A lot of DNA testing and skull-comparing has been going on with living humans and human fossils lately. This is causing problems for the evolution model, and is helping the creation model more with every new study.
For many years, evolutionists have said that humans evolved in Africa. Studies of the Y-chromosomes of living men (only males have a Y) were used to support this theory. African males have more differences among their Y DNA than on other continents. So, researchers assumed that this meant that humans have been there longer than anyplace else.
There would have been time, they say, for the differences to accumulate. A report in Science News (Nov. 4, 2000) suggests that the greater differences are because there were more people in Africa early on. A large population could explain why things diversified so much. According to a study published in Nature Genetics (November 2000) evolutionists say that humans migrated out of Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. However, according to other mitochondrial DNA studies of living women, humans left there 143,000 years ago. Which is right?
These researchers make one big assumption that changes in the DNA build up in a slow and steady way. That might just not be true. The conflicting results force us to question this assumption. Studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (January 2001) and Science (Jan. 12, 2001), confuse matters even more. "62,000-year-old" DNA samples were taken from bones of "modern" humans. (I remember when evolutionists told us that "modern" humans didn't outdo the Neanderthals until 10,000 years ago. Whenever a date is pushed back closer to the beginning, it's closer to the creation model every time.)
Sixty-two thousand years is a long time. Biological molecules like DNA are fragile. They decompose and disintegrate with age. Why are we getting any good samples at all from these bones, if they really are this old? That's a whole 'nuther problem! The new studies find such confused comparisons of DNA and of skulls that they now say that humans evolved in "two or more parts of the world over the past 1 million to 2 million years."
Your take-home lesson here is this according to evolution theory, everything evolves completely by chance. There is no "plan" or "direction" guiding the way it goes. This means that the chance that humans would evolve again, if we set the clock back and started over is next to zero. Then how, could the same new species evolve conveniently at the same time, but in many different places? Think about that.
Dear Dr. Glenn Jackson,
I'm doing a paper for school. It's titled "Evolution: a matter of faith, not science."
I'm going to use your article in my paper. Science really does not prove evolution.
The more that science tries to prove it, the more it proves that the Bible is true. If
you really think about it, evolution seems ridiculous.
Amber of Tallassee, TN
I agree with you that science supports the truth of the Bible. Don't forget that science is the search for truth. Evolution may be stretching the truth a bit, well, all right a lot. But, please remember that the people who believe in evolution are not ridiculous. They are just believing a theory that their teachers told them was true. It's up to us to get the word out about the facts supporting creation. Your paper will do that for your teacher and your classmates.
Dr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George
Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary
through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He
is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
Return to Main Page