Reading time: ~4 min read
It is very easy to misinterpret the enormous size of the human genome. The reason why human beings have 25 times more DNA than a fly is not because human beings are larger and more complex. There is no correlation in biological terms between the amount of genetic information and complexity. The single-celled organism Paramecium caudatum, , for instance, has 8.6 billion nucleotides, which is more than twice as many as the human genome. With 670 billion nucleotides, the single-celled Amoeba dubia possesses the broadest known amount of genetic information.119
Scientists working on the Human Genome Project state that they are still only beginning to understand the functions of genes and the relationships among them, because the emerging results were by no means what they had expected. For example, even a mouse or a stalk of wheat has longer DNA than human beings. This again shows that there is no direct correlation between DNA length and an organism's complexity. The biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner refers to this:
The chromosomes of some organisms may have much more DNA than are in the chromosomes of others. You might then think the amount of DNA in the genome is a better way to measure organ complexity, but that's not entirely correct either. Although humans have 30 times the DNA of some insects, there are insects that have more than double the DNA in humans. The amount of DNA is not a reliable measure of complexity because not all the DNA may have to do with complexity. . . .120
It also emerged that previous estimates of the number of human genes were also incorrect. When their research began, scientists estimated that human beings had between 50,000 and 140,000 genes, but the latest studies established only between 25,000 and 30,000. This came as a considerable surprise to scientific circles. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, explains:
Humans have more genes than expected. My definition of a gene here-- because different people use different terminology--is a stretch of DNA that codes for a particular protein. There are probably stretches of DNA that code for RNAs that do not go on to make proteins. That understanding is only now beginning to emerge and may be fairly complicated. But the standard definition of "a segment of DNA that codes for a protein" gives one a surprisingly small number of about 30,000 for the number of human genes. Considering that we have been talking about 100,000 genes for the last fifteen years (that's what most of the textbooks still say), this was a bit of a shock. In fact, some people took it quite personally. I think they were particularly distressed because the gene count for some other simpler organisms had been previously determined. After all, a roundworm has 19,000 genes, and mustard weed has 25,000 genes, and we only have 30,000? Does that seem fair? Even worse, when they de-coded the genome of the rice [plant], it looks as if rice has about 55,000 genes. . . . What does that mean? Surely, an alien coming from outer space looking at a human being and looking at a rice plant would say the human being is biologically more complex. I don't think there's much doubt about that. So gene count must not be the whole story. So what is going on? 121
The difficulty here stems from Darwinist scientists constructing their claims on the assumption that humans are the most complex life form, for which reason they should have a greater number of genes. Since the human cell was a great deal more complex, it was expected to have a greater number of genes compared to the 6,000 in a yeast cell, 13,000 in the fruit fly, 18,000 in one species of worm and 26,000 in a plant species. However, the Human Genome Project invalidated the dogmatic logic that the more complex an organism, the larger its DNA and the number of its genes.
Neither gene numbers nor DNA size shows evidence of evolution, though evolutionists are trying to distort this latest development, which really does work against them, and to depict it as proof of their theory! Due to both a lack of information and their prejudiced attitude, some media organizations also imagine that the Human Genome Project is uncovering proof of evolution, or else they seek to give that impression. Yet all the genetic findings obtained from the project have closed the doors field in Darwinism's face, as has happened in other branches of science.