Science has published a series of articles dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the Human Genome Project. Most of the articles were devoted to how much the data obtained differed from the predictions of scientists. The discovery of the human genome did not help them understand human evolution and obtain miraculous medicines. But the project greatly upset the plans of evolutionists and showed how complex a system of information lies at the heart of the human body. Let's take an example of two scientists.
John Mattick of the University of Queensland, in a short essay for Science, talks about how "genomic principles are changing."
“The most important thing for me in the project of discovering the human genome was to show the fallacy of the opinion that the bulk of genetic information is expressed in the form of proteins.” He talks about the main dogma of genetics - the principle according to which DNA is the main regulator of heredity, translating hereditary information into proteins, which make up our body and brain. First, it was found that the number of genes is much less than expected (only 1.5% of human DNA contains genes). Most of the DNA is non-coding (previously thought to be genetic junk). It is this DNA that forms the RNA that regulates gene expression, especially during development.
The histone code and other discoveries were "jolts" after the main blow that fundamentally undermined the main dogma of genetics. Mattic noted:
In another Science journal essay, Maynard Olson (Washington State University, Seattle) asks the question, "What does a 'normal' human genome look like?"
Olson did not want to touch on the old controversies about nature, he just wanted to admit that, despite the discovery of the human genome, these controversies still exist. Instead, he asks what factors are of little importance in human genetic variation. One of these minor factors, in his opinion (which would clearly surprise Darwin), is "balancing selection is an evolutionary process that promotes genetic diversity, rather than fixing one 'best' variety." Olson continues, "Balancing selection plays little role outside of the immune system."
Other minor factors are the types of variability we most often see in humans: "Local adaptation, which is responsible for variability in traits such as pigmentation, diet and susceptibility to certain pathogens, is also a minor factor."
The main factor is another opportunity for Darwinists to wonder:
Promotional video:
Do you understand what this is about? These are all phenomenal confessions made in a secular scientific journal. Mattick showed how much evolutionary genetics was wrong. Scientists expected to uncover the secret of our humanity in DNA - the master regulator, polished by evolution, that made us who we are. Instead, they were surprised to find complexity in the vast array of regulatory sequences over genes (epigenetic), including codes over codes.
They now see the need for "conceptual education in biology." This means that the biology that existed before the discovery of the human genome was unenlightened. Citing McClintock's predictive questions, Mattick asserts the invalidity of the philosophy of biology that reigned in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Olson's revelations are shocking and kind of pleasantly surprised to those who believe that it is the Bible, not Darwin, that tells us where man came from. Olson essentially said that Darwinists should shut up because the factors they relied on in their interpretation of human complexity are actually insignificant. He also noted that most mutations have harmful, bad, destructive and regressive effects on each individual person.
The fatal blow was his declaration that there seems to be a "platonic ideal" of the human make-up, to which we all do not correspond. This clearly does not fit the Darwinian scenario of human evolutionary origin; rather, it is an origin, accompanied by a descending change, from the original ideal state. Biblical creationists can loudly say Amen! - after all, since the time of Adam's sin, we have all fallen short of the ideal!
The Apostle Paul, speaking of Adam, said that the first man was a man of an ideal constitution, after whose sin everything began to deteriorate terribly: “Therefore, as one man entered the world, and death through sin, so death passed into all men, because in him all have sinned. For even before the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. However, death reigned from Adam to Moses and over those who did not sin, like the transgression of Adam, who is the image of the future (that is, the Platonic ideal in real human flesh."
But to give us hope, Paul continues to speak of the good news about the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who, having solved the problem of sin through death and resurrection, became the founder of the race of those who become righteous and inherit eternal life:
Of course, Mattic and Olson probably did not intend to agree with the Bible in their revelations about the human genome, but everything they said is fully consistent with Scripture, and vice versa, is not consistent with Darwinian teaching. Their expectations were not met; their philosophy has not stood the test. The Bible was right from the start! If you do not correspond to the ideal of Adam, Jesus Christ (not Darwin and not Plato) provides a way so that we can return to the ideal that the Creator intended for us. It is a gift given to us through faith and received because of what the Lord Jesus Christ has done for us. Paul, a former persecutor of Christians, who was transformed after meeting the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus, tells us today: “… in the name of Christ, we ask: be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5: 14-21).