Here’s an article from The Scientist claiming, “Humans Are Still Evolving Thanks to Microgenes.” Despite the sensational claim, no empirical evidence is provided.

The author states, “A Study sheds light on the tiny genes that have evolved in human genomes since we split from our mammalian ancestors.” The article tells us about these ‘microgenes’ (or microproteins), then insists these genes evolved in humans from an ape-like ancestor, but, in truth, there’s nothing about these genes that imply or demand an evolutionary origin.

Evolutionists certainly believe humans split off from a mammalian ancestor and are evolving new genes, but the evidence indicates otherwise. For instance, the article explains that evolutionists believe new genes evolve mainly via mutation and gene duplication, yet scientists were surprised to learn that didn’t happen; instead, the new genes were found in noncoding regions, subverting evolutionary predictions.

The author simply assumes these genes evolved in humans- as opposed to always existing. Yet the study does not demonstrate that these new genes were ever missing from the human genome.

Interestingly, while I doubt it was intentional, the author infers intelligent design, reporting that these tiny genes contain important instructions that can only be read by the cell’s “transcriptional machinery.” Only intelligent beings are capable of creating such complex machinery, not nature.

Further, the author explains that these genes play vital roles, and knocking one out will stunt the growth of the cell. This implies that these “species-specific” genes had to exist and function in the first humans, otherwise we’d have gone extinct. Therefore, this is evidence humans were created, not evolved.

Nonetheless, when the evolutionary researchers looked at these species-specific genes, they wrongly assumed, “there has to be an evolutionary route for them to originate.” However, if special creation is true, then no evolutionary route is required.

The author theorizes how these microgenes could have evolved by trial and error, but such a vague theory fails to explain how genetic instructions- crucial to our existence- could arise naturally. Evolutionists simply assume this is possible without empirical evidence.

When reading the peer review study, I found that the researchers actually admit to these flaws, including the underlying assumptions, such as reconstructing the “evolutionary origins” of microproteins and their “de novo” origin. These assumptions allowed them to claim that the genes evolved rapidly through an inevitable and mysterious process. However, if these scientists were right, then they should be able to provide observational evidence of this happening in nature, not unsubstantiated conjecture.

The researchers admitted some of their evolutionary assumptions didn’t pan out as expected, but explained them away with more assumptions- like long evolutionary times. They also admitted that the biases and limitations imposed by their evolutionary assumptions created uncertainty, and they advise caution regarding de novo microproteins. Unfortunately, none of this was printed in The Scientist.

The study concludes, “Overall, the results of this analysis provide strong support for the hypothesis that de novo emerged microproteins have a ready route to biological significance and may indeed become functional within a relatively short evolutionary time frame.” But this is simply not true. Again, if these microproteins are as crucial as we’re led to believe, then even a “relatively short evolutionary time frame” is a problem for evolutionists, as the organism would die long before it could evolve. These researchers fail to explain any of this beyond hand-waiving. Whatever function the microprotein serves, it must be in place at the very beginning to avoid extinction.

Scientific research has refuted the concept of junk-DNA, yet these researchers put forth the notion that most microproteins could be “just biological noise.” It seems to me that evolutionists haven’t learned their lesson, and I predict future research will refute this idea, and those microproteins will be functional.

While evolution is being pushed, a closer analysis of the data shows no such thing. Instead, what we see is consistent with God creating organisms to reproduce after their kind. This is what we actually observe.