Evolutionists have doubled their date of the chimp-human split from 7 million to 13 million years ago. How, and why?
National Geographic announces gleefully, with a picture of a chimp playing with a child, “Ancient Human-Chimp Link Pushed Back Millions of Years.” Based on a study of chimp genes in Science Magazine, the claim adds another problem, just in time for Father’s Day: the researchers claim that males contribute 90% of random mutations to the next generation (Gee thanks, Dad).
One might think that doubling the age of the split would cause problems for evolutionary dating, but evolutionists are clever. They found a way to make both dates true:
On the surface, this and other recent studies contradict the general consensus suggested by the fossil record: that the last common ancestor of the two species, a flat-footed ape, lived some seven million years ago.
But both observations could still be true, said paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved in the new study. The ape-like common ancestor species might have endured until 7 to 10 million years ago, long after the genetic split between chimps and humans, he said.
The new estimate is based on current mutation rates in the sample, but a lead author confessed, “We also don’t know if mutation rates varied widely in the ancient past; maybe they were different than now.” So this is a tentative reassessment, based on chimpanzee genes from only two males, two females, and their offspring covering 3 generations (9 individuals total). There’s plenty of wiggle room left, therefore, if they look at a bigger sample, or the genes of other primates. Chimpanzees are notoriously promiscuous. The older the male, the more mutations, too. Varying mutation rates “could also change estimates of the age of an ancestral genetic split between men and chimps.”
Despite these weaknesses of the study, Charles Q. Choi at Live Science, as usual, regurgitated the claims without any skepticism or hard questions.
The games evolutionists play can quite accurately be called monkeyshines (n., frivolous or mischievous pranks; monkey business). This is not unflattering, because in their own view, they themselves are really just glorified monkeys. Time to remember Darwin’s horrid doubt: “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy,” he wrote a friend in July 1881. “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Ten months later, he died and found out.