We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Discovery of Genetic Mutation That Separates Humans and Neanderthals
An international team of scientists representing Russia, Germany, and the United States have found a unique mechanism at work in the DNA of human beings that helped shape our species’ evolution, the...
- Read Later
- Read more about Discovery of Genetic Mutation That Separates Humans and Neanderthals
Complete History of Evolution
charles robert darwin
Charles Darwin is considered by many as the “Father of Evolutionary Thought“. However, this credit shouldn’t be on Darwin alone since he was guided by works of different scientists prior to him. Darwin himself had no knowledge about heredity hence his theory of natural selection is only limited to his observations during that time  .
The area in question is south of the Zambezi basin, in northern Botswana.
The researchers think our ancestors settled near Africa's huge lake system, known as Lake Makgadikgadi, which is now an area of sprawling salt flats.
"It's an extremely large area, it would have been very wet, it would have been very lush," said Prof Hayes. "And it would have actually provided a suitable habitat for modern humans and wildlife to have lived."
After staying there for 70,000 years, people began to move on. Shifts in rainfall across the region led to three waves of migration 130,000 and 110,000 years ago, driven by corridors of green fertile land opening up.
The first migrants ventured north-east, followed by a second wave of migrants who travelled south-west and a third population remained in the homeland until today.
This scenario is based on tracing back the human family tree using hundreds of samples of mitochondrial DNA (the scrap of DNA that passes down the maternal line from mother to child) from living Africans.
By combining genetics with geology and climate computer model simulations, researchers were able to paint a picture of what the African continent might have been like 200,000 years ago.
What are the major milestones in human evolution?
The human lineage diverged from that of apes at least seven million years ago and maybe as long as 13 million years ago. The earliest undisputed members of our lineage to regularly walk upright were the australopithecines, of which the most famous is Lucy’s species, Australopithecus afarensis. (Lucy herself is dated to 3.2 million years ago.) The oldest known fossil attributed to our genus, Homo, dates to about 2.8 million years ago and was reported just this year. The ability to make stone tools was once thought to be the hallmark of our genus. But the oldest stone tools are now thought to be 3.3 million years old. Either they were made by australopithecines like Lucy—or scientists simply haven’t yet found the early form of Homo that made them. Like australopithecines, early Homo species, such as H. erectus and H. habilis, walked on two legs.
There's considerable debate over when our ancestors first harnessed fire—it may have been anywhere from 1.8 million to around 800,000 years ago. According to one theory, the invention of cooking allowed us to gain more energy from meat, which fueled the dramatic evolution of the human brain. Bigger brains and more dextrous hands in turn were the prerequisite for the developments that set humans apart, including complex language, art, and agriculture, all of which emerged in the past 100,000 years.
The study of human origins, or beginnings, involves figuring out how and when human beings began to exist. Scientists have many different theories about human origins. But they agree that humans developed over many millions of years from early ancestors that were like apes. The process by which one type of living thing develops into another type is called evolution.
Modern humans evolved in stages from a series of ancestors, including several earlier forms of humans. The bodies of these ancestors changed over time. In general, their brains became larger. The jaws and teeth became smaller. Human ancestors also began walking upright on two feet and using tools. As they did, the shape of their legs, feet, hands, and other body parts changed.
Scientists have a fairly small amount of evidence to use in studying human origins. Most of this evidence comes from fossils, or the remains of living things preserved in the ground. The study of fossils is called paleontology. In Africa, Asia, and Europe scientists have found the bones and tools of human ancestors who lived millions of years ago. And scientists continue to find new clues as to how humans developed.
Apes and Humans
Humans did not evolve from apes. Instead, modern humans and apes both developed from the same apelike ancestor. The ancestors of humans became separate from the ancestors of apes between about 8 million and 5 million years ago. After that each group developed on its own.
Modern humans and apes are still closely related. In fact, most scientists consider humans and great apes—chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans—to belong to the same scientific family. But there are many important differences between humans and apes. For this reason scientists have divided the family into smaller groups. Orangutans belong to a group called Ponginae. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos belong to a group called the Gorillini tribe. Humans belong to the Hominini tribe. The term hominin refers to humans and all their ancestors from the time they began developing separately from those of apes.
Today only one species, or type, of hominin exists—modern humans. In the past, two or more species of hominin often lived at the same time. Scientists do not always agree about which species are the direct ancestors of other species. But all hominins are closely related.
Some of the earliest hominins are known as australopithecines. There were several different species of this group. Fossils show that they lived in Africa from roughly 4 million to 2.5 million years ago. One of the most famous such fossils is “Lucy”—a partial skeleton found in Ethiopia. These bones are about 3 million years old.
The australopithecines had some apelike features. For instance, their brains were much smaller than modern human brains. They could also climb trees easily. But, like humans, they walked on two feet. Scientists know this from studying leg, knee, foot, and pelvis fossils. In addition, they found a set of footprints preserved in the ground in Tanzania.
Early forms of humans first existed more than 2 million years ago. All species of humans belong to a scientific group within the hominin tribe called Homo. The scientific names of all human species begin with the word Homo, which means “man.” These early humans had larger brains and mostly smaller teeth and jaws than the australopithecines. Their behavior was probably also more like that of modern humans. For instance, an early human species called Homo habilis used stone tools to butcher animals. Later human species included Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis. Scientists believe that these humans used fire to cook food.
The humans called Neanderthals were alive for part of the same time as modern humans. The Neanderthals died out about 28,000 years ago. They were closely related to modern humans. But most scientists think that these humans were not the direct ancestors of modern humans.
Modern humans probably developed about 300,000 years ago. The scientific name of the species is Homo sapiens. Many scientists believe that the first modern humans evolved in Africa and then spread through Asia and Europe and later the Americas. Exactly how modern humans emerged is a question that scientists are still studying.
Get comfortable with conflict
Bringing together people who disagree isn’t always easy but it leads to a deeper understanding of seemingly conflicting conclusions. As a team, the researchers weaved their different theories into a cohesive story that makes more sense and accounts for complexity. “It’s rarely the case that one person is wrong and the other is right,” says Scerri. “Insights from different models can help to shed light on the answers we look for…Perhaps we can say that nothing is really entirely new in science, it’s all about incremental steps and changing perspectives.”
With this latest paper, scientists have done just that, shifting our view on our African origins and upending the single human birthplace story.
But they are not dogmatic about the new narrative they created. “It’s important to remember that it’s ok to be wrong as long as it’s for the right reasons. We are probably all wrong to a degree,” Scerri says. In other words, just like humans evolved over time in a complex fashion, so does our scientific understanding. In due time, an even more sophisticated story will no doubt emerge. That doesn’t bother Scerri. ”The important thing is pushing new frontiers, questions and testing hypotheses, as this is of course how science progresses,” she says. “And we all contribute to that, we all stand on the shoulders of giants and all giants got some things wrong!”
6 Mutation Theory
The mutation theory was proposed by Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries in 1901. This idea is similar to Darwinism, except de Vries suggested that new species were created by sudden one-off mutations and not gradual changes as proposed by Darwin&rsquos theory of evolution.
De Vries also believed that the mutations were random, while Darwin proposed that they were deliberate. De Vries thought that a new species could only be created when several offspring had the same random mutation. However, he added that a mutation in a single offspring could result in a new species in rare instances.
De Vries&rsquos mutation theory failed to supplant Darwinism as the accepted theory of evolution. It was criticized for several reasons including the fact that it did not account for the role of nature in evolution. 
How early humans' quest for food stoked the flames of evolution
Human evolution and exploration of the world were shaped by a hunger for tasty food – “a quest for deliciousness” – according to two leading academics.
Ancient humans who had the ability to smell and desire more complex aromas, and enjoy food and drink with a sour taste, gained evolutionary advantages over their less-discerning rivals, argue the authors of a new book about the part played by flavour in our development.
Some of the most significant inventions early humans made, such as stone tools and the controlled use of fire, were also partly driven by their pursuit of flavour and a preference for food they considered delicious, according to the new hypothesis.
“This key moment when we decide whether or not to use fire has, at its core, just the tastiness of food and the pleasure it provides. That is the moment in which our ancestors confront a choice between cooking things and not cooking things,” said Rob Dunn, a professor of applied ecology at North Carolina State University. “And they chose flavour.”
Cooked food tasted more delicious than uncooked food – and that’s why we opted to continue cooking it, he says: not just because, as academics have argued, cooked roots and meat were easier and safer to digest, and rewarded us with more calories.
Some scientists think the controlled use of fire, which was probably adopted a million years ago, was central to human evolution and helped us to evolve bigger brains.
“Having a big brain becomes less costly when you free up more calories from your food by cooking it,” said Dunn, who co-wrote Delicious: The Evolution of Flavour and How it Made Us Human with Monica Sanchez, a medical anthropologist.
However, accessing more calories was not the primary reason our ancestors decided to cook food. “Scientists often focus on what the eventual benefit is, rather than the immediate mechanism that allowed our ancestors to make the choice. We made the choice because of deliciousness. And then the eventual benefit was more calories and fewer pathogens.”
Human ancestors who preferred the taste of cooked meat over raw meat began to enjoy an evolutionary advantage over others. “In general, flavour rewards us for eating the things we’ve needed to eat in the past,” said Dunn.
In particular, people who evolved a preference for complex aromas are likely to have developed an evolutionary advantage, because the smell of cooked meat, for example, is much more complex than that of raw meat. “Meat goes from having tens of aromas to having hundreds of different aroma compounds,” said Dunn.
Prehistoric woolly mammoth hunters. Photograph: North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy
This predilection for more complex aromas made early humans more likely to turn their noses up at old, rotten meat, which often has “really simple smells”. “They would have been less likely to eat that food,” said Dunn. “Retronasal olfaction is a super-important part of our flavour system.”
The legacy of humanity’s remarkable preference for food which has a multitude of aroma compounds is reflected in “high food culture” today, Dunn says. “It’s a food culture that really caters for our ability to appreciate these complexities of aroma. We’ve made this very expensive kind of cuisine that somehow fits into our ancient sensory ability.”
Similarly, our proclivity for sour-tasting food and fermented beverages like beer and wine may stem from the evolutionary advantage that eating sour food and drink gave our ancestors.
“Most mammals have sour taste receptors,” said Dunn. “But in almost all of them, with very few exceptions, the sour taste is aversive – so most primates and other mammals, in general, will, if they taste something sour, spit it out. They don’t like it.”
Humans are among the few species that like sour, he says, another notable exception being pigs.
At some point, he thinks, humans’ and pigs’ sour taste receptors evolved to reward them if they found and ate decomposing food that tasted sour, especially if it also tasted a little sweet – because that is how acidic bacteria tastes. And that, in turn, is a sign that the food is fermenting, not putrefying.
“The acid produced by the bacteria kills off the pathogens in the rotten food. So we think that the sour taste on our tongue, and the way we appreciate it, actually may have served our ancestors as a kind of pH strip to know which of these fermented foods was safe,” said Dunn.
Human ancestors who were able to accurately identify rotting food that was actually fermenting, and therefore OK to eat, would have had an evolutionary advantage over others, he argues. If they also figured out how to safely ferment food to eat over winter, they further increased their food supply.
The negative consequence of this is that fermented, alcoholic fruit juice, a sort of “proto wine”, would also have tasted good – and that probably led to horrific hangovers.
“At some point, our ancestors evolved a version of the gene that produces the enzyme that breaks down alcohol in our bodies, which is 40 times faster than that of other primates,” added Dunn. “And so that really made our ancestors much more able to get the calories out of these fermented drinks, and it would also probably have lessened the extent to which they had hangovers every day from drinking.”
Flavour also drove humanity to innovate and explore, Dunn says. He thinks one reason our ancestors were inspired to begin using tools was to get hold of otherwise inaccessible food that tasted delicious: “If you look at what chimpanzees use tools to get, it’s almost always really delicious things, like honey.”
Having a portfolio of tools that they could use to find tasty things to eatgave our ancestors the confidence to explore new environments, knowing they would be able to find food, whatever the season threw at them. “It really allows our ancestors to move out into the world and do new things.”
Still Life with a Turkey Pie, by Pieter Claesz, 1627. Photograph: FineArt/Alamy
Stone tools in particular “fast-forward” the ability of humans to find delicious food. “Once they can hunt, using spears, they have access to this whole world of foods that were not available to them before.”
At this point, Dunn thinks humanity’s pursuit of tasty food started to have terrible consequences for other species. “We know that humans around the world hunted species to extinction, once they figured out how to hunt really effectively.”
Dunn strongly suspects that the mammals that first went extinct were the most delicious ones. “From what we were able to reconstruct, it looks like the mammoths, mastodons and giant sloths all would have been unusually tasty.”
Evolutionary history of early primates places human origins in context
A simplified evolutionary tree of primate relationships showing the placement of Darwinius in relationship to other groups. From Williams et al., 2010.
The study of human origins can be a paradoxical thing. We know that we evolved from ancestral apes (and, in fact, are just one peculiar kind of ape), yet we are obsessed with the features that distinguish us from our close relatives. The “big questions” in evolutionary anthropology, from why we stand upright to how our brains became so large, are all centered around distancing us from a prehistoric ape baseline. Despite our preoccupation with “human uniqueness”, however, many of our traits are extremely ancient, and they can be traced back much further than the seven million years or so that hominins have existed.
As acknowledged by paleontologists Blythe Williams, Richard Kay, and Christopher Kirk (who confirmed that Darwinius was only a very distant relative of ours last week) in a new PNAS paper, “human evolution did not begin 6-8 million years ago with the phylogenetic split between the chimpanzee and human lineages.” It is not as if the first hominins appeared out of nothing and began an upward march to us. Instead we know that we could hypothetically trace our lineage all the way back to the last common ancestor of all life on earth, and any point we chose to stop along that “unbroken thread” could tell us quite a bit about our history. In the case of the present review, Williams, Kay, and Kirk pick up with the origin of anthropoid primates.
The origin of anthropoid primates, the group to which monkeys and apes belong, has long been a controversial topic among paleontologists. The past forty years, especially, have been marked by increased discussion and debate on the subject, and it has only been recently that scientists have been able to resolve some of the long-running disputes.
Some time before 55 million years ago there was a divergence which formed the two great branches of the primate family tree. On the one side there were the haplorrhines, represented today by tarsiers and anthropoids, and on the other were the strepsirrhines, the group to which living lemurs, lorises, and bush babies belong. On this much everyone was agreed. The trouble was parsing these relationships among fossil primates and determining which group was most closely related to the first anthropoids.
Some researchers proposed that fossil tarsiers and a closely related, but extinct, group called omomyids were the best candidates for anthropoid ancestors, while others thought that the lemur-like adapiformes (such as Darwinius) were even closer. For years the debates continued to fill up journal pages and symposium slots, but, as in other subfields in paleontology, resolution would eventually come through an interdisciplinary approach. Through a combination of genetic, zoological, and paleontological data scientists have been able to determine that tarsiers and their omomyid relatives were most closely related to early anthropoids (with Darwinius and its kin being more closely related to lemurs).
But resolving these large-scale relationships has only been one part of the ongoing debate over anthropoid origins. New discoveries have also altered our understanding of what early anthropoid primates were like and where they lived. Paleontologists have found at least 15 species of fossil anthropoids spanning the 30-37 million year old range in the Fayum depression of Egypt, and a series of recent discoveries in Asia has acquainted paleontologists with a series of slightly earlier anthropoids. Altogether these primates document the radiation of early anthropoids, and they illustrate some interesting evolutionary changes.
As every vertebrate paleontologist knows teeth are the keys to understanding the mammal fossil record, and the teeth of early anthropoids show that they started out as relatively small animals that fed on insects and fruit. As some lineages became larger, however, they started to eat lower-quality foods like leaves, and this is in accord with what we see among living primates. As is well-known, small primates must rely on high-quality food to fuel their tiny bodies, but larger primates with slower metabolisms are able to subsist on lower-quality food. Size, metabolism, and diet are all closely tied together, and from the available evidence it appears that the same constraints that shape the diets of living primates also affected their prehistoric relatives.
Among the most interesting features of anthropoids, however, are their eyes. Anthropoid primates have eyes set in forward-facing orbits separated from the rest of the skull by a bony partition in the back. Strepsirrhine primates (including Darwinius) lack this bony wall, and there is another feature that easily distinguishes living strepsirrhine primates from their haplorrhine cousins. Primates such as lemurs and lorises have a structure in their eyes called the tapetum lucidum which reflects light and allows them to see better in low-light conditions. Anthropoid primates lack this structure, as do tarsiers, and so haplorrhines active at night typically have extremely large eyes to compensate. What this suggests is that both tarsiers and anthropoids evolved from a diurnal ancestor which did not need the special night-vision adaptation that the strepsirrhines have. This would explain why haplorrhines which are active at night, such as tarsiers and owl monkeys, have extremely large eyes.
The authors of the new paper review increases in early anthropoid brain size, changes in the organization of the anthropoid brain, the sense of smell in anthropoids, and other features, as well, but rather than summarize all their points here I would like to draw attention to something else. Our present understanding of anthropoid origins has emerged from interdisciplinary efforts based in paleontology, zoology, anatomy, genetics, and development. In this way the evolving debate over anthropoid origins has tracked the emergence of paleobiology, or a more synthetic type of paleontology that is much more than the marriage of geology and comparative anatomy.
There is little doubt that such approaches will continue to be productive. New fossil discoveries will help us better understand what primates were like in the distant past and the study of living primates can help us grasp how some of the changes we see in the fossil record were affected. A scientist who wants to understand the origins of primates cannot afford to only be an anatomist or paleontologist. They must instead be a carry on in the tradition of the true naturalists who tied together evidence from disaprate fields to better understand the natural world.
Williams, B., Kay, R., & Kirk, E. (2010). New perspectives on anthropoid origins Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0908320107
Darwin’s Descent of Man Foreshadowed Modern Scientific Theories
When Charles Darwin published Descent of Man 150 years ago, he launched scientific investigations on human origins and evolution. Last week, three leading scientists in different, but related disciplines published “Modern theories of human evolution foreshadowed by Darwin’s Descent of Man,” in Science, in which they identify three insights from Darwin’s opus on human evolution that modern science has reinforced.
“Working together was a challenge because of disciplinary boundaries and different perspectives, but we succeeded,” said Sergey Gavrilets, lead author and professor in the Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Mathematics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Their goal with this review summary was to apply the framework of modern speciation theory to human origins and summarize recent research to highlight the fact that Darwin’s Descent of Man foreshadowed many recent scientific developments in the field.
They focused on the following three insights:
- We share many characteristics with our closest relatives, the anthropoid apes, which include genetic, developmental, physiological, morphological, cognitive, and psychological characteristics.
- Humans have a talent for high-level cooperation reinforced by morality and social norms.
- We have greatly expanded the social learning capacity that we see already in other primates.
“The paper’s insights have important implication for understanding behavior of modern humans and for developing policies to solve some of the most pressing problems our society faces,” Gavrilets said.
Gavrilets is director of the Center for the Dynamics of Social Complexity (DySoC) at UT, which promotes transdisciplinary research into the origins, evolution, and futures of human social complexity. This paper is one of the outcomes of activities from the Center. Other related outcomes include free online learning modules on cultural evolution and a series of online webinars about cultural evolution and human origins, which thousands of students and researchers worldwide have watched.
Reference: “Modern theories of human evolution foreshadowed by Darwin’s Descent of Man” by Peter J. Richerson, Sergey Gavrilets and Frans B. M. de Waal, 21 May 2021, Science.
Co-authors are Peter Richerson, a cultural evolutionist with the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis, and Frans de Waal, a primatologist with Living Links, Yerks National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
The paper was sponsored by the UT National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis with an NSF award. Researchers also received support from the US Army Research Office, the Office of Naval Research, the John Templeton Foundation, and the NIH.
More on SciTechDaily
Cambridge Researcher Finally Proves One of Darwin’s Evolution Theories
Entry, Descent, and Landing: The Most Intense Phase of the Mars Perseverance Rover Mission
How to Become “Ant-I-Social” – Erosion of Ant Genome Tied to Loss of Functional, Behavioral and Social Traits
After 15 Years, Scientists Finally Solve Huygens Landing Spin Mystery
NASA Engineers and Technicians Test Mars 2020 Rover Descent-Stage Separation
The Hype Machine: Why Social Media Has Changed the World — And How to Fix It
Discovering Hidden Archaeological Sites With AI and Satellite Images
Curiosity’s Seven Minute Descent on Mars
2 Comments on "Darwin’s Descent of Man Foreshadowed Modern Scientific Theories"
The ironclad rule is: The guy on the right has to carry a stick!
Babu G. Ranganathan*
THE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION
ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION (micro-evolution or evolution within biological “kinds”) is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution across biological “kinds,” (such as from sea sponge to human). All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes. For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible.
The genes (chemical instructions or code) for a trait must first exist or otherwise the trait cannot come into existence. Genes instruct the body to build our tissues and organs. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.
Evolutionists believe that, if given millions of years, accidents in the genetic code of species caused by the environment will generate entirely new code making evolution possible from one type of life to another. It’s much like believing that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, can turn the novel into a book on astronomy! Not to worry. We’ll address the issue of “Junk DNA” in a moment.
WHAT ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION? Natural selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations. It can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.
HOW COULD SPECIES HAVE SURVIVED if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully integrated and functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds!
NEW SPECIES BUT NOT NEW DNA: Although it’s been observed that new species have come into existence, they don’t carry any new genes. They’ve become new species only because they can’t be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological “kind” allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological “kind” (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza’s extensive research points to a better explanation than natural selection for variation and adaptation in nature. Dr. Guliuzza explains that species have pre-engineered mechanisms that enable organisms to continuously track and respond to environmental changes with system elements that correspond to human-designed tracking systems. This model is called CET (continuous environmental tracking). His research strongly indicates that living things have been pre-engineered to produce the right adaptations and changes required to live in changing environments. It’s much like a car that’s been pre-engineered so that the head lights turn on automatically when day changes to night.
What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it’s only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce.
Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes – not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn’t affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children’s hair. So, even if an ape or ape-like creature’s muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.
What about the new science of epigenetics? Epigenetics involves inheritable factors which can turn already-existing genes on, but epigenetics doesn’t create new genes.
Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations. Mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by nature (i.e. environmental radiation), are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. Even if a single mutation is not immediately harmful, the accumulation of mutations over time will be harmful to the species resulting in extinction. At very best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species.
All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully formed, and fully functional. This is powerful evidence that all species came into existence as complete and fully formed from the beginning. This is only possible by creation.
God began with a perfect and harmonious creation. Even all the animals were vegetarian (Genesis 1:30) in the beginning and did not struggle for survival nor kill and devour each other. Macro-evolutionary theory does not begin with a perfect and harmonious creation as the Bible states. The Bible and macro-evolutionary theory cannot both be true.
All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human).
There has never been unanimous agreement among evolutionary scientists on ANY fossil evidence that has been used to support human evolution over the many years, Including LUCY.
The actual similarity between ape and human DNA is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Only a certain segment of DNA between apes and humans was compared, not the entire DNA genome.
Also, so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk. Although these “non-coding” segments of DNA don’t code for proteins, they have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they’re not “junk”). Also, there is evidence that, in certain situations, they can code for protein.
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? (Internet article by author)
Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (This site answers many arguments, both old and new, that have been used by evolutionists to support their theory)
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.