A high degree of genetic similarity (as high as 99% according to some studies) between humans and chimpanzees leads evolutionary biologists to conclude the two species share a common ancestor. However, a closer look at the genomic data presents a less certain and far more complex picture. It shows significant differences between humans’ and chimps’ gene expression and regulation—most notably in regard to brain structure.
We would expect the Creator to make use of common designs when populating the Earth with life, and yet He introduced something entirely new when He made Adam and Eve. As the only creatures “made in His image,” humans are endowed with capacities uniquely associated with spirituality. Evidences shows no indication that these capacities and behaviors emerged gradually. Instead, they seem to have appeared suddenly. RTB’s creation model accommodates the for the differences and similarities scientists see in the genomic data.
Featured Articles –
- Bible and Brains Explain Human-Chimp Similarities
- New Brain Study Spoils Evolutionary Drama
- Chromosome 2: The Best Evidence for Evolution
- Yet Another Genetic Difference between Humans and Chimpanzees
Featured Podcasts –
- The Orangutan Genome Has Been Decoded– SNF 01/28/2011
Skeptics often argue for evolution and against creation by pointing to “bad designs” in nature. They say that if an all-knowing, all-powerful creator made life, these “inferior” or even “leftover” features would not exist. However, a closer study of the frequently used examples of bad designs reveals a different picture. They typically fall into one of three categories predicted by RTB’s biblical creation model:
2. Intentional sub-optimization. In these cases, one or more aspects of the organism or system is not optimized so that the whole system or organism works properly. The 30% inefficiency in protein synthesis provides an example.
3. Decay from optimal. An initially well-designed system decays due to the operation of the laws of physics. Deviants of the universal genetic codes illustrates this process.
Any example of a so-called bad design in nature deserves deeper study to see if it fits into one of these three categories.
Featured Articles –
- New Research Highlights Elegant Design in the Inverted Retina
- Does Inflammation After Injury Traumatize the Case for Intelligent Design?
- Responding to a Skeptic
- The Appendix: Adding to the Evidence for Intelligent Design
- A Second Opinion on the Giant Panda’s Thumb
Featured Podcast –