APE-MAN SIMILARITY IS A TALE!
The completion of the human's gene map today does not yield the result
that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists'
attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they have
done with all others.
As we know, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope
of the Human Genome Project was a very important scientific advance. However,
some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist
publications. It is claimed that the chimpanzee genes bear a 98% similarity
to human genes and this is promoted as evidence for the claim that apes
are related to humans, thus bearing out the theory of evolution. In truth,
this is a "fake" piece of evidence put forward by evolutionists who take
advantage of the lack of knowledge about this subject in society.
98 % Similarity Claim is Misleading Propaganda
First, it should be stated that the concept of 98% similarity between
human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive.
Research in modern laboratories has revealed
that all evolutionist claims about the roots of life are nothing
but fairy stories
|
In order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee have
a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped,
just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result of
this comparison has to be obtained. However, no such result is available,
because so far, only the human gene has been mapped. No such research
has yet been done on the chimpanzee.
In reality, the 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which
now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately
invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated
generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences
of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence
analysis has been made using a method named "DNA hybridisation" on the
DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only that limited
number of proteins has been compared.
However, there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one
hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason,
there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and
ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000
proteins.
Moreover, the DNA comparison carried
out on these 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made
in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the
Journal of Molecular Evolution.19 However, another
scientist named Sarich, who examined the data obtained by these two scientists,
concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial
and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted.20
Human DNA is also Similar to that of the Worm, Mosquito
and Chicken!
Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules
present in various other living things. The structure of the same kinds
of proteins present not only in the chimpanzee, but also in completely
different living creatures, is very similar to that in humans.
A headline from a popular newspaper in
Turkey: "It is discovered that we are relatives with flies!". The
sub-heading reads: "A fruit fly, whose genetic code has been mapped,
surprised scientists. The genes of the fly are similar to those
of man's by 60%." This is an example of news stories about genetic
similarities. Stories such as this are examples of attempts to portray
the concept of genetic similarity as evidence for the theory of
evolution. However, genetic similarity is nothing of the kind.
|
For example, genetic analyses published in New Scientist
have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and
man.21 This definitely does not mean that there
is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the
family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is
included, and the Nematoda phylum were different from each other even
530 million years ago.
On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared
in the media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the
genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes
yielded a similarity of 60%.22
In another case, analyses done on certain proteins
show man as closely linked to some very different living things. In a
survey carried out by researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins
of land-dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples,
human beings and chickens were paired as the closest relatives. The next
closest relative was the crocodile.23
Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between
man and ape," is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas
versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the
number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However,
if this logic used by evolutionists were valid, then man would have an
even closer relative than the chimpanzee: "the potato"! Because the number
of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46
These examples confirm that the concept of genetic similarity does not
constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic
similarities are not in line with the alleged evolutionary schemes, and
on the contrary, yield completely opposite results.
Genetic Similarities Upset the "Evolution Scheme" that
is Sought to be Constituted
Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that
the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute evidence
for evolution, but rather leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian
Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina
University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years searching
for evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. In particular he carried
out research on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish
evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess
many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point
in his studies. In an article published in a scientific journal, he said;
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method
superior to palaeontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships.
As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting
that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined
by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the
quirks, may carry the more important message.24
Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology,
the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;
Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and
unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed
to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology…
At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced"
compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular
evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution
might never have been accepted.25
Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities
to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules,
they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods
consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore
genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence
that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common
design," that is, their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this point with an example: all construction
in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.).
This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each
other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The
same holds for living beings as well.
Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution
claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor
of infinite knowledge and wisdom.
He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How
could He have a son when He has no wife? He created all things and He
has knowledge of all things. That is God, your Lord. There is no deity
but Him, the Creator of everything. So worship Him. He is responsible
for everything. (Qur'an, 6:101-102)
Conclusion
In addition to all the information we have detailed so far, we think
it would be helpful to emphasize another fact.
Other than the superficial similarity between them, apes are no closer
to human beings than other animals. Moreover, when intelligence is used
as a point of comparison, the bee, which produces the geometrical wonder
of the honeycomb, or the spider, which produces the engineering wonder
of the web, are closer to man than the ape. We can even say that they
are superior in some aspects.
Between man and ape, however, there is a tremendous gap, never to be
closed by fairy stories. After all, an ape is an animal no different from
a horse or a dog in terms of consciousness. Man, however, is a being who
has consciousness and will, who can think, talk, reason, decide, and judge.
All these qualities are functions of the "spirit" he possesses. The most
important difference that causes this huge gap between man and other living
beings is this "spirit." No physical resemblance can close this gap between
man and other living beings. The only being that has "spirit" in nature
is man.
In the Qur'an, this superior quality which man possesses and which differentiates
him from other living things is referred to as follows:
Then He formed him and breathed His Spirit into him and
gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show! (Qur'an,
32:9)
|
