Session 4 – “Evidence” For Evolution
In this session we will be jumping around
quite a bit to different topics
There are many “Evidences” used to support
the evolutionary view, and we want to
address as many as possible in this session
Topics range from mutations (another
example) to comparative anatomy, to junk
DNA, to fossils and missing links!
New Trait with Lenski?
In 1988 Richard Lenski, an evolutionary
biologist at Michigan State University, began
culturing 12 identical lines of E. coli. There
were over 44,000 generations, and 25 years
for the experiment
They were grown in the presence of glucose
(carbon source for E.Coli) and citrate (carbon
source they don’t utilize) they took samples
of bacteria every 500 generations for records
Since being in the lab, Lenski has seen
changes and adaptation within the bacteria
They can better survive in the lab setting
than they could when they started
But there were some costs:
“All the lines have lost the
ability to catabolize ribose
(a sugar). Some lines have
lost the ability to repair
DNA.” Georgia Purdom
If you were to put these bacteria back into
the normal environment, they wouldn’t
stand a chance and would die out quickly
What was the big support for evolution?
Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation
31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate
(Cit+) which isn’t usually possible
This has been hailed as a new function
created by evolution, which is far from reality
This ability that was gained is already seen in
wild E. Coli when oxygen levels get low (It’s
used in a fermentation pathway)
The gene (citT) in E. coli encode a citrate
transporter (a protein which transports
citrate into the cell to be used)
Most think that when oxygen levels are high
this citT isn’t produced, even though they
still possess the enzymes necessary to
utilize citrate
It turns out there was a mutation that
caused a duplication of the gene that
regulates the production of citT, it’s not a
new function but an editing of the function
that is already present in the bacteria
Lenski even agrees with this:
Lenski states, “A more likely possibility, in our
view, is that an existing transporter has been
coopted [sic] for citrate transport under oxic
[high oxygen levels] conditions.”
Similarities
One argument used for evolution is
similarities between different animals
This comes in two flavors
The first is comparative anatomy, where we
look at the structure of different organisms
and see the similarities
The second is genetic similarities between
different organisms
The most
cited example
of the first
(comparative
anatomy) is
forearm
structure
Is this evidence for evolution?
Yes it is, don’t feel like you have to argue
every single point. We may not agree that it
happened but it fits the theory
It’s evidence for evolution, but it’s not
evidence against Creation. We can explain it
just fine without evolution
God created a design
that worked well, and he
used it multiple times.
We could argue common
design from these
features just as they can
argue common ancestor
What about Genetic Similarities?
We were told for a long time that the human
and chimpanzee genomes were 99% similar
to each other, which made sense in the
evolutionary theory (because we are very
closely related in evolution)
Many studies have been done recently that
cast extreme doubt on those numbers we
are given (98-99%) even before these studies
though the numbers jumped around
Today we have sequenced both the human
and chimp genome, and we know that the
99% number was taking only a small sample,
and turns out to be wrong
But even with the sequencing of the
genomes of both humans and chimps, it’s
difficult to tell how similar they are, it’s not
just a direct comparison, there are many
theories on how you should compare the
genomes, which leads to multiple answers
(and more debate on how similar they are)
Dr. Todd Wood, an expert in genome
comparison and former Director of
Bioinformatics at the Clemson University
Genomics Institute, did a BLAST analysis (type
of comparison) that indicated human and
chimp DNA are roughly 95% similar
That may sound very similar, but that is a
large genetic gap between the two
Other studies were done the same way, and
came up with very different results
Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, former director of the
Clemson University Genomics Institute, did a
different BLAST analysis and concluded
humans and chimps were 86-89% similar
Dr. Richard Buggs, a
geneticist at Queen Mary,
University of London.
Back in 2008 concluded:
“Therefore the total
similarity of the genomes
could be below 70%.”
Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins did a more detailed
study and came to another conclusion:
“Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee
DNA was similar to human under the most
optimal sequence-slice conditions. While
chimpanzees and humans share many
localized protein-coding regions of high
similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity
between the two genomes defies
evolutionary timescales and dogmatic
presuppositions about a common ancestor.”
Vestigial Organs & Junk DNA
According to The Evolution of Life defines a
vestigial organ as one ‘which has lost its
function in the course of evolution, and is
usually much reduced in size’.
The popular idea is that humans (and other
organisms) are walking museums with
evidence from their past ancestors
on the tree of life
There are many or organs in humans (and
other creatures) that are claimed to be
vestigial, but we don’t have time to address
them all in detail (here is a snapshot)
The human appendix
“The appendix is part of the immune system,
strategically located at the entrance of the
almost sterile ileum from the colon with its
normally high bacterial content.”
Dr. Jerry Bergman
The tonsils have a similar function in the
entrance to the pharynx.
Wisdom Teeth
This is one of the most cited examples
There are many ways to answer this question,
the first being that some people get their
wisdom teeth and use them just fine, it just
depends on the size of your jaw and if your
mouth has room for them
35% of people do not develop wisdom teeth
to begin with, which would be an example of
a loss of information (not the gain)
There are many factors that allow wisdom
teeth to fit into the original creation,
different diets, environments, etc.
Now keep in mind, the loss of function or
the reduction of function or certain features
is not a problem for creationists, we believe
since the fall things have been degrading
“Hip bones”
in whales
is another
popular
example
These bones are different in males and
females and turn out to be part of the
reproductive system
You need these bones to help get baby
whales, which makes them far from useless
The revised the definition of vestigial from
the original “without function” to something
that has reduced function from it’s supposed
evolutionary ancestor
Flightless birds would be an example
Their wings still have many uses (cooling
being a large one) but it’s reduced from the
original which could fly
Goose bumps are another example
Many evolutionists now acknowledge these
supposed vestigial organs have functions
“The number of organs that once were
believed to be functional in the evolutionary
past of humans but are non-functional today
has been steadily reduced as the fields of
anatomy and physiology have progressed.
Few examples of vestigial organs in humans
are now offered, and the ones that are have
been shown by more recent research to be
completely functional” – Dr. Bergman
Junk DNA (Pseudogenes)
It was thought for a long time that sections
of DNA were junk because they did not code
for the production of proteins
The idea was this was left over from our
evolution, sections of DNA we don’t use now
This whole notion has been turned upside
down in recent years, not just by creationists
but by evolutionists
Dr. Daniel Criswell (Ph.D. in Molecular
Biology): “It is not necessary to assume that
pseudogenes are remnants of once
functioning genes that have been lost and
now clutter the genome like junk in a
rubbish heap. It is possible that these
regions of DNA do have a role in human and
animal genomes and this role has not been
discovered yet.”
It seems whenever we examine “junk DNA”
in detail we find a function, it’s not useless
Missing Links
Many have heard of supposed discoveries of
missing links proving evolution
We will look at some broader missing links in
the evolutionary tree, and then focus on
human “missing links” that are popular
Understand that many of these “missing
links” in evolution can easily be seen as
extinct species since the creation, so while
they use them as evidence for evolution,
they’re not evidence against creation usually
Dinosaur to Bird link
According to evolution
birds evolved from
dinosaurs millions of
years ago
Archaeopteryx is the
most common cited
intermediate fossil
from dinosaur to bird
Archaeopteryx is not a single fossil, but a
group of fossils that are similar
The most well preserved of these eleven
fossils is the Thermopolis specimen, which is
pictured above
According to Alan Feduccia (an Evolutionist),
Professor Emeritus at the University of North
Carolina and a world authority on fossil birds:
“Paleontologists have tried to
turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound,
feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a
perching bird. And no amount of
‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
We would hold he same view, this is a bird
that went extinct, that’s all
Now we must admit that while it has the
developed characteristics of a bird, and is
therefore classified that way without
problem, there are also features of reptiles
like a long tail and teeth (although other
species of birds have had teeth)
There is no question that this bird would be
unique, sharing some characteristics with
other organisms, but we see that already
today with bats and duckbill platypus
The ‘dating’ of Archaeopteryx by
evolutionists’ own methods puts it millions
of years after the creatures it supposed to be
ancestor to! As Feduccia likes to say, “You
can’t be older than your grandfather.”
Dr. James Jensen of Brigham Young
University. The article also quotes Prof. John
Ostrom of Yale: ‘… we must now look for
the ancestors of flying birds in a period of
time much older than that in which
archaeopteryx lived.’
There are also no fossil links between
Archaeopteryx and birds or dinosaurs, the
fossil stands alone in the gap
Tiktaalik roseae
This newer fossil is supposed
to provide evidence for the
link between fish and land
vertebrates in evolution
This fossil is “Evidence” that fish came out of
water and began walking on land
Here are the arguments
for it being intermediate
(and not just a fish as we
would see it)
1. The bony gill cover has disappeared (which
they say means less water movement)
2. The skull has a longer snout which is seen
as evidence for snatching instead of sucking
This is nothing unique to Tiktaalik, aquatic
only fish have these still today
The big claim is the evolving ability to walk
It is true that Tiktaalik bone structures were
a little different than most fish, with an
increase in endochondral bone (found in
tetrapods) and a decrease in dermal bone
(which is found in fish bones)
They claim other bones (cleithrum ) are
detached from the skull and resemble the
position of the scapula (shoulder blades)
of a tetrapod
Is this evidence that he walked on land?
Or was evolving into a tetrapod?
It’s been shown that Tiktaalik could not walk
on land because of his bone structure
“Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small,
but they’re not even attached to the axial
skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t
bear weight on land.” Dr. David Menton
As Dr. Menton points out, Tiktaalik is no
exception to this rule
There is a bigger (more recent) problem
Footprints were found in
Poland that greatly resemble
those of large lizards
Thousands of fossil tracks
have been found though,
why is this impressive?
These tracks are dated (not by creationists) to
397 million years ago… which is 18 million
years older than Tiktaalik
Here was the reaction from evolutionists
“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of
limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the
whole thing.” Palaeontologist Jenifer Clack,
University of Cambridge
“These results force us to reconsider our
whole picture of the transition from fish to
land animals.” Palaentologist Per Ahlberg of
Uppsala University, Sweden
Tiktaalik can’t be a transition
How about missing links closer to humans?
Lucy (and australopithecines)
Lucy had an opposable thumblike big toe, shoulders and arms
that indicated she spent a lot of
time hanging in trees, and a
consistent ape-like scull. The
bone that was used to determine
that she walked upright, the
femur, was completely crushed
The skull was in horrible condition
According to Richard Leakey (Evolutionist),
Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is
‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.
Understand much of what
we are shown of these
fossils is an artists
interpretation of the bones
that were found (often
times just a few bones)
There is no reason to believe Lucy was in
between human and apes
Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy
and Human Biology at the University of
Western Australia, said: “The various
australopithecines are, indeed, more
different from both African apes and
humans in most features than these latter
are from each other. Part of the basis of this
acceptance has been the fact that even
opposing investigators have found these…
large differences as they too, used
techniques and research designs that were
less biased by prior notions as to what the
fossils might have been’.
His conclusion is that ‘The australopithecines
are unique.” (not a missing link)
Fossil Ida
This fossil was much more intact than Lucy
was, and is claimed as another example of a
missing link near humans
While it may look big it’s
the size of a raccoon
What is this creature?
Not a missing link
It strongly resembles the skeleton of a lemur
(a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). It
looks nothing like a human
It’s claimed opposable thumbs once again
show evolution to human, but lemurs
today have those
And the talus bone was described as “the
same shape as in humans,” despite the other
differences in the ankle structure
The small differences with lemurs today is
part of it’s claw and some teeth (the teeth
match closer to monkeys)
Those small differences are easily explained
with variation within a created kind, this isn’t
a problem for creationists
Neaderthals (Cave men)
Much debate has
surrounded this group of
people, even within
creationist camps you have
those who believe they are
fully human, and those who
believe they’re soulless
There are also different opinions in the
evolutionary camps as to what they are
From a Biblical perspectives, Neaderthals fit
right in with the rest of humans
They buried their dead, their brains were
bigger than ours are today, they’re genome is
very similar to modern day humans, etc.
We take the stance that the Neaderthals
lived immediately after the flood, before and
during the time of the patriarchs. The
features that are different can be account for
with long life spans (and fathers being old)
A few other ones (very quickly)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal
man) originally Neandertal reconstructions
were stooped over like an “ape-man’. We
now know that the supposedly stooped
posture was due to disease and that
Neandertal was a human
Ramapithecus – claimed to be human
ancestor, turns out to be an extinct type or
orangutan (ape)
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)- He was
based on a single tooth of a type of pig now
only living in Paraguay.
Homo erectus (Java man, Peking man) is very
much like humans today, a little smaller in
size and a smaller head, but still well within
the range of human size around the world
They’re found in strata very close to modern
day humans, and could easily be
contemporaries living after the flood
Memory Verse
Genesis 2:7: “And the LORD God formed
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living being.”