Harun Yahya asked:


The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading Propaganda

First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution. (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analyzed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %.(CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997)

Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito and chicken!

Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27) 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 Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (Hürriyet, 24 February 2000)

On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. (New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.

Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

DARWINIST-MATERIALIST MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

With the announcement of the latest point arrived in the Human Genome Project, some publishing organs in Turkey started to deliver misleading messages and misinform the public so that the impasse the theory of evolution has reached is not further disclosed.

In earlier pages, we mentioned the misleading messages evolutionists delivered about the "genetic similarities" and made clear that these are the subjective interpretations which do not provide any evidence for the theory of evolution. The subject which is mostly promoted and highlighted with different slogans and headlines by the Darwinist-materialist press is the claim that the discovery of the gene map suggests that the fate decreed by God can be challenged. This is a great misconception and deceit put forward by certain circles in our country. The headlines recently appearing in the printed press and the course of discussions in television programs give the impression of a stealthy indoctrination. It is a great mistake to present the information on the human genome project accompanied by messages like "Man will no longer be defeated by his destiny." For in truth, the mapping of the human genes has no relevance whatsoever to the flow of man's fate.

The Flow of Fate Cannot be Changed

Destiny is God's perfect knowledge of all events past or future as a single moment. A majority of people question how God can already know events that have not yet been experienced and this leads them to fail in understanding the fact of destiny. However, "events not yet experienced" are only so for us. God is not bound by time or space, for He Himself has created them. For this reason, past, future, and present are all the same to God; for Him everything has already taken place and finished.

This is true for everyone and every incident. For instance, God has created everyone with a certain lifetime and everyone's moment of death is determined as to its location, time and form in the sight of God. If, in the years to come, the lifetime of a person is extended with timely interventions in the genes, this would not mean that this event defeated that person's destiny. This simply means the following: God gave this man a long life and He made the completion of gene mapping a means for his life being long. The discovery of gene map, that person's living in that era, that person's life being extended by scientific means are all his destiny. All is determined in the sight of God before this person is born into the world.

Similarly, a person whose fatal sickness is cured through the discoveries made within the scope of this project has again not changed his destiny. That is because it is this person's destiny to recover from this illness by means of this project. Consequently, completion of the human genome and the fact that man will be able to intervene in the genetic makeup, do not mean confronting the destiny created by God. On the contrary, this way, humanity follows the developments created for them by God, explores and benefits from the information created by God. If man lives 120 years thanks to these scientific developments, this is surely a lifetime decreed for him by God, this is why he lives so long.

In brief, expressions like "I defeated my destiny", "I changed my destiny" or "I intervened in my destiny" are consequences of ignorance caused by not knowing the fact of fate. On the other hand, a person's using these expressions is also predestined; how, when and under which conditions he will make these statements are all determined in the sight of God.

Cloning a Human Being or any other Living being is not Creating

In some publications, it has been alleged that by the advancement of the science of genetics, human beings would be cloned and therefore, human beings would create human beings. This, too, is a very distorted and farfetched logic. Creating is to bring something into being from nothingness, and this act is peculiar to God alone. The formation of the identical of a living being through the copying of genetic information does not mean that this living being is created. While man or any other living being is cloned, the cells of a living being are taken and copied. However, never has a single living cell been created from nothingness. The researches conducted on this subject have been stopped as they all were inconclusive.

Consequently, the discovery of the human's genetic makeup by no means implies man's challenge to his destiny, and never can it be. Every incident, every speech and development are all predetermined in the sight of God according to a certain destiny. So are scientific developments and the innovations they will introduce. God is All-Knowing, and All-Encompassing. The fact that everything, big or small, takes places within the knowledge of God is related in the Qur'an as follows:

You do not engage in any matter or recite any of the Qur'an or do any action without Our witnessing you while you are occupied with it. Not even the smallest speck eludes your Lord, either on earth or in heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book. (Surah Yunus: 61)

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com



Ancestry.com DNA testing

Rob VandeWeghe asked:


Through the last decades science has struggled to estimate the age of the human race. Obviously, evolution would insist this occurred a long time ago, as it would take an incredible span of time for the first human-like creature (the cave man or monkey man) to develop into the sophisticated humans of today.

First, it must be observed that current estimates for the age of mankind are still all over the board. The lack of reliable dating methods for organic material is a serious challenge for all paleo-anthropologists. This might surprise you, but the only reliable dating method for organic material is Carbon-14 dating. This procedure can date organic material such as bones and teeth accurately but only to a maximum of 25,000-30,000 years. Dating older organic material is nothing more than guesswork. In many cases these guesses rely on “leap of faith” assumptions by dating the rocks found near the organic material in question, wildly asserting these rocks were formed at the same time as the bones/skull/teeth were deposited. Obviously that is not science, but only wishful thinking.

Recently the advance of genetics has opened a new pathway to estimate the age of mankind through the analysis of human organic material. By comparing samples of currently living humans with well dated DNA samples from the past, an estimate can be made for the rate the human DNA record changes. Applying this estimated natural mutation rate to a representative sampling of the DNA of today’s world population, allows to estimate how much time would be required for today’s human DNA to mutate (“deteriorate”) from a common ancestor. As every cell in the human body contains the combined DNA from both the father and the mother, analyzing this DNA would not allow to trace the separate ancestry of the male or female. However, two portions of human genetic material do not recombine in reproduction, namely:

1) Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) This DNA resides in the so called mitochondria structures, outside the cell’s nucleus. Mitochondria are the “cellular power plants.” They convert food molecules into energy. Mitochondria contain DNA that is independent of the DNA in the chromosomes that is stored in the cell nucleus. Both men and women get nearly all of their mtDNA only from their mother. In the late 1980s and early 1990s a number of studies examined the mtDNA of women all over the world. These concluded that all women descended from one “Eve” who lived within the last 200,000 years. Refinements in measurements lowered these original estimates to 135,000 years and finally to less than 100,000 years. These studies not only suggest a much younger age for humanity than previously assumed, but also indicate that all humans descend from ONE woman, ruling out that humans would have simultaneously evolved in multiple locations/regions.

2) A large segment of the Y-chromosome. Only men have a Y-chromosome, most of which they receive only from their father. Since 1995 studies have been conducted to trace genes on this Y-chromosome to determine the age and descent of males. Various studies all indicate younger ages for mankind. What may well be the most reliable study published so far, calculates a common ancestor to modern man at between 37,000 and 49,000 years ago.

These studies also indicate that genetically all humans are much more alike than one would predict from Darwinian theory. Examinations of the genetic sequences of diverse modern human populations reveal minor differences, if any at all. One scientist noted: “It’s a mystery none of us can explain.” All this evidence suggests a recent origin for modern humans, far more recent than evolutionary theory would allow.

Evidence from archaeology and anthropology is consistent with such estimates for the age of humanity. Sophisticated works of art first appear about 40,000-50,000 years ago, and evidence of religious relics and altars date back no earlier than 25,000 years.

Archaeological finds of leftovers of human habitation date back only 15,000 years ago. Claims for older finds are rarely presented.

Accounts in the Biblical book of Genesis mention the descendents from the first man, Adam, through Noah, Abraham and Moses. Based on the literal reading of this data, it can be calculated that Adam was created by God a little over 6,000 years ago. This is also the date claimed by Six Day Creationists for the actual creation of the world. Other scholars point out the common practice of ancient Hebrew culture to skip generations in the genealogical records. Thus it is conceivable there were substantially more generations between Adam and Abraham than recorded in Genesis. These scholars generally theorize that, based on these records, Adam and Eve could have lived 8,000 to even 25,000 years ago. These views are the basis of the suggested range of 6,000 to 25,000 years old for the age of mankind. These Biblical estimates are surprisingly consistent with those supported by archaeology.

Whichever way one looks at the data, one conclusion is inescapable: as time progresses, estimates from science come ever closer to the age inferred by the Biblical accounts.



Ancestry.com DNA testing

Harun Yahya asked:


THE APE-MAN SIMILARITY IS A TALE!

The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading Propaganda

First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98 % similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution. (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %. (CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997)

Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito and chicken!

Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27) 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 Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (Hürriyet, 24 February 2000)

On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. (New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

Genetic Similarities Upset the "Evolution Scheme" that is Sought to be Constituted

Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute an evidence for evolution, but on the contrary leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years to find evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. He particularly did researches on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess for many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point in his studies. In an article published in Science magazine, he said;

"Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to palaeontology 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" (Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences. V.11, July 1986)

Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;

"Each class at 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." (Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis, London; Burnett Books 1985 pp.290-291)

Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.

Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com



Ancestry.com DNA testing

Harun Yahya asked:


The comprehensive analysis of the chimpanzee genome reveals a greater genetic difference from humans

The chimpanzee joins the group of animals whose genomes have been deciphered by scientists. The data from the chimp genome was compared to its human counterpart by an international research consortium, whose studies have been published in Nature. (1) According to the findings of the consortium, humans shared many genes with chimpanzees, but there were very important differences as well. In fact, this first comprehensive genetic comparison triples the percentage of differences suggested by previous studies that relied on partial genome analysis. The latest percentage of genetic similarity is 96% in comparison to previous ones reported about 98.5%.

Chimps have been the fourth mammal to be genetically sequenced after human, mouse and rat - enriching the genomic treasure of scientists. 67 scientists have contributed to the consortium from countries such as United States, Germany, Israel, Italy and Spain. "As we build upon the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, it's become clear that comparing the human genome with the genomes of other organisms is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our own biology" says National Human Genome Research Institute Director Francis S. Collins. (2)

An important reason of the decrease in genetic similarity figure is that scientists have taken into account various types of genetic difference. In previous studies scientists picked only single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as variations which gave figures such as 1.2% difference. An SNP represents a single base pair difference between two matched DNA sequences. In this latest study scientists considered also other genetic differentiation types, such as indels (insertions and deletions) that represent gaps corresponding to unmatched nucleotide sequences between the human and chimp sequences, which may be one to thousands nucleotide long. The one shown below is a 3-nucleotide indel.

The %4 difference represents 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels.

Obligatory reduction in propaganda figures

Inclusion of indels in analysis has revealed how simplistic and misleading previous analysis were. This is admitted in a report by Nature News Service with comments from Evan Eichler of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, a member of the consortium:

…humans and chimps are not quite the close cousins we thought. Crude past comparisons of our DNA showed that our sequences were between 98.5% and 99% identical. That is indeed the case when considering single-letter differences in the DNA code, of which there are 35 million, adding up to about 1.2% of the total sequence. But there are other differences, Eichler says. The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species, he reports in a separate analysis. These regions add another 2.7% of difference to the tally. "So the 1.2% figure is woefully inaccurate," says Eichler. (3)

This is a very striking admission because for decades evolutionists have mislead the public with 99% figure in their human-chimp genetic similarity propaganda. Now that turns out to be founded on simplistic and inaccurate interpretation.

Genetic similarity is not a proof of common ancestry

Actually, whatever the genetic similarity, it constitutes absolutely no contribution to the claim that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Clearly, similarity between genetic sequences does not prove common ancestry. Since chimps and humans breathe the same atmosphere, have similar organs and diets, it is of course natural for them to have similar genetic sequences - that, for example, provide them with the similar biochemistry. The existence of similar instructions in the manuals of two similar devices is no proof that these devices came into existence as a result of coincidences, neither do the genetic similarities between organisms provide any evidence for the claim that they evolved from a common ancestor by chance. Genetic information contained in the DNAs of living beings is staggeringly complex. A mathematical analysis of this complexity demolishes the materialist/evolutionist claims. The existence of genetic information and its revealing similarities between organisms constitutes a concrete evidence for the fact that living beings are created by God.

Behind the statistics

When we read headlines such as "scientists find man and chimp are genetically 99.44% similar" we are led to believe that these are fully objective and precise estimates. It is hard to think of something else, when the number even includes four tenth and four hundredth digits and "scientists" are doing the estimates! However, this impression is deceptive and merely supports the evolutionist bias of evolutionist scientists.

To uncover the bias, let us consider the two sequences comprising 20 DNA bases of below (bases, or nucleotides, are like the steps of the DNA ladder). They are from the same region of DNA, first being from the baboon and the second from orangutan. (4) If they are aligned in parallel rows, they reveal obvious differences. (Colored bases in italics indicate where sequences are different. A, T, G, C represent bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine respectively.)

If you are biased to express similarities, on taking a closer look, you can see that although the sequences are different, they include identical pieces. To make them look more similar, you may invoke a hypothetical gap and align them like this:

Now the sequences are almost identical. You have made them look as though the second sequence has lost (or the first one has gained) one nucleotide at the site where C and the gap reside. And if you make a calculation, you will find that percentage of similarity has significantly increased.

But there's a serious problem. You have added an element of subjective interpretation to the data.

And that is only a small amount compared to what you can do with larger sequences. Long sequences from two organisms almost never can be perfectly aligned in parallel rows, without any breaks in the continuity of nucleotides. This opens the door to interpreter to selectively align nucleotides, as he would like to see them.

To put this into perspective let us see how 40 nucleotides of human DNA and 54 nucleotides of orangutan DNA can selectively be aligned. In the two alignments below, the first row represents the human sequence while the second one represents the orangutan sequence (5):

Note that the order of nucleotides are exactly the same in the two alignments. But the number of indels and SNPs change significantly between the two interpretations. And while this example compares 40 and 54 nucleotide long chains, the number of probabilities that may be interpreted other than what they really are significantly increases in a comparison between the complete human and orangutan genomes, which comprise billions of nucleotides.

Evolutionists' puzzle

With the advent of comparative genomic analysis, it has been a cliché for evolutionists to say that the genetic analyses will be able to provide the final answer to the question "What makes us human?", or in other words, that all features of a human being could be accounted for at the DNA level. The first comprehensive comparison of the human and chimp genomes is in hand but it does not seem to be of a clue, let alone provide an answer. This can be observed in news accounts reporting the study. Robert Waterston, director of genome sciences at the University of Washington and a member of the consortium says:

[Genetically] We're not that different. But we have language, cars, espresso machines and psychotherapy. How could all that result from just a comparatively small number of genetic changes in the overall blueprint? (6)

True. How can a small number of genetic differences place the chimpanzees in a forest while putting scientists, on the other hand, in a research consortium to study the chimpanzee genome? Obviously, human beings, who possess reason and feelings, cannot be reduced to genes. This leaves evolutionists unanswered. Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, a co-author on one Nature paper is reported as saying:

We cannot see in this why we are phenotypically so different from the chimps. Part of the secret is hidden in there, but we don't understand it yet. (7)

Collins, of the National Human Genome Research Institute, points out that it is erroneous to seek the answer to the question "What makes us human?" merely at the molecular level:

"The real question about what it takes to be human is more than a biological question, it's also a theological question," Collins said. DNA "may not tell us 'How do we know what's right and wrong?' and 'What's the human spirit, anyway?'" (8)

What to understand from the Chimpanzee Genome Project?

There is long way to go for a comprehensive understanding of the human and chimpanzee genetics. This latest comparison study has merely provided the scientists with raw data. As Ajit Varki of the University of California, San Diego, puts it:

[A] genome is like the periodic table of the elements… By itself it doesn't tell you how things work--it's the first step along a long road. (9)

First of all, as a general principle, data does not speak for itself; it is interpreted. Suppose that you are asked whether a given blue cube looks more like a blue pyramid or a bigger red cube. Your answer will differ based on which criterion you will choose; color or shape. The point that should be remembered about this study is that genetic differences are much more complex than what the evolution propagandists would have us believe by such descriptions as "99% similarity." Once other types of genetic variations are taken into account, this percentage significantly decreases. Yet, still, this last interpretation too seems to be overshadowed by evolutionist bias. An internationally respected biochemist Fazale Rana, PhD, denies even the 96% similarity as follows:

[W]hat we are seeing here is a scientific shell game… Researchers are manipulating the outcomes to try and show more similarities between chimps and humans than are actually there by focusing on a single type of genetic difference. When scientists take into account all the types of genetic differences and do a more global comparison, the similarities drop from 96% to about 85%. (10)

Secondly, we see once again that as there is gain in scientific knowledge, evolutionists experience loss. This is how the claims of vestigial organs and junk DNA were abandoned. These claims were based on an erroneous reasoning: "We don't know their functions, so they must be functionless." With the advance in scientific understanding of them, however, it was understood that the evolutionist claims were severe errors based on ignorance. The genetic similarity propaganda is going through the same process today. Scientists now see that the previous interpretations on genetic similarity were based on a superficial, hasty, clumsy and deceptive approach.

Thirdly, and most importantly, a difference of 40 million bases would fill 10,000 pages, if each base represented a letter. (11) Believing that such genetic difference accumulated as a result of nature's unconscious forces and coincidences is like believing that tens of thousands of random changes on the electronic edition of a medical encyclopedia would add new information, transforming it into an encyclopedia of physics rather than turning it into a meaningless mass of letters.

The myth of evolution

The tale of the ape-like creature which descended from the trees, adapted to a new habitat, gradually acquired new biological features and eventually turned into a perfect human being is the greatest nonsense of the modern culture. Interestingly, however, genetic researchers seek for the traces of this myth in the human and chimpanzee genomes, believing that their own scientific minds are a product of coincidences and purposeless natural phenomena. What logical reason could there be to believe in this false faith coming from a mind which tries to account for itself as a product of chemical processes?

None, of course.

The theory of evolution is a deception concocted to uncover the fact of creation. Humans and chimpanzees did not evolve; they are perfect beings created by God, the Creator of all.

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1 The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005. "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome," Nature 437:69-87.

2 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level, NIH News, 31 August 2005, http://www.genome.gov/15515096

3 Michael Hopkin, "Chimpanzee joins the genome club", news@nature.com, 31 August 2005, http://npg.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-9.html

4 Jonathan Marks, "What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee", University of California Press, 2002, p. 25

5 Marks, ibid, p. 26

6 Tom Paulson, "Chimp, human DNA comparison finds vast similarities, key differences", Seattle-Post Intelligencer, 1 September 2005, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html

7 Elizabeth Culotta, "GENOMICS: Chimp Genome Catalogs Differences With Humans", Science, Vol 309, Issue 5740, 1468-1469, 2 September 2005

8 Karen Kaplan, "Man, Chimp Separated by Dab of DNA", The LA Times, 1 September 2005,

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-chimp1sep01,1,6338683.story?coll=la-news-science

9 Culotta, "GENOMICS: Chimp Genome Catalogs Differences With Humans," Science

10 Kathleen Campbell, "Leading Biochemist Says Chimp Genome Project is Seriously Flawed," 2 September 2005, http://www.earnedmedia.org/cpr0902.htm

11 David A. DeWitt, Chimp genome sequence very different from man, 5 September 2005,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp



Ancestry.com DNA testing

Alain Leveque asked:


THE MEANING OF LIFE

The answer to this thirty-five cents question, will not be found at the heart of the many and varied – cursory – reflective – religious – philosophical – weighty and abstract searches, so long as the questions remain centered around, originate from and end with the bias perspective of a canine-toothed mammal called man.

Perhaps, instead of searching for what the meaning of life is supposed to be, we should be reflecting on whether a meaning is indeed possible. If so, does it then exist, only because we seek it? I will argue that a man’s life, like that of a whale, a giraffe or a sewer rat is devoid of meaning, and is no more worthy or deserving of meaning than the lives of any of the other species.

To search for a meaning that does not exist, or to create one’s own quixotic meaning is but a futile experiment in delusion. It invariably leads the vulnerable and the gullible into the tangled web of the religious industry, transcendental gurus, charlatans and other smiling predators.

I will offer a brief view on our species; from where we came and to where we go; the rock on which we live and die; its position in relation to the Cosmos and the futility, indifference and impermanence of the Universe.

Let us begin with the World around us, which our species can see, touch, hear, taste and smell. Here, common sense can only submit to two possibilities for its existence:

•In the first possibility, an all-powerful, all-knowing and self-existent Supreme Being is posited as the creator of all life and the Universe; moreover that everything was designed or foreordained for a specific purpose and meaning.

•The second contends that the Universe was formed amidst an eternal and infinite Cosmos that had always existed. That the limitlessness of time, in concert with gravity, quantum physics and nuclear fusion gave birth to stars, planets, moons and all the other celestial bodies.

In other words, the former possibility, God, gives the world meaning but does not explain its chaos, while the latter, Evolution, explains its chaos but cannot give it meaning.

As for the incipience of life itself from inanimateness to the first single cell organism; my understanding is simply that the chaotic and unique conditions that existed at that particular time, and which had not hitherto or since existed, at least not on our little planet, predisposed life to burgeon and evolution took us the rest of the way. Admittedly, this theory is not set in stone but there is incontrovertible evidence to suggest that it is the less ridiculous of the two.

Perhaps for now, it remains the only explication that logic can offer common sense.

Now, if we were to draw from the biblical version of creation, we would have to accept a world designed by a supposedly benevolent God; where its inhabitants are forced to kill and feed on each other in order to survive; where one must feed on the death of the other – where something has to die for something else to live.

One would then also have to concede, that the pain suffered by a gazelle as it is devoured alive by a lion, or that endured by the field-mouse as it is ripped apart by the talons of an eagle, is all part of a perfect and irreproachable nature. Moreover, we must bear in mind that this nature was allegedly designed by a compassionate and omnipotent God, who then went on to pass a law condemning killing whilst recognizing slavery.

I submit, and even the most fixated fan would have to concede, that a better original design could have alleviated much of today’s poverty, misery and anguish.

It is often argued, that because other species cannot reason, have no soul or spirit and were not created in the image of the human God, that they are somehow inferior to humans. Therefore, unlike the ruling mammal, their lives are devoid of meaning.

Let us now examine if this imaginary difference between the species, makes one more deserving of purpose and meaning than the other.

Basically, the common ancestry we share with the other animals is unmistakable. It is clearly manifested in our many strikingly similar characteristics, for example: not 1 or 3 or 5, but 2 eyes, 2 lips, 2 cheeks, 2 arms, 2 nostrils, 2 eyebrows, 2 sets of teeth, 2 testicles, and 2 ears. In short, most species share something called a face, 4 limbs, and remarkably, much the same weird and complex system of bodily functions, organs and reproductive systems.

Recently, the scientific community has found that the difference between the DNA (Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid) of other animals and ours is not as great as had been first imagined. In fact science has indisputably proven that a chimpanzee’s DNA matches that of his human cousin more closely than it does that of a gorilla or any of the other primates.

To my mind, the difference I note between a man and a chimpanzee is no more extraordinary than the difference between a horse and a zebra, a duck and a chicken, a shark and a dolphin – or a monkey and a baboon. Moreover, I fail to see how the way a man differs from a shark seem any more exceptional than the way a duck differs from a gorilla.

If we took an impartial look, from outside the anthropocentric bias of our eyes at the history of this canine-toothed predator we call man, we would soon see an evolution from a raw and savage barbarism to a nefarious system of man systematically exploiting man – with a brief interlude immersed in blood, torture, rape, slavery, human sacrifice, wars, cannibalism, and other abominations.

So, if meaning was a kind of reward which is bestowed on the ‘virtuous’ by a caring and kindly creator. I hasten to add that of all the species sharing the Earth today, man would have to rank, among one of the least deserving species, to receive it.

It is often posited that man is the only species endeared with an innate sense of right and wrong. I submit that history does not support this view, for on most occasions when due to breakdown in law and order, e.g. wars, plagues, and natural disasters; when those ‘innate’ qualities have not been enforced; when man has been left to his own devices, to do as he chooses with impunity, his so-called sense of right and wrong soon degenerated into widespread looting, burning, rape, murder and reckless destruction. In a nutshell, dear reader, on the occasions where his nature has not been suppressed by force, his true animal instincts soon emerged.

In my opinion, the sense of right and wrong is no more innate in man than it is in other species. It is taught to man by society, much in the same way as a man teaches a dog that it is wrong to eat the family cat but right to retrieve a ball.

When we think of the brevity of our lives in terms of geological times, we can only conclude that it is no more than an insignificant heartbeat in time. Similarly, if we compare a finite Universe with eternal cosmic time, we begin to wonder what dent, a few thousand billion years of existence could possibly make on the fabric of eternity?

From this perspective of eternity, our Universe would seem to appear and disappear as quickly as the future merges into the past; therefore it cannot be anything else but insignificant, indifferent and completely devoid of meaning. What's more, it is not impossible to imagine that our ‘Big Bang’ may have been but one of many, that could have occurred in the past, and which may again occur in the future. ‘Bing Bangs’ which may have given birth to other Universes with stars, planets, moons and other life-forms, like those that exist today – which may have existed for a time before disappearing without a trace.

It is self-evident that the only inference we can draw from the turbulence of an impermanent Universe is its proof of randomness. It exists in all its randomness simply because it does, if it did not, it would not exist.

For some time now, humans have been led to believe, that should we aspire to and acquire ‘virtues’ such as loyalty, obedience, honesty, nobility, charity, integrity, truthfulness, graciousness and so on and so forth.

And if we did, then our original ‘designer’ would somehow reward us with immortality – albeit posthumously. Another trendy train of thought suggests that even without immortality, ‘virtues’ per se, give meaning and purpose to life.

I do not quite latch on to the same view. It is my firm belief that in an epoch of ignorance and superstition that those ‘virtues’ were specifically constructed letter by letter, syllable by syllable and word by word to dissuade the oppressed many from cutting the throats of the bloated few; designed by those who would benefit most from them. At first, by the vilest of institutions: religion and monarchies. Later the Feudal system perpetuated those make-believe ‘virtues’ to appease the serfs, to placate the slaves, to soothe the oppressed, to manipulate them into serving and fulfilling their master’s purposes instead of their own. To convince them to remain servile and ‘loyal’, to indoctrinate them with the silly notion that they should not revolt but meekly accept their fate with dignity and that if they remained faithful and patient, then somehow, they would “inherit the Earth”.

Today, those same fabricated ‘virtues’, those same unnatural qualities continue to beguile the gullible, the naïve and the innocent into leading artificial lives against the grain of their true nature. With most of the human race forced to waste their fleeting lives labouring like beasts of burden to generate capital to further enrich the few. I ask you, where is the raison d'être, divine or otherwise, in such a miserable existence of quiet desperation?

It is mind-boggling to accept that such an unjust biased system could ever have been designed, as rumor has it, by a just, unbiased and omnipotent creator? Just as artificial ‘virtues’ exist only in the minds of those who believe in them, so too does meaning exist only for those who seek it.

I submit that it is no more real to me, than Zoltan, my invisible pet dragon – is to you.

To believe something to be true, simply because we wish it to be true, does not necessarily make it so. If you are standing ankle-deep in pig shit, no amount of wishful-thinking or self-delusion will suddenly change reality and put you ankle-deep in Swiss chocolate. At the end of the day, you will still be in pig shit.

When all is said and done, we are not divine beings destined for immortal life somewhere in the clouds, but an evolving species of hairy mammals, who for this fleeting moment in time, live on a hot bit of stardust, which in turn spins around a temporary fire. Sooner or later, willing or unwilling, every one of us is introduced to oblivion. That dear friends, is the long and short of it; everything else is mass delusion. Do not try to readjust your mind – the fault is inherent in reality itself. What I have been saying is this, no matter how much we try to sanitize and distort it, reality is reality. Our thinking can only change the way we see it – it cannot change reality itself.

I am afraid that the pure joy that other animals, madmen and little children derive from life, simply by existing, is all the meaning that life has to offer. Today, we may have evolved beyond a point where this pure joy is no longer possible and it could well be, that it is lost to us forever.

At this moment in time, we are merely recycling atoms, moving matter around on the surface of our rock from one place to another. In the end, whatever we as individuals or collectively as a species manage to achieve, will not amount to much more than just scattered debris of stardust wondering endlessly through time and space, waiting for gravity to weave its magic all over again.

Life is a journey leading nowhere, just as it has been for countless generations before us and will be for countless more after us, until in the end, even eternity and infinity may cease to be.

Loulou

Alain Leveque



Ancestry.com DNA testing