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/

@ICRscience

#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.”

References
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
.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004525
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
NEWS
Inside March 2021 Acts & Facts
Why does ICR uphold the clarity of Scripture? How do we know that canyons were formed by the Genesis Flood? How do fossilized fish confirm biblical...

DAYS OF PRAISE DEVOTIONALS
Spring 2021
...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Human Hands
You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with ICR’s special Creation Kids learning...

ACTS & FACTS
Dross and Dilution
The first of seven great signs of Jesus’ deity recorded in John’s gospel is the wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11). By the time Jesus...

APOLOGETICS
Do the Unpersuaded Have Enough Proof?
At a local Bible conference, a respected seminary professor unintentionally contradicted the apostle Paul. During the Q&A session, he opined that...

ACTS & FACTS
Gunnison's Black Canyon: The Flood Solves Mysterious Missing...
Brian Thomas, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D. The Gunnison River winds westward from the Colorado Rocky Mountains through dry and dramatic landscapes....

ACTS & FACTS
Do We See Complex Design in Mosquito Eggs?
Mosquitoes hatch from tiny eggs and spend a few days filter-feeding on things like bacteria, pollen, and algae. They molt three times as they grow,...

ACTS & FACTS
A Texas-Size Spider Mystery
The delightfully creepy spider belongs to a class called Arachnida—which is distinct from the “bug” class Insecta. Not surprisingly,...

ACTS & FACTS
The Fossils Still Say No: The Fins-to-Feet Transition
One of the alleged greatest transformations in vertebrate evolution is said to be the emergence of creatures that traded fins for feet and transitioned...

RESEARCH
Largest Canyons Were Formed by the Receding Flood
Two newly discovered canyons in Greenland and Antarctica have a lot in common with Grand Canyon. Both canyons are as deep as or deeper than Grand Canyon...