A report titled “Here’s looking at you, chimp” was published in the 24 December, 2005, issue of New Scientist magazine. The report carried details regarding the studies to decipher the chimpanzee genome. New Scientist, which has adopted as a dogma the scenario of humans and chimpanzees separating from a common ancestor 6 million years ago, suggested that comparative analyses of the genomes of these two life forms would illuminate the details of the fictitious evolutionary process.
A report titled “Here’s looking at you, chimp” was published in the 24 December, 2005, issue of New Scientist magazine. The report carried details regarding the studies to decipher the chimpanzee genome. New Scientist, which has adopted as a dogma the scenario of humans and chimpanzees separating from a common ancestor 6 million years ago, suggested that comparative analyses of the genomes of these two life forms would illuminate the details of the fictitious evolutionary process.
However, the idea that humans and chimpanzees separated from a common ancestor is a myth maintained solely as a result of blind devotion to the theory of evolution. The supposedly scientific statements issued in support of this myth consist of prejudiced interpretations based on various similarities between the two, and a very widely dispersed and insufficient fossil record.
The fossils ascribed to the human evolution scenario are few in number and widely scattered. John Reader, author of the book Missing Links, has stated in an article in New Scientist that the fossils on which this speculation is based are so few as to barely fill a billiard table:
The entire [so-called] hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal—ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. (John Reader, "Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?", New Scientist, vol. 89, no: 12446, 26 March 1981, p. 802)
The fossil record for chimpanzees, which evolutionists suggest are man’s nearest living relatives, is completely lacking. Henry Gee, editor of the world famous science magazine Nature, sets out this fact in these terms:
Moreover, it remains the case that although hominid [human’s so-called evolutionary ancestors] fossils are famously rare, the chimpanzee lineage has no fossil record whatsoever. (Henry Gee, Palaeontology: Return to the planet of the apes, Nature, 12 July 2001, 412, pp. 131-132)
As we have seen, the scenario of human evolution that New Scientist attempts to portray as a fact is not supported by any scientific evidence. A small number of fossils are depicted as the supposed forerunners of man, though these actually belong to specific species and are far from being transitional forms.
Because of that same blind belief, New Scientist equates the latest chimpanzee genome research with the theory of evolution and claims that the findings made will illuminate that illusory evolution. This is really very interesting, because the genome research in question has revealed totally opposite results showing that the genetic differences between human beings and chimpanzees are far greater than had previously been estimated.
Researchers comparing the chimpanzee and human genomes concluded that there was a 4% difference between them. They state that the 1.2% difference previously suggested by evolutionists is incorrect. For example, an article published in the Nature magazine news service and containing comments by Evan Eichler from the University of Washington School of Medicine offered the following statements:
For a start, humans and chimps are not quite the close cousins we thought. Crude past comparisons of our DNA showed that our sequences were between 98.5% and 99% identical. That is indeed the case when considering single-letter differences in the DNA code, of which there are 35 million, adding up to about 1.2% of the total sequence. But there are other differences, Eichler says. The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species, he reports in a separate analysis. These regions add another 2.7% of difference to the tally. "So the 1.2% figure is woefully inaccurate," says Eichler [Emphasis added]. (Michael Hopkin, "Chimpanzee joins the genome club", news@nature.com, 31 August 2005, online at: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-9.html)
Conclusion:
We invite New Scientist magazine to review its support for the scenario of human evolution in the light of the scientific findings and hope that it will see that this is an unscientific myth supported for reasons of dogma. Human beings and chimpanzees did not emerge as the result of a chance process, but were flawlessly created by God commanding them to “Be!”
NOTE: You can read a comprehensive article of ours on the subject of the genome research referred to by New Scientist here.
