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
FOX News Discusses Creation, Evolution, and Adam
FOX News recently ran internet and television coverage discussing the creation/evolution controversy. Specifically, they discussed Adam’s place in...

Is Creation Science Really That Important? | The Creation Podcast:...
What is creation science, and why is it important? Why did an evolutionary scientist become a creationist? And how can you defend Christianity using...

Evidence Supports Post-Flood Wet Climate for Egypt
Evolutionary scientists found evidence that the Sahara Desert was green and fertile at the end of the Ice Age, allowing people to live hundreds of miles...

ICR Announces New Logo
After 52 years of fruitful ministry, the Institute for Creation Research is renewing its commitment to rigorous scientific research that affirms the...

Inside January-February 2022 Acts & Facts
How can we use the Bible to guide scientific research? Why is counting ice core layers an insufficient way to determine Earth’s age? How does...

Pterosaur Contours Look Engineered
Flying reptiles once flew through ancient skies. Most of our knowledge of these fascinating animals, called pterosaurs, comes from their fossils. But how...

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

Donors Make It Happen
In 1 Samuel 30, there’s an interesting story that’s easy to overlook if you fly by too fast. David and his men are returning from Jezreel...

Puffins, Fitted for Living in Sea, Air, and Land
In order for tufted, horned, and Atlantic puffins to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill” specific habitats on Earth,1 they need...

Bucket Orchids and Bees, a Codependent Design
Flowers hold a fascination for most people. They have at least a threefold purpose: First for attracting animals (e.g., insects, birds, and mammals)...