Michael Cremo - Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory

Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, p. 11) claimed to have used molecular methods (DNA hybridization) to reconstruct the phylogeny of chimps, gorillas, and humans. They said the genetic evidence showed that first chimps diverged from gorillas, and then humans diverged from chimps. But Marks (1994, p. 65) pointed out: “The conclusion here was derived by 1) moving correlated points into a regression line and recalculating their values; 2) substituting controls across experiments; and 3) making precise alterations on the basis of a variable that was not actually measured.” To put it more plainly, the study by Sibley and Ahlquist was flawed by artificial manipulation of the experimental data. Marks (1994, p. 66) noted: “That these manipulations are not part of the general canon of scientific protocols, however, is not complemented by the fact that they were not mentioned in the original reports, and were discovered serendipitously by others. . . . These revelations stood to make the researchers themselves look less than honest and to make public advocates of the work look less than wise.”

The study of Sibley and Ahlquist was flawed not only by these technical lapses, but also by the incorrectness of the study’s fundamental

80 Human Devolution: a vedic alternative to Darwin’s theory

assumptions. According to Marks (1994, p. 69), these assumptions were (1) that humans came from either chimps or gorillas by a two-step process (i.e. chimps from gorillas, then humans from chimps; or gorillas from chimps, and then humans from gorillas) and (2) that this process is “discernible with genetic data and theory as they currently exist.” Marks (1994, p. 69) explained, “These assumptions are pernicious because . . . they misrepresent the literature. In the first place, it must be appreciated that we do not know there were in fact two sequential divergences, and not a single trifurcation.” That is to say, it is quite possible that humans, chimps, and gorillas all came from an unknown common ancestor. The evidence might even be seen as consistent with creation of all three by God in nearly their present forms.

Evolutionists have for many years said that the DNA of humans and chimps is 97% identical. They have claimed that this proves an evolutionary connection between the two species. There are several things wrong with this kind of reasoning. First, of all, the claimed 97% identity was derived from crude DNA hybridization techniques (Sibley and Alhquist 1987). Researchers broke human DNA into little parts in test tubes and then observed how much of it recombined with pieces of chimp DNA. Three percent did not recombine. But no one really knows how similar humans and chimps really are on the actual genetic level. The human genome has only recently been sequenced. This sequencing merely gives the order of the roughly 3 billion nucleotide bases in the DNA molecules that make up the human genome. It is like having the sequence of letters that makes up a book in a foreign language. To read the book, you have to break the sequence of letters into words and sentences and understand their meaning. This has not happened yet with DNA. According to current understanding, ninety-seven percent of the bases in the human genome do not make up genes. They are called junk DNA. Sorting out the sequences that represent actual genes instead of junk DNA could take decades. The chimp genome has not even been sequenced, and it is not likely to be sequenced for years to come. So at the present moment there is no real basis for making any truly scientific comparison between the human genome and the chimp genome. We cannot at this point say, “Here are all the chimp genes, and here all are the human genes,” and talk about how similar or different they really are in total.

We should also keep in mind that genes only specify what amino acids should be strung together to form protein molecules (or other polypeptides). In other words, the genes simply generate the molecular raw materials for the construction of bodies and body functions. It should not be surprising that the bodies of humans and chimpanzees are composed of roughly the same molecular ingredients. We exist in the same kinds of environments, and eat basically the same kinds of foods. So the similarity of genes and molecular ingredients does not rule out design. Designers of different kinds of automobiles make use of basically the same ingredients. In fact, the real problem is not the ingredients—the real problem is the arrangement of those ingredients into complex forms that work together to form a functioning machine. At a factory, the raw materials may arrive, in the form of steel, glass, rubber, plastic, etc. But the factory workers also need to shape and arrange those raw materials into an automobile. Similarly, genes may specify the formation of molecular raw materials, but it has not been shown that the genes specify exactly how those molecular raw materials are organized into the bodies of chimps or humans. Unless this can be shown, in some exact way, it is not unreasonable to attribute the similarity of chimp and human DNA, as well as the complex bodily forms of chimps and humans, to intelligent design.

The most recent research, as of the time of this writing, suggests that the human and chimpanzee genomes differ by as little as 1.5 percent (Travis 2000a). “What does that number mean? No one can say at the moment,” writes John Travis in Science news (2000a, p. 236). With so little difference, it is hard to explain many things—such as why the human brain is twice the size of the chimpanzee brain (Travis 2000a, p. 237). So the similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA is actually seen by many evolutionists as a significant problem that needs to be explained. Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University, says, “Most of us find it hard to believe we differ by only 1.5 percent from an ape. It’s absolutely critical that we know what that 1.5 percent is doing” (Travis 2000a, p.

237). It appears that something more than DNA is necessary to put together the complex structures that define different species. That “something” more is arguably intelligent design.

Some scientists point out that the human chromosome 2 appears to be a combination of the chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. They take this as evidence for evolution. But the fact that chromosomes may have been combined does not tell us how they were combined. It may have been part of an intelligently designed system for producing different bodily forms by systematic manipulation of the chromosomes. Other scientists point to the existence of “pseudogenes” as evidence for evolution. Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that appear like genes, but do not function as genes. For example, the human DNA has a stretch of DNA that appears like a gene that in other animals produces vitamin C. But in humans it is not active. But the fact that a gene may have been deactivated does not tell us how it was deactivated. It could have been by the action of an intelligent designer.

African eve

Some scientists claim that genetic evidence shows all living humans can trace their ancestry to a female who lived in Africa about

200,000 years ago. Her descendants then spread throughout the world, replacing whatever hominids existed there, without interbreeding with them. The hominids they replaced would have been Neandertals or Neandertal-like descendants of Homo erectus , who supposedly left Africa in a previous wave of emigration between one and two million years ago.

Evidence from mitochondrial Dna

The above scenario is called the African Eve hypothesis, or the out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis. It was first announced in the

1980s by researchers such as Cann, Stoneking, and Vigilant, among others. Their conclusions were based on studies of mitochondrial DNA. Most of the DNA in human cells is found in the nucleus. This nuclear DNA is a combination of DNA from the mother and father. The sex cells of males and females contain half the DNA found in each parent. Thus when the father’s sperm combines with the mother’s egg, the fertilized egg of the offspring contains a full complement of DNA, different from that of either the father or the mother, in the nucleus. But the mother’s egg cell also contains small round compartments (outside the nucleus) called mitochondria, which are involved in the cellular energy production process.