95% of Human Genome Can't Evolve | The Institute for Creation Research
95% of Human Genome Can't Evolve

A new study just came out that analyzed vast amounts of data from human genome samples from all over the world.1 Based on the evolutionists’ own theoretical model of evolution, 95% of the human genome is “restrained”—it can’t evolve.

According to the popular neutral model of evolutionary theory, much of the human genome is nothing but randomly evolving junk. All of this so-called neutral DNA that is allegedly not under any “selective restraint” only serves as fodder for functional new genes and traits to somehow magically arise and thus provide the engine of evolution.

However, in 2012, a vast global consortium of biomedical geneticists working on the ENCODE project—scientists who are more interested in curing human disease than speculative and unproductive research about evolution—reported that at least 80% of the human genome had demonstrated biochemical function.2 Far more function than evolutionists’ models predict.

Nevertheless, vocal theoretical evolutionists pushed back and published a variety of papers, essentially using evolution to prove evolution as an overall strategy. As a result of their theoretical calculations based on the premise of evolution, they claimed in one paper that the human genome could be no more than 8.2% functional despite the avalanche of hard empirical data that demonstrated otherwise.3 Renowned theoretical evolutionist Dan Graur, who has vociferously derided the ENCODE project results, has recently increased his estimate of this level of functionality to a range of 10 to 25%.4 Graur is famous for saying, “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.”5

However, just as the Bible says in Psalm 9:15, “In the net which they hid, their own foot is caught,” so has it happened to the theoretical evolutionists. Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, “What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’” Oops, so much for human evolution!

Theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. Tweet: Theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data.

95% of Human Genome Can't Evolve: http://www.icr.org/article/ninety-five-percent-of-human-genome-cant-evolve/


#Science #Research

This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions. The elaborate deceptions of today’s theoretical evolutionists are best described by Ecclesiastes 7:29 that says, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”

1. Pouyet, F. et al. 2018. Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife. DOI:10.7554/eLife.36317
2. Tomkins, J. P. 2012.
ENCODE Reveals Incredible Genome Complexity and Function. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org September 24, 2012, accessed October 15, 2018.
3. Rands, C. M. et al. 2014.
8.2% of the Human Genome Is Constrained: Variation in Rates of Turnover across Functional Element Classes in the Human Lineage. PLOS Genetics. DOI
4. Graur, D. 2017. An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome. Genome Biology and Evolution. 9 (7): 1880-1885.

5. Klinghoffer, D. 2017. Dan Graur, Darwin’s Reactionary. Evolution News & Science Today. Posted on evolutionnews.org June 21, 2017, accessed October 15, 2018.

Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

The Latest
Speciation of Bears, Birds, and Bacteria is not Evolution
Speciation may be defined as the separation of populations of animals or plants that resemble one another closely and originally able to interbreed—into...

'Prehistoric' Paddlefish?
Evolutionists consider the freshwater paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) of the class Actinopterygii to be a prehistoric creature, a primitive bony fish “50...

Creation Kids: Earth
by Christy Hardy and Susan Windsor* You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation...

To the End of the Earth
The book of Acts recounts the apostles’ journeys across the Roman Empire from Jerusalem and Judea “to the end of the earth,” preaching...

Lightning, Soil Bacteria, and God’s Providence
Nitrogen is vital for human survival, yet few appreciate how lightning and soil bacteria contribute to Earth’s nitrogen cycle. That Earth’s...

The Bobtail Squid's Living Cloaking Device
Hawaiian bobtail squid (Euprymna scolopes) live among the sand flats and sea plants of the Hawaiian archipelago. Along with other bobtail squid, these...

Seeing Distant Starlight in a Young Universe
Many see distant starlight as an unanswerable objection to recent creation. Both creationist and evolutionist astronomers agree that distant galaxies...

Yellowstone National Park, Part 2: Canyons and Catastrophe
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, Ph.D.* About three million visitors tour Yellowstone National Park’s 3,440 square miles each year.1...

How Did the Bat Get Its Wings?
Where did bats come from? Evolutionists presuppose that some kind of rodent received just the right mutations to over “a few million years”...

Biblical Insights into Today’s Violent Mob Mentality
Some scenes from the evening news get etched into our memories. I recall seeing a college professor step outside his building and become suddenly surrounded...