Since we’re here anyway:
Adam Was the First Human and Genesis 1-11 is Not Mythical
In one of the most confusing articles I’ve read, William Lane Craig—an esteemed Christian philosopher—tells us that Adam is both historical and figurative (or metaphorical)…
Craig: When we turn to the New Testament, we find the figure of Adam widely deployed, most importantly by Paul. Many scholars have attempted to distinguish between the literary Adam and the historical Adam. The literary Adam is a character in a story, specifically the stories of Genesis 2–3. The historical Adam is the person, if such there be, who actually existed—the actual individual whom the stories are allegedly about.
Commentary: There is no such distinction in the New Testament. Every time the “figure of Adam” is “deployed” by NT authors, they are referring to the historical Adam. If you use this admittedly simple reading key, you will save yourself a great deal of confusion and the real possibility of one day investing in one of those “Faith Deconstruction Seminars” that former evangelical personalities now offer for the low, low price of $299.
Owen Strachan, “A Response to William Lane Craig on the Historical Adam” at Substack (September 22, 2021)
If William Lane Craig’s Quest of the Historical Adam. succeeded, would he recognize Adam? Hmm.
You may also wish to read: Kenneth Kemp’s review of William Lane Craig’s book on Adam and Eve. Kemp: An evolved body might be both functional as a mere animal body and capable of receiving the rational soul that would make it human.
If WLC is confused, then the rest of us are truly lost. What of this obsession to “prove” Adam and Eve were real people by stretching genealogy, genetics, anthropology and history to the breaking point? Trying to explain how Methuselah managed to live 969 years? Why not simply accept the creation myth for what it is and move on? The origin of all religion is myth and storytelling.
William Lane Craig, and apparently a lot of other smart’ people, give far more credence to the human evolution narrative that is put forth by Darwinists than is scientifically warranted and/or justified.
I covered several of these fatal scientific weaknesses within the Darwinian narrative for human evolution earlier,
Since I covered these other fatal scientific weaknesses within the Darwinian narrative for human evolution earlier, today I would like to focus in on the failure of the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS (Random Mutation/Natural Selection) to account for the origin of even a single novel protein from a preexisting protein, and also the failure of the Darwinian mechanism to account for the plethora of new protein/protein binding sites, (and/or protein ‘interaction profiles’), that would have been required to explain the origin of the human form.
Doug Axe, (as well as Dan Tawfik). have shown that the origination of a truly novel protein or fold, (from a preexisting protein or fold), as “something like close to a miracle.”
As should be needless to say, and as Ann Gauger bluntly stated, “If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,”
And that is just the insurmountable difficulty that the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS encounters for generating, (and/or ‘evolving’), just a single novel protein from a preexisting protein.
In answering the question of how hard it would be for the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS to account for novel proteins actually interacting with other proteins, Michael Behe has, via empirical evidence, found that “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
And as Michael further explains in the following article, ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans).”
And keep in mind that this is just one novel 10^20 protein/protein binding site that is leaving the Darwinian mechanism dead in the water.
Yet in order to explain the origin of humanity, the Darwinian Mechanism would have to account for far, far, more than just one novel protein/.protein binding site being generated.
First off it is important to note that “alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”
And it is also important to note that, “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.,,, and that “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”,,,
Thus since alternative splicing and post-translational modification leads “to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides” existing in humans that are not present in chimpanzees, (and all these ‘million distinct’ proteins would obviously have to interact with each other in new and meaningful ways), yet the Darwinian mechanism requires 10^20 trials to find even one novel protein/protein binding site, then that, obviously, leaves the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS as being grossly inadequate as to ‘scientifically’ explaining how humans originated.
Verses:
Of supplemental note as the ‘distinctness’ of the human genome:
Chuck, do you enjoy repeating yourself?
Have you ever considered you may have an obsession?
Belfast @4
You seem to be obsessed about my obsessions…….. 🙂