Intelligent Design Naturalism

Nathan Lents plugs Joshua Swamidass’s book on Adam and Eve at USA Today

Spread the love
The Genealogical Adam and Eve

Readers may remember anti-ID duo Nathan Lents and Joshua Swamidass and here they back again, this time with a book:

The scriptural challenge is that Adam and Eve are purported to be the ancestors of everyone “to all the ends of the earth,” by the year 1 BCE. But we know with as much certainty as scientifically possible that our species does not descend from a single couple and instead has its origin in Africa around 300,000 years ago. We have evolved through a long line of ancestry that connects with all other living things going back nearly 4 billion years.

So there’s that.

And yet, in his upcoming book, “The Genealogical Adam & Eve,” Swamidass makes an audacious claim: A de novo-created Adam and Eve could very well be universal human ancestors who lived in the Middle East in the last 6,000-10,000 years. This is not the first attempt to reconcile the Garden of Eden story with science, but rarely does someone with Swamidass’ credentials do what most scientists would deem unthinkable: Take the story seriously. However, some atheist scientists are taking Swamidass seriously.

Nathan H. Lents, “Upcoming book leaves scientific possibility for existence of ‘Adam and Eve’” at USA Today

Actually, it would make way more sense to take Adam and Eve seriously than to take the multiverse seriously, as many atheists do. Everyone is familiar with the type of human behavior Adam and Eve are said to have engaged in. No one knows what a universe that literally makes no sense would be like.

Note: The book is due December 10, 2019.

See also: Nathan Lents: Nathan Lents is still wrong about sinuses but is still writing about them (A neurosurgeon tries to help him understand the anatomy.)

and

Biologist Wayne Rossiter on Joshua Swamidass’ claim that entropy = information

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Nathan Lents plugs Joshua Swamidass’s book on Adam and Eve at USA Today

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    “Doesn’t descend from a single couple but evolved in Africa” doesn’t work.

    If evolution happened, it must have happened to a LOT of primates in MANY places at the same time and in the same way. This is perfectly impossible by random processes. It’s like a jackpot with quintillion-to-one odds being won by a million people at the same time. Probability REQUIRES a single individual to be the first of the type, at each stage of evolution. In turn each of these single new-types must survive and reproduce vastly better than their “lower” competitors, which is also wildly impossible because the new type will be genetically mismatched with the old versions, and unpopular with the old versions.

    SImultaneous creation of a fairly large and genetically similar population is the only rational possibility. This rules out one Adam and one Eve. But a later tribe of descendants, who kept an oral tradition and wrote it down as scripture, would look back at one couple as THEIR origin. That’s how inheritance works.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this comment from the USA today article:

    Scientists, even religious ones, rarely spend time analyzing religious creation myths. After all, when taken literally, these stories are usually in direct conflict with what we know about Earth’s natural history. When faith requires people to cling to those myths anyway, science is cast aside. One would be hard-pressed to think of a scriptural story more at odds with physical evidence than the Garden of Eden.

    Hmmm, at least that is what atheistic professors try to tell you at secular universities with their false revisionist history of the ‘warfare thesis’.

    The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science – February 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes:
    The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes.
    No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men:
    Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and
    John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York.
    http://www.thegospelcoalition......d-science/

    The Importance of the Warfare Thesis – Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics – July 26, 2015
    Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought.
    Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,,
    Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.
    Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....logos.html

    James K. A. Smith on The Territories of Science and Religion – July 2015
    Excerpt: There is no perennial conflict between “science” and “religion” because the phenomena didn’t exist to war with one another before the 17th century. But they do exist now, and if there is a conflict between them (now) it’s because “science” — the myth-making “science” invoked by “ideological atheists” — isn’t content to describe the territory; it’s after your heart. Thus Harrison closes by suggesting these “skirmishes” are less conflicts between science and religion and more like “theological controversies waged by means of science.”
    https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/a-therapeutic-cartography

    And yet, much contrary to the false ‘warfare thesis’ that is constantly promulgated by atheistic professors at secular universities, far from science being antagonistic to Christianity, modern science in fact finds its origins in Christianity,

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,,
    Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    And indeed science, if naturalism and/or materialism were actually true, would wind up in catastrophic epistemological failure: (As I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    As well, very much contrary to the false ‘warfare thesis’ of atheists, which holds that the advance of modern science has undermined Christianity, the fact of the matter is that the advance of modern science has confirmed basic tenets of Christianity and has, by the same token, undermined basic tenets of Atheist Naturalism and/or materialism:

    The materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of science evidence we will find.
    These contradictory predictions, and the evidence found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either materialism or Theism is true.

    Here are a few comparisons:

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

    Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-many-earth-like-planets-are-there/#comment-682424
    Specifically, allowing the Agent causality of God (and of humans) ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/once-more-from-the-top-on-mechanism/#comment-684331

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  3. 3
    vmahuna says:

    As I’ve mentioned SEVERAL times before, if you accept that homo sapiens were Designed, then any LOGICAL conclusion would agree that the first production batch must have included 1 female and 1 male. This would, among other things, allow the folks in charge of Production to product test fertilization through intercourse and successful gestation and birth using the new human female body parts.
    There would remain the question of how the brand new humans get fed and socialized and encouraged to mate. So I’m guessing the Production guys MUST have acted as parents and teachers for the Newbies. And this would of course have had to include spending more than 10 YEARS showing “Eve” how to be a Mom and convince Adam NOT to simply KILL Junior and eat him for lunch.
    The only practical alternative is to assume that The Designer produced perhaps 10 pairs (you want a “pack” of around 20 individuals to operate self-sufficiently) of adults and let ’em have at it. But of course the guys wouldn’t know how to find food and tell dirty jokes around the campfire. And the girls wouldn’t have ANY idea how you actually RAISED a baby human.
    As I’ve mentioned before, watch the authoritative documentary “The Blue Lagoon”.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    The scientific evidence for a historical Adam and Eve is far stronger than Joshua Swamidass’s somewhat reluctant admittance:

    Here is a recap of what brought Swamidass into the discussion and eventually led to his conclusion for a (possible) historical Adam and Eve

    Is There a First Human Couple in Our Past? New Evidence and Arguments
    Ann Gauger – March 5, 2018
    Excerpt: Dennis Venema is associate professor at Trinity Western University. His book Adam and the Genome is under active discussion here and over at BioLogos. The central question implied in the title of that book is: does our genome rule out Adam? Could humanity have had its origin in a first pair, or did it have to come from a population of at least several thousand?
    This question has been addressed by numerous scientists in the past, ever since human genetic data began to roll in. And all of them, as far as I know, have said that yes, our genome rules out Adam. We are the product of common descent. We are descended from an ape-like population of at least several thousand. This we have heard before.
    Now here’s where it gets interesting. There has been a debate going on over at BioLogos for a number of months that was triggered by Venema’s book. The debate is about whether there could have been a bottleneck of two at some time in the human past. This discussion was started when Richard Buggs, Senior Research Leader (Plant Health) at Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and Reader in Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary, University of London, challenged Dennis Venema about what Venema wrote in Adam and the Genome.,,,
    Then two new scientists entered the debate with Venema and Buggs. Remarkably, neither is an ID advocate, both affirm evolutionary theory, and both came to similar conclusions by different routes. A population geneticist named Dr. Steve Schaffner of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ran a simulation to determine whether a bottleneck of two individuals was possible. He found that, at dates older than 500,000 years ago, a bottleneck could not be ruled out. His analysis of allele frequencies could not distinguish between allele frequencies obtained after a bottleneck of two and those from current genetic data. Dr. Joshua Swamidass, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology and Immunology at Washington University in St. Louis, estimated the time to the most recent four alleles in the genome. An allele is a version of a gene. We all carry two copies of each gene (setting sex chromosomes aside), so a bottleneck of two individuals would have a maximum of four alleles per gene. His analysis likewise showed that the most recent time at which a bottleneck of two individuals, or four alleles, could have occurred was about 500,000 years ago. Both researchers used experimentally validated mutation rates in their models, and the precise details are worth looking at closely.
    This is a big deal. The original claim that we had to come from a population of thousands is wrong, because there are dates past which we cannot tell if there was a bottleneck of two. The work of Schaffner and Swamidass has opened up the possibility of a first pair. It cannot be ruled out between about 500,000 years ago and 7 million years ago, when we supposedly split from chimps.,,,
    To sum up, it’s very simple.
    A bottleneck of two that is older than 500,000 years ago cannot be ruled out. That does not mean such a bottleneck ever existed, but rather that the possibility cannot be excluded. Future models may change that number of 500,000 years, up or down.
    This is based on an analysis of the genetic data run by Drs. Schaffner and Swamidass, themselves evolutionary biologists and not ID supporters.
    In addition, the bottleneck hypothesis stood up to a test using TSP (trans-species polymorphism). The test showed TSP was due to convergent evolution. This was a surprise to Dr. Swamidass.
    A bottleneck of two, or a first pair at our origin older than 500,000 years, is possible.
    Evolutionary biologists, including Dennis Venema, can no longer say we had to come from a population of 10,000 at any time over the last 3 million years.
    This whole debate has come as a surprise to many.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/is-there-a-first-human-couple-in-our-past-new-evidence-and-arguments/

    As has been said, your model in science is only as good as your assumptions. And here are some of the questionable, even false, assumptions that went into Venema’s original model that Drs. Schaffner and Swamidass analyzed,

    Adam and the Genome — Review and Conclusion – March 27, 2018
    Excerpt:
    Claim 2: There exists a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and apes.
    Claim 3: There exist large-scale genomic similarities between human and ape genomes (known as “synteny”).
    Claim 4: There exist shared “nonfunctional” pseudogenes between humans and chimps and other organisms.
    Claim 5: The high degree of human genetic diversity refutes Adam and Eve as the initial parents of humanity.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/adam-and-the-genome-review-and-conclusion/

    Although each of those claims are problematic for Darwinists, I will focus on the second claim in particular, i.e. “There exists a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and apes.” That claim, at least how Darwinists intend it, is false. While there is a ‘high degree of genetic similarity’, the genetic similarity is nowhere close to the 98.5% figure that pop-science media constantly claims that it is. Both Drs, Richard Buggs and Jeffrey Tomkins have found, from the best data currently available, a genetic similarity figure of about 85%:

    How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes?
    – Richard Buggs – 14th July 2018
    Excerpt: To come up with the most accurate current assessment that I could of the similarity of the human and chimpanzee genome, I downloaded from the UCSC genomics website the latest alignments (made using the LASTZ software) between the human and chimpanzee genome assemblies, hg38 and pantro6. See discussion post #35 for details. This gave the following for the human genome:
    4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly
    5.18% was in CNVs relative to chimp
    1.12% differed due to SNPs in the one-to-one best aligned regions
    0.28% differed due to indels within the one-to-one best aligned regions
    The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.
    http://richardbuggs.com/index......e-genomes/

    New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research
    – JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
    Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1
    First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1
    Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold.
    They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome:
    The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3
    This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years.
    Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings.
    Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”?4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible.
    http://www.icr.org/article/new.....t-research

    To further drive this point home, Dolphins, Kangaroos, frogs, etc.. etc… although being very different morphologically from humans, are found to have very similar DNA sequences.

    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2
    5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”,,,
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

    Dolphin DNA very close to human, – 2010
    Excerpt: They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the water.,,,
    “The extent of the genetic similarity came as a real surprise to us,” ,,,
    “Dolphins are marine mammals that swim in the ocean and it was astonishing to learn that we had more in common with the dolphin than with land mammals,” says geneticist Horst Hameister.,,,
    “We started looking at these and it became very obvious to us that every human chromosome had a corollary chromosome in the dolphin,” Busbee said. “We’ve found that the dolphin genome and the human genome basically are the same. It’s just that there’s a few chromosomal rearrangements that have changed the way the genetic material is put together.”
    http://www.reefrelieffounders......-to-human/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans – 2008
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007
    Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
    The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.....m-dna.html

    Frogs and humans are kissing cousins – 2010
    Excerpt: What’s the difference between a frog, a chicken, a mouse and a human? Not as much as you’d think, according to an analysis of the first sequenced amphibian genome.
    The genome of the western clawed frog, Xenopus tropicalis, has now been analysed by an international consortium of scientists from 24 institutions, and joins a list of sequenced model organisms including the mouse, zebrafish, nematode and fruit fly. What’s most surprising, researchers say, is how closely the amphibian’s genome resembles that of the mouse and the human, with large swathes of frog DNA on several chromosomes having genes arranged in the same order as in these mammals. The results of the analysis are published in Science this week1.
    “There are megabases of sequence where gene order has changed very little,,,”
    http://www.nature.com/news/201.....0.211.html

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, this widespread genetic similarity between very dissimilar looking creatures has thrown a monkey wrench into the entire Darwinian line of thinking. As is pointed out in the following article, “Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.”

    Between Sapientia and Scientia — Michael Aeschliman’s Profound Interpretation
    James Le Fanu – September 9, 2019
    Excerpt: The ability to spell out the full sequence of genes should reveal, it was reasonable to assume, the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of the millions of species, so readily distinguishable one from the other. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover precisely the reverse to be the case. Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.
    So we have moved in the very recent past from supposing we might know the principles of genetic inheritance to recognizing we have no realistic conception of what they might be. As Phillip Gell, professor of genetics at the University of Birmingham, observed, “This gap in our knowledge is not merely unbridged, but in principle unbridgeable and our ignorance will remain ineluctable.”8
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/between-sapientia-and-scientia-michael-aeschlimans-profound-interpretation/

    As was touched upon in the preceding article, even if DNA were as similar between humans and apes, as Darwinists have falsely portrayed it to be in popular media, the basic ‘form’ that any organism may take simply is not reducible to DNA as was originally presupposed in the central dogma of evolution.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, shows that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876

    Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution – podcast – April 15, 2016
    On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2016/04/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/

    In fact, this failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to account for the basic body plan, and/or form, of any particular organism occurs at a much lower level than DNA itself, (even much lower than any other biological molecule that Darwinists may wish to invoke).

    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    And indeed, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand biological life in the first place:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video (how consciousness, quantum information theory, and molecular biology correlate – 27 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1634

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Where differences are greatest between chimps and humans, (and between all other creatures), are not in genetic sequence comparisons but are instead found in genomic architectures and in alternative splicing patterns.

    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

    “Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
    Raymond Bohlin – Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video – 27:29 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/vo3OKSGeFRQ?t=1649

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to alternative splicing patterns, as the following paper states, “A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    In fact ., due to alternative slicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”

    Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016
    In Brief
    Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).
    http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/.....M_2016.pdf

    Moreover, to make this even more devatating to Darwinists, alternative splicing patterns are part of the developmental Gene Regulatoy Network (dGRN). And yet dGRNs, as Stephen Meyer pointed out in his book “Darwin’s Doubt” are simply devastating to Darwinian presuppositions:

    Developmental gene regulatory networks—an insurmountable impediment to evolution – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins and Jerry Bergman – August 2018
    Excerpt: As Davidson has documented, a dGRN that regulates body-plan development “is very impervious to change” and usually leads to “catastrophic loss of the body part or loss of viability altogether”.12 This observable consequence virtually always occurs if even one dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Because most of these changes are always “catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected … there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species can develop in only one way.”12
    In his book, Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer noted that “Davidson’s work highlights a profound contradiction between the neo-Darwinian account of how new animal body plans are built and one of the most basic principles of engineering—the principle of constraints.”26
    As a result, “the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole”.26 Because this system of gene regulation controls animal-body-plan development in such an exquisitely integrated fashion, any significant alterations in its gene regulatory networks inevitably damage or destroy the developing animal. This now-proven fact creates critical problems for the evolution of new animal body plans and the new dGRNs necessary to produce them, preventing gradual evolution via mutation and selection from a pre-existing body plan and set of dGRNs.
    Developmental biologists openly recognize these clear problems for the standard evolutionary synthesis. The problem as elaborated by Davidson, noted that neo-Darwinian evolution erroneously assumes that all microevolutionary processes equate to macroevolutionary mechanisms, thus producing the false conclusion that the “evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan”.12 Typical evolutionary research programs involve studying genetic variation within a species or genus involving inter-fertile natural populations or populations from controlled crosses. From a developmental systems biology perspective, the genes or regulatory features involved in such variability lie at the peripheral nodes and do not explain novel body plans associated with macroevolution. Davidson notes that the standard evolutionary synthesis “erroneously assumes that change in protein-coding sequence is the basic cause of change in [the] developmental program; and it [also] erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body-plan morphology occurs by a continuous process”.12 Davidson also aptly notes that “these assumptions are basically counterfactual” because the “neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history”.12 Neo-Darwinism in any form does not provide a mechanistic means of changing the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan. Alternating the peripheral differentiation process associated with observable variability is an entirely different scenario from building a new form of animal life by changing the fundamental structure of a resilient dGRN.,,,
    Summary
    At the very core of the validity of models for macroevolution is how organisms develop. Any form of Darwinian evolution requires that new developmental adaptations arise via random mutations that somehow provide a novel advantageous selectable trait. Decades of developmental genetics research in a wide variety of organisms has documented in detail the fact that once an embryo begins to develop along a certain trajectory, mutations in top and mid-level transcription factor genes in the hierarchy model of regulation described by Davidson cause fatal catastrophe in the program. This mutation-intolerant obstacle poses a complete barrier for the modern Darwinian synthesis, the neutral model, and saltational evolution.
    Another important aspect of the developmental genetics paradigm is the paradox of conserved protein sequence among top-level transcription factors combined with their intolerance of mutation. It is quite a quandary for the evolutionist—extreme conservation of sequence would seem to support common descent yet lack of mutability negates the fundamental requirement of evolutionary change. An Intelligent Design model, however, would predict that common code serving a general common purpose would be found among unrelated engineered systems that were the work of the same Creator—exactly as we find in man-made systems.
    https://creation.com/developmental-gene-regulatory-networks

    Of further note, dGRN’s are not deterministic, as would be presupposed within the Darwinian framework, but are instead found to be ‘context dependent’:

    Rethinking gene regulatory networks in light of alternative splicing, intrinsically disordered protein domains, and post-translational modifications – 2016
    Abstract
    Models for genetic regulation and cell fate specification characteristically assume that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are essentially deterministic and exhibit multiple stable states specifying alternative, but pre-figured cell fates. Mounting evidence shows, however, that most eukaryotic precursor RNAs undergo alternative splicing (AS) and that the majority of transcription factors contain intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) domains whose functionalities are context dependent as well as subject to post-translational modification (PTM). Consequently, many transcription factors do not have fixed cis-acting regulatory targets, and developmental determination by GRNs alone is untenable.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4341551/

    Thus in conclusion, Darwinists simply have made many false assumptions in their faulty model, (a faulty model which, none-the-less, they still admitted pointed to a historical Adam and Eve). Erroneous assumptions in their model that simply do not line up with current empirical observations.

    I think that Stephen Meyer, in the following interview, gives a much more accurate assessment of the current state of empirical evidence than what Darwinists have erroneously presupposed in their faulty model:

    An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer
    TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve?
    SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,
    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/.....-conflict/

    Verse:

    Mark 10:6
    “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Leave a Reply