Darwin's Genetics is a Hoax?

Darwin's Genetics is a Hoax?

Some of the most credible science discoveries in evolution and genetics are branched off Darwin's ideology of evolution through genetics. Most of us know his experiment involving finches, and this has led to multiple discoveries of evolution. However, people like Nathaniel T. Jeanson, a graduate from Harvard Graduate School, debate scientific evidence through Creationist ideas. Jeanson claims there are flaws to these 4 categories of evidence for evolution: relative genetic similarities, absolute genetic differences, junk DNA, and shared DNA mistakes. He proposes that these four fundamental scientific ideas do not support the ideas of evolution enough thus leading to Darwin's genetics as a flaw in the theory of evolution.

Let's begin with Jeanson's first argument of the "relative genetic similarities". Jeanson challenges the idea of "relative genetic similarities" with Darwin's "tree of life". Darwin's tree of life proposes that humans and other animals have descended from a common ancestor. However, Jeanson believes otherwise in which he says this idea does not confirm evolution because of it's poor design. The entire claim is that the genetic hierarchy shows absolutely no evidence for evolution, and is merely just a picture. Instead, Jeanson draws his own version of the tree of life but using vehicles. How absurd is that? He refutes the tree of life by saying the drawing design was flawed. There is much genetic evidence that proves how one species is closer to another because of these genetic similarities. Darwin, however, did not classify all these genetic similarities but current science supports the hypothesis. Below you can view the comparison that Jeanson makes of Darwin's drawing of the "Tree of Life" to that of Jeanson's "Tree of Transportation". This is completely absurd that he tries to compare genetic proof to common ancestry to similarities of vehicular transportation.



The next controversial point was Jeanson challenging the "absolute genetic differences" between that of humans and chimpanzees. Jeanson claims that evolution predicts less genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees than there actually are so therefore the "absolute genetic difference" is much higher than we believe it to be. With this logic, he challenges the idea that mutations are actually the cause of these differences, or the time-scale that these difference arose are off. However, Darwin does not propose that these mutations were anything recent occurring, but just the mechanism that has caused changes over the millions of years. Mutations do not happen spontaneously from one generation to the next so that chimpanzees resulted in humans within 100 years. Then he ends this with saying that Darwinists aren't getting the predicted counts right, but it is mathematically impossible to predict these mutations over the past millions of years to result in what has come with evolution today.

Evidence 3 and 4 of Jeanson's argument can be grouped together where he points out flaws in DNA count/number of chromosomes. Here, he points out that onions have more genes than humans, but this is not enough evidence to refute any of Darwin's ideas. The more complex an organism, the less gene density there typically is which would back the idea up of humans having such little genes compared to that of an onion. The onion has a much more dense genome that may have more introns or "useless" coding than humans. Humans have multiple transcription factors, and the genome is much more than just coding DNA considering most of our genome is actual "junk". However, in comparison to the onion, our genome is more efficient at coding and is not just genes bundled up together.

Jeanson clearly only finds faults in the "design" that evolutionists have laid out and does not see the actual science behind the ideas. Regardless of scientific "design", there is still concrete proof that supports Darwin's ideas and genetics. Instead of trying to find fault in the way scientists present their ideas, how about finding fault behind the actual science they support Jeanson? Or instead of finding faults, try giving out facts that support your claims over the ones these scientists have supported over the past decades.

Posted by Andrew Do (Group A - Week 4)



Source of Article/Images: http://www.icr.org/article/8226

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9846/