Human evolution has yet to be validated, and never will be according to Scripture and science. In 1979 evolutionists Ayala and Valentine presented a “likely phylogeny of the hominoids.” But “many elements of the [evolutionary relationships] are conjectural owing to the paucity of the fossil remains.” Decades later paleontologist Douglas Palmer stated, “The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution” (Palmer 2002).

In 2001, Reuters reported that “evolutionary thinking had been turned on its head” with the discovery of Kenyanthropus platyops, an alleged second genus of “early human” that existed “3.6 million years ago” (Blomfield 2001). Commenting on the find, evolutionist Fred Spoor said that “it was now impossible to know with any certainty who our earliest ancestor was” (Blomfield 2001). There is currently a plethora of human evolutionary trees – or more correctly, bushes – with no one knowing which, if any, is the correct one. What can be said with absolute confidence is that paleontology (i.e. fossil evidence) does not support “human evolution.”

In August 2006, evolutionary molecular biologists announced that they had discovered a gene that supposedly holds a clue to the evolution of the human brain. But David Haussler, director of the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering (CBSE) at the University of California, Santa Cruz, admits, “At this point, we can only speculate about this gene's role in the evolution of the human brain” (EurekAlert 2006). 

On one hand secular scientists are saying this gene holds the key to the evolution of the human brain, but on the other hand they have no clue what it actually does. A genetic difference between humans and chimps tells us nothing about what caused the differences between the two unless we know the precise role of the gene in question.

Throughout the EurekAlert press release one finds the typical words and phrases that buffer and even deaden the assumptive headlines. Examples from this story include, “the evidence suggests,” “may,” “we can only speculate,” “we don’t know,” “suggestive,” “something caused,” “potentially relevant,” and “preliminary evidence.”

The public should be more than wary of this evolutionary research, which is based not only on the false foundation of Darwinism, but also upon assumptions about molecular biology. Atheist James Trefil said, “I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions” (Trefil 1996). 

Creation scientists agree and maintain that Scripture, paleontology, and molecular biology all show that humans have always been humans and apes have always been apes. Indeed, CBSE lead researcher Katherine Pollard admits there are no fewer than “18 differences between chimps and humans . . . an incredible amount of change” (EurekAlert 2006). Creation scientists predict that many more differences between the two will be discovered as research progresses. 

What does the creation scientist say regarding this discovery? A gene has been discovered that may be related to brain development. Furthermore, this gene is different in humans and chimpanzees. It is premature, however, for secular science to declare that this gene is evidence for macroevolution since the results are based on such tenuous data. In the end, further research will demonstrate that this gene is entirely unrelated to Darwin’s “descent with modification” theory.

References
Ayala & Valentine. 1979. Evolving. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings Publishing. Fig.
     12.7.
Palmer, Douglas. 2002. One great leap for humankind. New Scientist 173 [2334]. 50
Blomfield, Adrian. 2001. Find “turns evolutionary thinking on head.” IOL.co.za, March
     21, 2001.  http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw985174022952B251.
EurekAlert.com. 2006. Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human  
     brain capacity. EurekAlert.org, August 16, 2006. 
     http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uoc--ndg081006.php
Trefil, James. 1996. 101 Things You Don’t Know about Science and No One Else Does   
     Either. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.