>Glenn wrote "we are related to the apes". I want to caution you about
>seeming so absolute about relative data (science) and so relative about
>absolute truth (Bible). From a scientific perspective, none of us were
>there and we only have "snap shots" of a dynamic situation. What links
>those "snap shots" (fossils) together is our philosophy, not science.
>Though you speak as though you want to harmonize Scripture with Science,
>it appears that Science holds the absolute, supreme hand. Instead of
>harmonizing science with Scripture, it appears you are harmonizing
>Scripture with Science, as though Science is your God. I want to
>encourage you that our God was THERE and He has told us His account
>of what happened.
>Dave Netzly
>Hope College
First off, I would like to say that I am not "relative about absolute
truth (Bible). While I am an evolutionist, I have found a way to have
happen exactly what the Bible says. And I don't have to ignore any
scientific data either. Have you not been watching here while I have been
busy defending a scenario that precisely matches the brief description we
have of the Flood? I defended the validity of the two genealogies in
Matthew and Luke. I think it is very important that the events of the
Bible actually happened. I am an evolutionary "literalist". If that is
being "relative" then you and I have a different definition of "relative".
Let me lay out the scientific problem which forces me to the position that
we are related to the apes and then show how to solve it while retaining
ALL the details of the Scriptural account of man's creation.
Anti-evolutionists are fond of using two arguments. The first is the
argument against evolution because it is too unlikely to have occurred.
The second is the design argument. The universe looks designed; life
looks designed.
THE CHANCE ARGUMENT FOR EVOLUTION
Lets us say that I send you and four of your friends into separate rooms
to type a copy of Gibbon's _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_. I give
you one set of special instructions. Somewhere during your typing ( a
character chosen by the throw of dice) you are to stop typing, close the
book and choose (by the role of a die again) one page. Then choose (by
chance again) a paragraph.
After choosing this paragraph by chance you are to type this paragraph
into your copy of the Decline and Fall, removing all of the spaces. This
of course renders Gibbon's prose in that paragraph jibberish. Having
finished this nonsense you are to continue typing from where you left off
to the end of the manuscript
Having done that, what are the chances that all 4 of you in those separate
rooms will choose to insert the same paragraph(spaces removed) into the
very same spot in all 4 manuscripts. If that happened, I would say y'all
cheated! Or I would say that the 4 manuscripts were COPIED, meaning one
original and 3 copies.
This is exactly what has happened with the processed pseudogenes in man,
gorilla, chimp and gibbon. In the DNA a working gene has the components
connected as follows:
control-coding-noncoding-coding-noncoding-coding
When this gene is copied into RNA so that it can be translated into a
protein, the control is removed, the noncoding parts removed, the coding
parts connected and a tail put on it. It looks like:
coding-coding-coding-tail
Occasionally the gene in this processed state is re-converted to DNA and
re-inserted back into the cellular DNA at some RANDOM location. In the
new state, the gene is useless, broken. The instructions in the control
segment are lost.
Now we all agree that designers don't design (intentionally) objects that
don't work. GM does not pay Bill Hamilton to design suspension systems
that amplify the road bumps. Nor do they pay him to build suspensions
which are not in proper working function (i.e. a suspension connected to
the trunk lid.)
The common argument for biochemical similarity says that man and apes are
similar because of similar design. But in the case of a processed gene,
the thing we are similar in doesn't work and has no function!
The common reply is that there is a function but we don't know what it is.
But this won't work. In the Chimp pseudogene, part of the processed
pseudogene was deleted by a second error in DNA transmission. This proves
that for the chimp, no useful function was carried out by the processed
pseudogene because the chimp lives quite nicely.
Anti-evolutionist Christians who teach that evolution is totally
antithetical to Scripture are setting their students up to have to chose
between the Bible or the data of science. I had to face that choice once.
Given that there are 3.5 billion nucleotides, the chance that the same
pseudogenes would be found at the same site in 4 different species is (3.5
billion)^4 or 1 chance in 10^50. There is no way we are not related to
the apes. Q.E.D.
How do we solve this?
The other piece of information you need to solve this problem is that apes
have 48 chromosomes and man has 46. If we arose from the apes, there must
have been a chromosomal fusion (there are also other differences like
inversions of certain segments etc).
Adam was a mutation from a primate which involved a very rare mutation- a
chromosomal fusion and he may have even been still born. God took this
"dust" fixed him up and breathed life into him.
Thus Adam was created. But Adam was alone. He had not
evolved in the normal fashion and so there was no population of
creatures like him with whom he could mate. He also could not
talk. Adam's physical parent could not talk and so he could not
learn from them. God taught Adam to speak. That is what God was
doing when he brought all the animals to Adam.
In this scenario, it is not necessary for Adam to have been
created as a full grown individual. The language lessons may
have lasted years before Adam finally realized that he needed a
mate. At that time, God created Eve in the fashion described i.e. by
removing a rib.
This is the only way that I have found to be able to retain
a historical view of Genesis and still account for the biological
evidence which indicates genetic connection with the non-human
primates. While this view is somewhat different, it does not
violate anything that the Bible states. That is the basis upon
which this view shoud be judged.
I would say that I have not given science the "supreme hand". I have
remained faithful to the Scriptural account. I agree that God was there
and told us what happened, but God did not tell us HOW he did it!
If believing that God specially created Adam, brought the animals to Adam,
and fashioned Eve from a rib is considered unfaithful to Scripture, I
would then like to know what is scriptural.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm