Page 717 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Harun Yahya

Other comparisons on the molecular level produce other examples of inconsistency which render evolu-
tionist views meaningless. When the protein strands of various living things are analysed in a laboratory, re-
sults emerge which are totally unexpected from the evolutionists' point of view, and some of which are
utterly astounding. For example, the cytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from that in a
horse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to

man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake. When this situation is viewed from the evolutionist point of
view, a meaningless result will emerge, such as that turtles are more closely related to man than they are to
snakes.
For instance, chickens and sea snakes differ by 17 amino acids in 100 codons and horses and sharks by
16, which is a greater difference than that between dogs and worm flies, which belong to different phyla
even, and which differ by only 15 amino acids.

Similar facts have been discovered with respect to hemoglobin. The hemoglobin protein found in human
beings differs from that found in lemurs by 20 amino acids, but from that in pigs by only 14. The situation is
more or less the same for other proteins. 258
This being the case, evolutionists should arrive at the conclusion that, in evolutionary terms, man is
more closely related to the kangaroo than to the horse, or to the pig than to the lemur. But these results con-

flict with all the "evolutionary family tree" plans that have so far been accepted. Protein similarities continue
to produce astounding surprises. For example:

Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein sequence data for
tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as
closest relatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative… 259

Again, when these similarities are approached from the point of view of evolutionist logic, they lead us
to the ridiculous conclusion that man's closest evolutionary relative is the chicken. Paul Erbrich stresses the
fact that molecular analyses produce results that show very different groups of living thing to be closely re-
lated in this way:

Proteins with nearly the same structure and function (homologous proteins) are found in increasing numbers in
phylogenetically different, even very distinct taxa (e.g.,hemoglobins in vertebrates, in some invertebrates, and
even in certain plants). 260

Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemical researcher from the University of South Carolina's Faculty of
Medicine, is a scientist who spent years trying to find evidence for evolution in the molecular field. He first
tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living things by carrying out studies on proteins such
as insulin and relaxin. But Schwabe has several times been forced to admit that he has not been able to come
by any evidence for evolution in his studies. He says the following in an article in Science:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolution-

ary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many ex-
ceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact that
I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message. 261

Schwabe's studies on relaxins produced rather interesting results:

Against this background of high variability between relaxins from purportedly closely related species, the relax-
ins of pig and whale are all but identical. The molecules derived from rats, guinea-pigs, man and pigs are as dis-
tant from each other (approximately 55%) as all are from the elasmobranch's relaxin. ...Insulin, however, brings
man and pig phylogenetically closer together than chimpanzee and man. 262

Schwabe was faced by the same realities when he compared the arrangements of other proteins besides
insulin and relaxin. Schwabe has this to say about these other proteins that constitute exceptions to the or-
derly molecular development proposed by evolutionists:

The relaxin and insulin families do not stand alone as exceptions to the orderly interpretation of molecular evo-
lution in conventional monophyletic terms. It is instructive to look at additional examples of purportedly anom-

Adnan Oktar 715