While rummaging through their magic bag of explanatory tricks, Darwinists have added yet another faux pas to their toolkit. It is not enough to erroneously define evolution to be a change of allele frequency in a gene pool from one generation to the next. But, now, what would commonly be identified as Intelligent Design also qualifies as evolution. Allow me to explain.
In many ways, Creationism is the diametric opposite to evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution requires all life to ascend via common descent from one solitary unicellular organism to the complexity and diversity of life. In contrast, Creationism holds just the opposite; that perfect models of all the basic forms of life were originally furnished from the very beginning. The latter view sees all life to be not on an ascending journey upward to greater complexity, but on a downward descending spiraling tailspin towards degeneration.
Several science magazines reported on this story entitled, “Missing DNA Helps Make Us Human,” which appeared in Science Daily. The same story was under different titles directly referencing an organ of the male anatomy, Live Science, and National Geographic as well as other publications and blogs. New Scientist reporter Andy Coghlan describes the study:
“The key changes are not in bits of DNA that humans acquired as they evolved – extra genes that we have but chimps and other animals do not – but in chunks of DNA that we lost. What’s more, the chunks in question are not even genes at all, but sequences of DNA that lie in between genes and act as switches, orchestrating when and where specific genes are turned on and off through the course of an animal’s development.”
Zoe Corbyn wrote for Nature News, “The approach differs from that in most studies … in looking at what has been deleted from the human genome rather than what is present.” This is another instance yet again where Darwinists hijack an ID Theory hypothesis by improperly claiming that their results were due to evolution when their research actually validated ID Theory.
When Darwinists conjured up this latest counterintuitive reasoning, which surfaced recently in Nature, I was not particularly pleased to see biologists observe a loss of information in their research, and improperly credit their results to evolution. When comparing the human genome to lower primates in this study, researchers identified 510 genetic regions that were present in chimpanzees but missing in humans. How about that! Missing information. This validates what anti-Darwinists have been pleading to be recognized for 150 years. Even the cofounder of evolutionary theory who co-discovered natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, held that intelligence is required to supplement natural processes.
Of those 510 genetic regions that were present in chimpanzees but missing in humans, only two of them have been tested so far for function. The original paper states, “Deletions of tissue-specific enhancers may thus accompany both loss and gain traits in the human lineage, and provide specific examples of the kinds of regulatory alterations.”
As David Kingsley (Stanford), a co-author of the study, puts it, “We think losing highly specific enhancer regions is one of the mechanisms that has contributed to the evolution of human traits” (New Scientist).
There are a couple examples highlighted in the story of genetic losses. One involves the structural design of the male sexual anatomy. In National Geographic, Rhonda Snook, a specialist in reproductive biology, said, “theories linking simpler genitalia to monogamy are still tenuous.” Another genetic loss involves the brain. The researchers believe that lower primates have a gene sequence that specific limits brain size such that upon the deletion of this factor leads to the expansion of the human brain.
Intelligent Design (ID) theory abandons philosophical contemplations by performing the science and actively doing the research. ID Theory studies the subject of complexity and design as a matter of information, and researches how genetic information enters the genome of a population. One of the leaders in this field of study called bioinformatics is William Dembski, who has published numerous research papers on this subject.
In either case, whether Creationism or ID Theory, the fundamental understanding and hypothesis is that variations within species and speciation appear to be a loss of genetic information, not a gain. ID Theory holds that the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and mutations only account for losses in genetic information, and never for any increase of information in the genome of a population. Discovery Institute fellow, Stephen Meyer, discusses one particular interesting conjecture along these lines in a YouTube video here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiNgGQQkhJw.
Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and the man who coined the term, “irreducible complexity,” points out that all of the known mechanisms have limited utility to make new cellular structures:
“Nothing – neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization, self-engineering, nor any other process as yet undiscovered – was of much use”
Creationists have been claiming for scores of years that mutations are a loss of information, and that nearly all mutations weaken organisms as opposed to strengthening them.
Clearly, anti-Darwinists for the entire 150 years since Darwin’s Origin of Species have claimed that evolution is more of a case of losing information than a gain of information. Both Creationists and ID proponents alike predicted this. As such, it is an outrageous claim by this research group to credit evolution for a non-evolution event that was predicted by those who support ID.
 McLean, Reno, Bejarano, Kingsley et al, “Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits,” Nature 471 (10 March 2011), pp. 216–219, doi:10.1038/nature09774, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7337/full/nature09774.html
 Behe, Michael. Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli. 6 June 2008. 1 3 2010 <http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O.
 http://www.icr.org/article/mutation-study-contradicts-evolution/; http://www.icr.org/article/creation-mutation-variation/; http://creation.com/does-the-acquisition-of-antibiotic-and-pesticide-resistance-provide-evidence-for-evolution