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

Be Blessed
During the days of Jesus, being blessed had a different meaning from what Christians understand it to mean today. The Theological Dictionary of the...

Should Creationists Brook Loss of a Trout?
Should a freshwater stream be restored to make it habitable for a failing fish population such as brook trout?1 It makes sense that creationists...

Can a Merciful God Create Parasites?
Sir David Attenborough of BBC fame is regularly asked by Christians why he will not give credit to God for the amazing creatures featured on his nature...

Why Won't the Gospel Die?
Soon after the gospel first emerged, ancient Rome tried to exterminate whoever believed it. They tortured and murdered early Christians, but that didn’t...

Crater of Diamonds State Park and the Origin of Diamonds
At Crater of Diamonds State Park in western Arkansas, families dig diamonds for fun while more serious sifters seek sensational paydays. Countless brides...

Man: Smart from the Start
People have been created with a three-pound brain that scientists will never fully understand. Evolutionists have tried to trace the evolution of the...

The Fossils Still Say No: Jostle in the Jurassic
The Jurassic system of the geologic column is an enigma to evolutionists because it represents a continuance of many life forms found buried below in...

The Tyranny of Consensus Thinking
How can so many scientists be wrong?” This question is routinely wielded as real evidence for evolution. I’ve heard it in discussions with...

Latest DNA Tech Still Light-Years Behind
Let’s say you recorded a library of books onto DNA. Hundreds of books could fit on your fingertip, but how would you find the one book you wanted? As...