The second matter of opposition is one of broad interpretation. It is said that common features are to be ascribed to common descent, with various forms exhibiting similarities because of their evolutionary heritage. As it has already been noted, could it not instead be that common features are the result of a common designer? Could God, in the creation of this world and its life, have utilized successful morphological models repeatedly? It comes down to one’s worldview as to which choice appears most likely.
All that said, the physicality of chimps and humans should not be considered in regard to the proposed relationship between the two. What then of the genes and their implications? What are we to make of the oft-repeated statistics that genetically link mankind with chimpanzees?
Quite simply, those figures are blatantly misleading, either through the process of ignorance or deception. While the claim is commonly used to demonstrate an ape heritage, the truth of the matter is that new studies, unbiased by mainstream expectations, have concluded that we share only 86-89% of the same genetic structures.(1) Why is there such a discrepancy between the results of this study and mainstream work? The truth, you see, is that the mainstream genomic comparisons between human and chimps often utilize a process known as low complexity DNA masking, which excludes supposedly ineffectual non-coding regions of the genome. Mainstream researchers over the years have contended that these areas are of little use in determining the evolutionary position of life forms, thus their exclusion from survey was of no concern. Conversely, more recent findings have demonstrated that the whole of the genome is critical to the function of the organism.(2) In this light, the researchers conducting this examination of the two genomes excluded nothing, comparing some 40,000 chimpanzee gene sequences to four separate human genome algorithms. The product was a demonstration of some 10-12% genetic difference; a far cry from the 1-2% declared by the mainstream authorities.
While a factor of 89% similarity may still sound quite high in comparison, how do the genes of other animals fall in regard to our own? Cats for instance share approximately 90% of their genes with us,(3) cattle 80%,(4) and mice some 75%.(5) What is the informed observer to make of such misdirection on the part of the establishment? The rabbit hole goes deeper yet with the addition of the supposed transitional humanoid fossils.
Ask most people of the caveman and they will describe a stocky, hairy brute of a man, likely wearing a toga of hide and wielding a bulky club. This image and those like it have been ingrained into the minds of the masses through pop culture’s characterizations, but have also been reinforced by the education system’s promotion of such themes, spawned in no small part by the interpretive work of the intellectual authorities at large. The myth of the “caveman” has been inspired by the study of prehuman ancestors – paleoanthropology – a discipline filled with images of ape men and troglodytes, and incorporating just as much wild speculation as any other field so invested in the evolution paradigm.
One of the most prominent names heard in the study of prehuman ancestors is that of “Lucy” the Australopithecus.
Discovered piece-by-piece over several years in the 1970s, the diminutive Lucy gained worldwide attention as the earliest upright-walking humanoid discovered, dating in accord with mainstream expectations at just over 3 million years in age. Even now, many years after her discovery, Lucy is a touchstone of human evolution, oftentimes rendered in an explicitly human-like fashion, walking upright across some ancient plain. In reality, what is presented is far different from what is actually known.
For one thing, Lucy’s remains were quite incomplete, consisting of some 47 of the expected 207 bones, and what was actually recovered tended to be badly fragmented. Due to this fact, many researchers over the years have interpreted the fossils differently, with some reconstructing Lucy in an unmistakably human fashion, while others yet render her more apelike. The typical image of Lucy, striding upright across the ancient African landscape appears to me less influenced by fact than interpretation. Indeed, from the material known, there is no conclusive reason to accept strict bipedalism in her or other australopithecines in general. That notion, in fact, was birthed in consideration of a fossil trackway some 932 miles away in Laetoli, Tanzania, which preserved unmistakably human foot prints striding along a 73-foot long path. Since Lucy’s remains didn’t preserve the feet, and since the Laetoli trackway dated to older than our supposed ancestor, the decision was made that Australopithecines like Lucy must have possessed clearly human feet.
Interestingly, perhaps hinting at the reality of the find, the shoulder blades of Lucy and other Australopithecus’ possess sockets that face upwards, unlike that of humans but remarkably like that of chimpanzees, suggesting an adaptation for arboreal life as opposed to plains striding.
So what are we left with but fragmented and damaged fossils lacking important features, an unrelated trackway, and plenty of expectant interpretation? When we observe the reconstructions of Lucy and her kind, we would do well to remember how little is actually known about them, and to understand that features such as their skin color, body hair, and posture were not preserved.
In fact, looking at those remains objectively, they could more easily be used to reconstruct a quadrupedal ape, much like a chimpanzee, instead of shoehorning the various elements derived through interpretive leaps in order to produce something from fantasy.
Notes & References:
- Tomkins, J., “Human-Chimp DNA Comparison Research Yields Lower Genetic Similarity,” 2012. Acts & Facts. 41 (1): 8
- Tomkins, J., “The Junk DNA Myth Takes a Well-Deserved Hit,” 2011, Journal of Creation. 25 (3): 23-27
- Joan U. Pontius, James C. Mullikin, Douglas R. Smith, et al., “Initial Sequence and Comparative Analysis of the Cat Genome,” Genome Res. 2007 17: 1675-1689, doi:10.1101/gr.6380007
- Elsik et al, “The Genome Sequence of Taurine Cattle: A Window to Ruminant Biology and Evolution,” Science 24 April 2009: Vol. 324 no. 5926 pp. 522-528, DOI: 10.1126/science.1169588
- Church DM, Goodstadt L, Hillier LW, Zody MC, Goldstein S, She X, et al, “Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse,” (2009), PLoS Biol 7(5): e1000112, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112
– This was an excerpt from “Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –
FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation