The following article was featured on Yahoo! News last month. Creation science comments will be proffered in italicized font after each major point of the article.
LiveScience Staff Writer
Since the human-chimp split about 6 million years ago, chimpanzee genes can be said to have evolved more than human genes, a new study suggests.
No one today was alive six-million years ago. The figure of “six-million years” depends greatly upon errant trust in radio-carbon dating methods as well as a grand imagination to believe the molecules-to-man philosophy. And as always, the words “a new study suggests” plainly reveal the ever-changing word of science as opposed to the never-changing Word of God.
The results, detailed online this week in the Proceedings of the large brains, cognitive abilities and bi-pedalism.
Jianzhi Zhang of the University of Michigan and his colleagues analyzed strings of DNA from nearly 14,000 protein-coding genes shared by chimps and humans. They looked for differences gene by gene and whether they caused changes in the generated proteins. Genes act as instructions that organisms use to make proteins and thus are integral to carrying out biological functions, such as transporting oxygen to the body’s cells. Different versions of the same gene are called alleles. Changes in DNA that affect the making of proteins are considered functional changes, while “silent” changes do not affect the proteins. “If we see an excess of functional changes (compared to silent changes) the inference is these functional changes occurred because they were positively selected, because they were useful in some way to the organism,” said study team member Margaret Bakewell, also of UM.
All things on Earth, both living and non-animate objects, have some relational properties in their make-up. We find in Gensis 1, 3:19 that all things are made from the dust of the earth. So it is no surprise at all that humans and chimps would have some genes in common. We also share 50% of our genetic make-up with bananas, did we split from bananas some x-number million years ago?
Moreso, micro-evolution, or small changes in DNA is accepted science. However, it only happens in two situations. One situation is when a loss of information occurs, such as the death of or separation of a collection of a species from its total parent population. The other situation is when information is re-introduced back into the species’ population. But this does not equal evolution as no new [genetic] information was formed. Only original information that had been lost was put back into the species’ population.
Bakewell, Zhang and a colleague found that substantially more genes in chimps evolved in ways that were beneficial than was the case with human genes. The results could be due to the fact that over the long term humans have had a smaller effective population size compared with chimps. “Although there are now many more humans than chimps, in the past, human populations were much smaller, and may have been fragmented into even smaller groups,” Bakewell told LiveScience. So random events would play a more dominant role than natural selection in humans. Here is why: Under the process of natural selection, gene variants that are beneficial get selected for and become more common in a population over time. But genetic drift, a random process in which chance “decides” which alleles survive, also occurs. In smaller populations, a fortuitous break for one or two alleles can have a disproportionately greater impact on the overall genes of that population compared with a larger one.
On the contrary, the human population both pre- and post-Flood increased quantitatively due to decades-long, and even centuries-long, lifespans. The varying ethnic groups we see today are a direct result of the humanist-centered incident at Babel, resulting in the splitting of the total human race into different groups. Only then did the totality see a “loss” of genetic information as each group split and went their own way. It is only when people inter-marry varying ethnicities that “lost” information is re-introduced.
In any case, scientists have no way of determining which genes would have been beneficial to a species in its evolutionary journey. They also have no basis for determining that one species developed more useful genes than another species. This is pure conjecture based upon a wild imagination. In Genesis 1, living things are told to “reproduce after their own kind”. Each had a genetic make-up according to how it was created and what it was created for and what it was created to do. This accounts for why, when scientists find a living creature/plant alive that was supposed to have been extinct for thousands or millions of years, they cannot find any differences between a fossil of that creature/plant and its living representative.
Chance events could also explain why the scientists found more gene variants that were either neutral and had no functional impact or negative changes that are involved in diseases. There is still much to learn, the scientists say, about human and chimp evolution. “There are possibly a lot of differences between human and chimps that we don’t know about, [perhaps] because there are differences in chimps that nobody has studied; a lot of studies tend to focus on humans,” Bakewell said.
It is obvious to understand why scientists are puzzled by genes that have “no function” as evolution should have discarded such useless genetic information [junk DNA] before allowing a species to “advance” in its survival. To those who believe in the God who created the earth, genes which have no function are simply genes we do not yet understand. Humans have much to learn despite all we know.
Perhaps what this article is really suggesting is that humans are prone to more genetic “mistakes” than chimps. But should one choose to believe the evolutionary explanation, they need to account for the relative “lack” of genetic mistakes within the human population. One would think after a few million years, we would be much more “freakish” than we are at the present point in time. Suggesting that one species is more prone to genetic mistakes than another species is errant. At roughly six thousand years, humans, and I suggest all life, are much more prone to genetic mistakes than they once previously were. This is directly due to the fact that as each generation succeeds the previous generation, genetic mistakes are carried over, thus multiplying the total number of genetic mistakes. But this in no way suggests evolution picking the “fittest for survival” as it really points to the state of sin that entered the world through one man, Adam. And it suggests the need of a Redeemer, Jesus Christ.