An article headed “Yawning Gap Divides Monkeys and Us,” which recently appeared in New Scientist Magazine, has dealt another major blow to a decades-old myth of evolution.
Everybody knows that evolutionists build relationships based on similarities in examples of DNA they take from various living things and then put these forward as evidence of evolution. These comparisons have formed one of modern Darwinism’s main propaganda methods, and there is no doubt that the most “popular” of these is the alleged genetic relationship between human beings and chimpanzees. As a result of a number of studies performed in the 1970s on human and chimpanzee DNA, evolutionists put forward the claim that there was a 98.77% similarity between man and chimpanzee. In the years that followed, that claim was never far away from the headlines in the Darwinist media.
In a paper published in the September 2002 Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, it is stated that the genetic difference between the two species was actually three times greater than this, and reduced this similarity to 95% “at most.” It was also noted that as well as single differences in nucleotide strings also long differences (indels) were taken into account. Thus it was revealed that the old methods on which the propaganda of 30 years had rested were actually methods that would “reduce the difference as far as possible.”
It was reported in the study covered in New Scientist (1) that the 21 human chromosomes had been compared to genetic material from the orangutan, the rhesus macaque, the chimpanzee and the woolly monkey. Kelly Frazer, who carried out the research, was cited in the article as summing up the results of the study in these terms: “There are large deletions and insertions sprinkled throughout the chromosome.” It is stated that the paper by Kelley, who works for the California-based Perlegen Sciences, published in Genome Research (2), is a reflection of the results of the paper published last year.
It has thus once again been shown that the research findings portrayed as supporting the propaganda that human beings and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor are “exaggerated.”
The truth is that even if the levels of genetic similarity are very high this does not represent a criterion proving that man and chimpanzee share a common ancestor. That is because similarities cannot account for their “origin.” For instance, two jets may have similar appearances, flight patterns and electronic equipment. Yet if someone then claims that these two planes came about from two quite different processes as a result of chance natural events and cites the similarities between the planes as a basis for this, he will not have proven his claim. The point which needs to be examined here is how the planes came into being: Could long years of natural events such as rain, wind and lightning have produced these planes? Or else were they produced and planned by a conscious designer?
In the same way, it is also insufficient to cite the DNA similarities between man and chimpanzee. Evolutionists need to demonstrate, with sound theses backed up by scientific evidence, how natural events and random mutations could have given rise to human beings and chimpanzees. Have evolutionists been able to do this? No. It can be seen from the fossil record that living things emerged suddenly and with complex designs, that they underwent no changes over the millions of years that followed and that there is a total stability in the fossil record of species. The palaeontological digs which have taken place all over the world for the last 150 years or so have revealed that the idea of the missing link is completely hollow, since not one “intermediate form,” so utterly indispensable to the theory of evolution, has ever been found.
The theory of evolution has collapsed not just in terms of the fossil record, but also of the mechanisms the theory depends on: It has been revealed that random mutations cannot make any organism more resistant. It has also been seen that when they do have any effect they cause damage to the genetic information encoded in the genes and that they always give rise to deformities. Bearing in mind the scale of the information in DNA (there is enough information stored in human DNA to fill a 1 million-page encyclopedia), the claim that mutations, totally based on chance and which happen only very infrequently, could have given rise to all this information is utterly “laughable.”
So, why is that even though these points which so fundamentally undermine the theory of evolution are very obvious evolutionists still refuse to accept them? Why does evolution still occupy so much of the media agenda? Because the belief in evolution is a faith kept alive not by scientific proof but with atheistic and materialist prejudices.
For this reason, for evolutionist researchers or publications such as New Scientist to abandon their evolutionist claims in the face of these results will be out of the question. Even if the level of similarity falls to around 80 or even 70% they will still insist that man and the chimpanzee are related. In all probability, popular media organizations will still not report that the 98% similarity thesis has been undermined, nor that under these exaggerated results lies a concern to provide a prop for evolution.
Yet all the evolutionists’ efforts to cover up the facts do not alter those facts themselves. The truth is that Allah created the world and everything in it. No matter how much they maintain the opposite, evolutionist scientists are also aware of this. Because God has revealed that deniers will deny the truth after having accepted it in their own hearts:
“”And they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their own certainty about them… “” (Qur’an, 27: 14)
We call on all popular publishing organizations to take New Scientist as an example if they put the principle of objective publishing above Darwinism, and trust that they will inform the public of the results of this research.
1- Yawning gap divides monkeys and us”, New Scientist, March 15, 2003, p. 26
2- Genome Research, vol. 13, p 341