The Tune Changes on Human-Chimp differences

 I guess all of us have heard those arguing for a strictly naturalistic origin for humans say something about how similar chimps are to humans genetically. It is assumed to be some of the strongest evidence out there for common descent. 

But did you know that while they were confidently assuring us of this, on the QT they were investigating just how it could be that humans are so very different from chimps in the places where we are different? They didn't understand how we could change that much by natural means in the time they think it happened.So they did a study to try and find out what could be causing this problem that they otherwise confidently assured people didn't exist. (A problem which creationists have pointed out in other contexts, see this not perfect but still peer-reviewed study on "Hominid Evolution Rate Problem"). 

Imagine that cars evolved through natural means and not intelligent design. They see a Model T, and then a Model A and they figure that the latter evolved from the former because they are 98% or more similar. But then they notice one of the places the Model A is different is that it has a computer-controlled fuel ignition system using a microchip developed in 2020. In other words, within that two percent where they are different, they are VERY different. Unnervingly so. 

That is a fair analogy for what scientists call "Human-Accelerated Regions" or "HARS".  Hars are areas that changed too fast for scientists to feel comfortable about. Especially since in many cases they stayed conserved in mammals for ages, then all of a sudden you get to us and they get changed a vast amount in an evolutionary blink of the eye.

So they went about searching for reasons to explain why these areas were changing faster than evolution would normally work. Mind you, this was at the same time the village atheist was mocking you for believing in a Divine Origin for humanity on the basis that chimps and humans were so alike genetically that it was "obvious" that we evolved from a common ancestor, and that by natural means. 

Since they think they found an answer, they are now willing to fess up and admit there was a problem with what, up until this moment, they assured us was undoubtedly true. They noticed that many of these HARS regions contained genes that acted in opposition to one another. That is, one would turn some trait up, maybe too high, so another region would turn it way down. So it was a balancing act. That's the story anyway. 

Personally, I don't see how a need for rapid change to balance something produces the capability of rapid change. For it to be naturalistic evolution (instead of at the least God intervening in evolution), no matter how badly a change was needed, nature can only do so much in a given amount of time. Nor is it clear why this would regularly be in the form of an opposite-number gene ALSO being turned up instead of the original gene that got turned up too much acquiring another mutation that turned it down some. 

What I suspect is that as they keep learning about how these genes work they are going to find that in some stages of human development we need these genes activated and turned way up and at other times we need them tamped down. IOW, both the stronger "on" switch and the stronger damper switch are needed. That would imply that the balancing act is even more intricate than they thought- highlighting that humans are unique and in what makes us human we are very different from even our supposed "closest living relatives". 

Scripture tells us how Adam and Eve were formed. It gives details of the Divine Acts which produced them. I believe that scripture teaches there were also people outside the garden, and as a figure of Christ, Adam was the stand-in for them before God. Scripture says less (but not nothing) about them and their origins, but does say they are the result of a Divine Act of some kind. Maybe it was something very similar to what happened with Adam and Eve, or maybe it was some kind of creationism where God used a lot of evolution but had His finger on the scale when it mattered. 

Which is it? I don't know, and I don't much care. I just know that naturalism is a bad explanation for humanity on many levels and gives too many people a false sense of security that they don't need to believe what the bible says about the Lordship of Christ and their own need for repentance and forgiveness leading to life and peace. Therefore, I must oppose it. Fortunately, science is finally learning enough to become my ally in the case against philosophical naturalism, it is just that many don't know it yet (in part because they don't want to know it). 

***UPDATE***

I tried to engage some pro secularists in the field on this and true to the bromide of Upton Sinclair, they refused to understand anything I was saying. One did a calculation where he said that the rate of change for human enhancer genes (based on one sample he gave related to limb development, not cognitive function) only mutated four times faster than the rate for any neutral section of the genome. That is, the differences between humans and chimps was 13 while the 'expected' number according to him was between 3 and 4. See graphic below though...click on image for larger view...

It shows this region has only three differences between chicken and chimp! More between dog and chimp but the bottom line is that is is highly conserved over 150 million years or even more of evolutionary time- yet it has 13 changes fixed in the six million years they say was between chimps and humans. And this is just ONE of the "Human Accelerated Regions" There are over 2,000 such regions. 

He tipped over the chessboard and changed the subject to how ignorant I must be when I pointed out that he was comparing apples to oranges. The expected amount of change in a region of the genome that is highly conserved in all land vertebrates should not be compared to the mutation rate in the average neutral region. It should be very much lower because conserved regions by definition resist change. 

I suggested the true magnitude of the odds against this change be calculated thusly...

. What I THINK should be done to figure whether these HARS are sending a significant signal that something beyond chance was at work would be to ...

1) tally up the differences for each animal tested from chimp, then compare it with the time difference since the purported MRCA of each group, then doubling this number (for the same reason the number should be halved going the other way)

2) Turn these differences into 6 million year segments, IOW, how many mutations get fixed in six million years on average? My guess would be the number would be far less than 1.

3) Will have to do the same procedure to enough HARS genes to get a sample for the group. Maybe 40 if there are 500-1000 such genes?

4) Figure out the number of standard deviations that the average HARS has in terms of changes vs. the average of all other groups PER six million years. If they are all like this, the value would be 13 for humans and maybe 0.01 for everything else.

5) Once you have figured out how many standard deviations from average the observed effect is for a single HAR, you would then turn that into an "odds" and multiply it by the number of HARS.

I don't need to look that data up and run those numbers (a difficult task for me if I could do it at all)  to know that it will show this to be a very very remote occurrence. Though I do wish someone who is in the business and has a fair and open mind about it either would, or describe exactly why what I am proposing isn't the right way to get the answer. 

***************

What I really care about is the theology. here is my 400+ page tome on early Genesis. If you want to know about the Christ-centered model of early Genesis, this is the place to go....

     You Tube Channel