living much later. These hypothetical authors (dubbed J, E, D, and P) were writing merely out of their own experience and convictions. An example can be found in Conrad Hyer's book, The Meaning of Creation. He attributes the content of Genesis 1 and 2 not to God's revelation, but to the life experiences and religious purposes of its hypothetical authors, presumably writing hundreds of years after Moses.1


WHERE DID EVIL COME FROM?
A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:

'The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?'2

The Bible clearly tells us that evil, suffering, and death are real, so we are not escapist. However, evil is not intrinsic to the world. God created a good world. Evil entered by the free choice of individual human beings when Adam and Eve first sinned. So it is not contradictory to say that some day God will wipe out evil and sorrow.

This teaching is both our hope for the future and our basis for fighting evil today. The theistic evolutionist loses all this. By denying the Fall, he loses the Biblical answer to the question, where did evil and suffering come from?

Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to God's creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God. To avoid this conclusion theistic evolutionists usually trivialize evil. This imperfect world is just a stepping stone to a better world which will evolve from it. Which brings us to the next point.


REDEEMED FROM WHAT?
If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.

I was talking to a young woman recently who summed it up well. The answer is so simple, she said, that we often overlook it. Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened, so that settles it. We may not be able to master a lot of complex arguments against theistic evolution, but even a child can grasp this one. Among those who claim to be Christians, Jesus' own treatment of Genesis closes the question.

Web links

Q&A: Genesis-Theistic Evolution

FOOTNOTES

Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Genesis: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, 1984.

Cited in Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg (New Jersey), 1969, p. 171.

"Scientific Dissent from Darwinism."
Topic: Evolution
Keep in mind that 400 scientists have, despite the backlash that comes upon them for daring to question the reigning evolutionary paradigm, signed a "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." As I said in the conclusion of my own essay on why scientists were not adopting ID:


In light of the misrepresentations of the pro-evolution community about the nature of the claims of intelligent design, and given the repercussions that could befall these scientists, the fact that 100 scientists [now 400 scientists] were willing to sign their names to this document forcefully establishes the depth of thir concerns. While the numbers of scientists questioning Darwinism does not establish that Darwinian Evolution is wrong, clearly, the most relevant number is not the large number of scientists who accept the status quo, but the number of scientists willing to stand up to potential ridicule to question one of the central dogmas of 21st Century science.

What Are Darwinists Afraid of?
Topic: Evolution

by Patrick J. Buchanan


In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.

But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.

The aim of his defenders was not to prove Scopes innocent, but to humiliate the fundamentalists and persuade a higher court to throw out the Tennessee law. But today, Darwinism is in the dock. Dogmatic believers in evolution are facing challenges to the claim that their doctrine is established truth, scientifically proven.

"Intelligent design" is the banner under which evolution is being put under siege, and the methodology of attack is the one Darrow used on Bryan: Prove to us that your theory is true, because it seems to contradict common sense.

If, for example, we are told a forest is uninhabited and, while walking in it, come across a garden, with plots of tomatoes, beans, corn and cabbage, reason tells us someone lives here. The garden presupposes the existence of a gardener, for it reflects intelligent design. As does Stonehenge, that millennia old marvel of gigantic stones placed one upon the other in a fashion that is not accidental. Though we know not how it was done, an intelligent being did it.

The same is true of our universe. Not until recent centuries did we discover that the Earth is not its center but, with the other planets, revolves with mathematical precision around the sun. As a watch presupposes a watchmaker, an ordered universe argues for an ordered intelligence. Call it the First Cause, the Prime Mover, the Great Watchmaker, but this world appears to be no accident.

Our ordered universe was created out of chaos. Who or what created it? The latest theory of the evolutionists is the "Big Bang," a gigantic explosion, eons ago, did it.

But from common sense and experience, when, ever, has an explosion created order? Explosions destroy. And if the Big Bang was due to an explosion, where did the chemicals come from? And who lit the firecracker that caused the Big Bang?

As a wag has put it, to believe an explosion created an ordered universe is like believing a hurricane roaring through a junkyard can create a fifth-generation computer.

And there are gaps in human evolution. Where are the missing links between lower and higher forms? Where are the intermediate forms? Why are they not everywhere? As for that picture on the wall of the biology class, showing a reptile crawling ashore, then moving on four legs, then dragging his knuckles, then straightening up, then walking on two legs, then becoming the man of today -- is that really how it happened? Or is that a theory, a belief, an act of faith of the Darwinists? Is there really all that much difference between that picture and one of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

Science itself points to intelligent design. For most of man's existence, we did not understand the laws of gravity, the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry. But applying those laws today we can send a rocket millions of miles and strike a distant planet, predicting impact to the minute. But does not the existence of these natural laws imply the existence of a lawmaker?

How can evolution explain the creation of that extraordinary instrument, the human eye? How can it explain DNA? Only in the last century did we understand that molecules can be broken down into atoms and subatomic particles, and the force that holds them together. Did all this come out of nothing? If it all came from something, where did the something come from?

What causes a disbelief in Darwinian fundamentalism, the Genesis of our secular elite, is not only Christian faith, but reason.

In an editorial, "But Is It Intelligent?" The Washington Post accuses President Bush, who spoke warmly of intelligent design, of "indulging quackery." "To pretend that the existence of evolution is still an open question," sniffed the Post, "is to misunderstand the intellectual and scientific history of the past century."

The Post notwithstanding, we are not pretending. Evolution fails to answer the arguments of reason. And parents have a right not to have their children indoctrinated in an unproven belief system, one purpose of which is to destroy their faith.

A Solomonic solution. Let parents choose between having their kids spend a year in biology class cutting up those poor frogs and being indoctrinated in evolution ideology -- or a year studying the Old and New Testaments as the greatest book of Western civilization and literature, and the basis of morality and ethics. As they say, freedom of choice.


Intelligent Design Network

Answers in Genesis