Genetic Mutation: Problems in Eden, Part 1

A fundamental assumption of evolutionary theory is that genetic changes have occurred in one species that have led to the formation of new species. For instance, one might argue as an evolutionist that a group of chimpanzees once existed among whom some genetic mutations occurred that gave rise to early humans. How defensible is such an argument? Many would argue, on the basis of shared genes, that such a scenario is quite plausible. Well, what is the possibility, we might ask?

In the on-line National Geographic News article (August 31, 2005 )"Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds," Stefan Lovgren reported that "Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. . . To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24. . . A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats."

Seemingly, based on genetic evidence, chimps and humans should be considered as part of the same family, right? Wrong! But, you argue, science shows we are close genetically. Our DNA is almost the same. The difference is only a mere 4 percent. Are we so different?

Let’s consider a few points. First of all, the idea that our genetic closeness proves anything is a false argument. Chimps are quadri-pedal knuckle walkers, have no vocal chords, do not have opposable thumbs, and are covered in thick body hair. Humans are bi-pedal, can speak, have opposable thumbs, and none of us have full body hair.

So, what is the big deal? Give a chimp a PC and see what happens. Or, better yet, give him a flat-head and a phillips screwdriver and tell him to take the cover off the PC. He wouldn’t understand the instructions; he’d not be able to figure out which screwdriver to use; and, he’d have a hard time manipulating the screwdriver if he were lucky enough to match the right one to the screws.

The lack of fine motor skills and language and speech capability underscore the problem for genetic mutation theorists. To over-simplify, mother chimp had a baby one day. She and a long line of mama chimps had grown frustrated in getting junior to behave. The frustration ultimately produced a mutation, and low and behold, a chimp was born with vocal chords (A firm "Stop that!" is so much better than an angry grunt.).

The problem with the simplification above is that if such a development had occurred, a host of other changes would have been required in order to make the modification work. For instance, do not vocal chords require a different kind of lung action and breathing technique, lip and tongue coordination, and psychological predispositions than grunting chimps commonly use? So, one change requires many others to occur simultaneously in order for the change to be meaningful.

Let’s say, though, that junior chimp (Now chimpman who is a humanzee.), did have those vocal chords. Who would teach him language? Specific languages are not genetic, but learned. The physical and psychological skills required for language are inborn, but language itself must be taught by someone who has mastered that language already. Parents teach children to speak; other babies cannot. So, what use are vocal chords if you have no language? Why speak when grunting gets the job done?

We might also raise the question as to what would have happened to a chimp who was born with vocal chords. Not only would his parents have been unable to teach him language, he would not have grunted any longer in the same manner as old mama chimp. Almost from the outset, he would have been a social outcast. Looks to me like a genetic disaster.

What if chimpman had been born bi-pedal in addition to or instead of having vocal chords? As soon as he walked on his hind legs, he would appear to his chimp family as a freak. Chimps can walk on their hind legs, but doing so is not "natural." Chimps are predisposed to walking on all four limbs, using their knuckles to cushion their hands as they walk. Humans can take only a few steps on "four-feet," but using their knuckles in the process is impossible. Our hands are not designed for walking. As with speaking, walking upright would mark junior as a social outcast.

What does junior do with himself, being all alone? Well, if he’s lucky, all throughout chimp-dom, genetic mutations would be occurring exactly the same as his. A lot of them would have to happen, because being genetically different, he’d probably be unable to breed with other chimps, no longer being a chimp, but a humazee. In trying to find a mate, would he use romantic talk? And, who would listen? Most likely, being able to walk and talk would turn off the really pretty chimp chicks. If he could mate, though, his vocal chord or bi-pedal gene would be recessive, and that would be the end of the line, so to speak.

Thus, the problems mount for chimpman.