Evolutionists'
advancement of homology as evidence for evolution is invalid
not only at the morphological level, but also at the molecular
level. Evolutionists say that the DNA codes, or the corresponding
protein structures, of different living species are similar,
and that this similarity is evidence that these living species
have evolved from common ancestors, or else from each other.
For example, it is regularly stated in the evolutionist literature
that "there is a great similarity between the DNA of a human
and that of an ape," and this similarity is presented as a
proof for the evolutionist claim that there is an
evolutionary relationship between man and ape.
We must make it clear from the start that it
is no surprise that living creatures on the earth should possess
very similar DNA structures. Living things' basic life processes
are the same, and since human beings possess a living body,
they cannot be expected to have a different DNA structure
to other creatures. Like other creatures, human beings develop
by consuming carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, oxygen circulates
through the blood in their bodies, and energy is produced
every second in each of their cells by the use of this oxygen.
For this reason, the fact that living things
possess genetic similarities is no proof of the evolutionist
claim that they evolved from a common ancestor. If evolutionists
want to prove their theory of evolution from a common ancestor,
then they have to show that creatures alleged to be each other's
common ancestors have a direct line of descent in their molecular
structures; in fact, however, as we shall shortly be examining,
there have been no concrete discoveries showing any such thing.
Let us first of all take the matter of "the similarity
between human and chimpanzee DNA." The latest studies on this
issue have revealed that evolutionist propaganda about a "98
%" or "99 %" similarity between man and chimp is totally erroneous.
If a slightly wider study
is made of this subject, it can be seen that the DNA of much
more surprising creatures resembles that of man. One of these
similarities is between man and worms of the nematode phylum.
For example, genetic analyses published in New Scientist have
revealed that "nearly 75% of human genes have some
counterpart in nematodes-millimeter-long soil-dwelling
worms."292 This definitely does not mean
that there is only a 25% difference between man and these
worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists,
the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and
the Nematoda phylum were different to each other
even 530 million years ago.
This situation clearly reveals that the similarity
between the DNA strands of these two different categories
of life is no evidence for the claim that these creatures
evolved from a common ancestor.
THE
MYTH OF HUMAN-CHIMP SIMILARITY IS DEAD
For a very long
time, the evolutionist choir had been propagating
the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little
genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every
piece of evolutionist literature you could read sentences
like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there
is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human." Although
no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes
has been made, Darwinist ideology led them to assume
that there is very little difference between the two
species.
A study in October
2002 revealed that the evolutionist propaganda on
this issue, like many others, is completely false.
Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist
fairy tale would have it. Genetic similarity turns
out to be less than 95%. A news story reported by
CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than
thought," reports the following:
There
are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human
being than once believed, according to a new genetic
study.
Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps
and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy
Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of
Technology, said in a study published this week that
a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human
and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.
Britten based this on a computer program that compared
780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA
helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches
than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at
least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.
This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental
genetic difference between the species of about 5
percent.1
New Scientist,
a leading science magazine and a strong supporter
of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject
in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":
We
are more unique than previously thought, according
to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It
has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of
our genetic material with our closest relatives. That
now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than
95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold
increase in the variation between us and chimps. 2
Biologist Boy Britten
and other evolutionists continue to assess the result
in terms of evolutionary theory, but in fact there
is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution
is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic
or biochemical data. On the contrary, the evidence
shows that different life forms on Earth appeared
quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors
and that their complex systems prove the existence
of an "intelligent design."
1.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html
2. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833
|
In fact, when the results of DNA analyses from
different species and classes are compared, it is seen that
the sequences clearly do not agree with any evolutionist family
tree. According to the evolutionist thesis, living things
must have undergone a progressive increase in complexity,
and, parallel to this, it is to be expected that the number
of genes, which make up their genetic data, should also gradually
increase. But the data obtained show that this thesis is the
work of fantasy.
The Russian scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky,
one of the best-known theoreticians of evolution, once stated
that this irregular relationship between living things and
their DNA is a great problem that evolution cannot explain:
More complex organisms
generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but
this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is nowhere near
the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma (an amphibian),
Protopterus (a lungfish), and even ordinary frogs and toads.
Why this should be so has long been a puzzle.293
Comparisons of chromosome
numbers and DNA structures show that there is no evolutionary
relationship between different living species. |
Other comparisons on the molecular level produce
other examples of inconsistency which render evolutionist
views meaningless. When the protein strands of various living
things are analysed in a laboratory, results emerge which
are totally unexpected from the evolutionists' point of view,
and some of which are utterly astounding. For example, the
cytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from
that in a horse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo.
When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to
man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake. When this situation
is viewed from the evolutionist point of view, a meaningless
result will emerge, such as that turtles are more closely
related to man than they are to snakes.
For instance, chickens and sea snakes differ
by 17 amino acids in 100 codons and horses and sharks by 16,
which is a greater difference than that between dogs and worm
flies, which belong to different phyla even, and which differ
by only 15 amino acids.
Similar facts have been discovered
with respect to hemoglobin. The hemoglobin protein found in
human beings differs from that found in lemurs by 20 amino
acids, but from that in pigs by only 14. The situation is
more or less the same for other proteins.294
This being the case, evolutionists should arrive
at the conclusion that, in evolutionary terms, man is more
closely related to the kangaroo than to the horse, or to the
pig than to the lemur. But these results conflict with all
the "evolutionary family tree" plans that have so far been
accepted. Protein similarities continue to produce astounding
surprises. For example:
Adrian Friday and Martin
Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein
sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly
all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird)
were paired off as closest relatives, with the
crocodile as next nearest relative…295
Again, when these similarities are approached
from the point of view of evolutionist logic, they lead us
to the ridiculous conclusion that man's closest evolutionary
relative is the chicken. Paul Erbrich stresses the fact that
molecular analyses produce results that show very different
groups of living thing to be closely related in this way:
Proteins with nearly
the same structure and function (homologous proteins) are
found in increasing numbers in phylogenetically different,
even very distinct taxa (e.g.,hemoglobins in vertebrates,
in some invertebrates, and even in certain plants).296
Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemical researcher
from the University of South Carolina's Faculty of Medicine,
is a scientist who spent years trying to find evidence for
evolution in the molecular field. He first tried to establish
evolutionary relationships between living things by carrying
out studies on proteins such as insulin and relaxin. But Schwabe
has several times been forced to admit that he has not been
able to come by any evidence for evolution in his studies.
He says the following in an article in Science:
Molecular evolution
is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology
for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular
evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems
disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly
progression of species as determined by molecular
homologies: so many in fact that I think the exception,
the quirks, may carry the more important message.297
Schwabe's studies on relaxins produced rather
interesting results:
Against this background
of high variability between relaxins from purportedly closely
related species, the relaxins of pig and whale are
all but identical. The molecules derived from rats,
guinea-pigs, man and pigs are as distant from each other
(approximately 55%) as all are from the elasmobranch's relaxin.
...Insulin, however, brings man and pig phylogenetically
closer together than chimpanzee and man.298
On the molecular level no organism
is the "ancestor" of another, or more "primitive"
or "advanced" than another. |
Schwabe was faced by the same realities when
he compared the arrangements of other proteins besides insulin
and relaxin. Schwabe has this to say about these other proteins
that constitute exceptions to the orderly molecular development
proposed by evolutionists:
The relaxin and insulin
families do not stand alone as exceptions to the orderly
interpretation of molecular evolution in conventional monophyletic
terms. It is instructive to look at additional examples
of purportedly anomalous protein evolution and
note that the explanations permissible under the molecular
clock theories cover a range of ad hoc explanations apparently
limited only by imagination.299
Schwabe reveals that the comparison of the arrangement
of lysosomes, cytochromes, and many hormones and amino acids
show "unexpected results and anomalies" from the evolutionary
point of view. Based on all this evidence, Schwabe maintains
that all proteins had their present forms right from the start,
undergoing no evolution, and that no intermediate form has
been found between molecules, in the same way as with fossils.
Concerning these findings in the field of molecular
biology, Dr. Michael Denton comments:
Each class at a molecular
level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates.
Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology…
At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral"
or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives…
There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had
been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution
might never have been accepted.300
  
292 Karen Hopkin,
"The Greatest Apes," New Scientist, vol. 62, issue
2186, 15 May 1999, p. 27.
293 Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics
of the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press,
New York & London, 1970, pp. 17-18.
294 Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of
Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.
194.
295 Mike Benton, "Is a Dog More Like Lizard
or a Chicken?," New Scientist, vol. 103, August 16,
1984, p. 19. (emphasis added)
296 Paul Erbrich, "On the Probability of
the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," Acta
Biotheoretica, vol. 34, 1985, p. 53.
297 Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity
of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences,
vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280. (emphasis added)
298 Christian Schwabe, "Theoretical Limitations
of Molecular Phylogenetics and the Evolution of Relaxins,"
Comparative Biochemical Physiology, vol. 107B, 1974,
pp.171-172. (emphasis added)
299 Christian Schwabe and Gregory W. Warr,
"A Polyphyletic View of Evolution," Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, vol. 27, Spring 1984, p. 473. (emphasis
added)
300 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp. 290-291.
(emphasis added) |
The
Invalidity of Molecular Homology 
