EVIDENCE FOR HUMAN-CHIMP COMMON ANCESTRY (By Request)

[TB2]

And you've let it be known creation scientist aren't experts.

Your continued misrepresentation of what I say is not good for your credibility. I gave you the names of at least half a dozen reputable YECs who publish in peer reviewed science journals (like Ken Coulson, Kurt Wise, Paul Buchheim, and others). Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

 

[CrowCross]

Your continued misrepresentation of what I say is not good for your credibility. I gave you the names of at least half a dozen reputable YECs who publish in peer reviewed science journals (like Ken Coulson, Kurt Wise, Paul Buchheim, and others). Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

You left out how you demonized the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

 

[TB2]

You left out how you demonized the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Did I demonize them?

Demomize = " to portray as wicked and threatening."

No, I did not portray the CRSQ as wicked or threatening or evil

But once again you have misrepresented my words

 

[donadams]

Are chimps created in the image and likeness of God?

Having intellect and will?

And an immortal soul?

Thanks

 

[TB2]

Are chimps created in the image and likeness of God?

Having intellect and will?

And an immortal soul?

Thanks

Not according to Scripture. Although I'm not sure that's what that means (intellect, will, immortal soul). The created in God's likeness is more a statement that we (humans) are God's viceroys, God's representatives of Himself. The interesting thing there is that in ancient times royalty, kings, pharaohs, etc were often said to be created in the image of the gods. Genesis revolutionizes this and says it applies not just to royalty but to all humans alike. (But yes, that is only humans, not non-humans)

 

[Mikeuk]

I was asked to explain some of the evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. There is quite a bit, but I will limit this to just two examples. In presenting this evidence, one should know I grew up YEC and rejected human-chimp ancestry for over thirty years. But the evidence kept accumulating to the point it became undeniable (or, at least it can't be reasonably denied). I still believe in the Bible's divine inspiration, and still believe the Fall was a real event, and Adam and Eve were real historical people. How this can be reconciled with Genesis is a matter of ongoing debate among believers. Some say it can't be reconciled. Others like John H. Walton in The Lost World of Adam & Eve, and William Lane Craig's recent book on the historical Adam have make attempts to reconcile science with the biblical account. Although, not everyone will find their 'answers' satisfying, we should still seek reconcilliation. Rejecting the Bible is not an option. But we also no longer have reasonable grounds to reject science. So, reconciliation attempts should be sought. My own 'answer' is perhaps less an 'answer' and more a refocus on what's important: I don't see how reconciliation (one way or the other) matters for the message. Reconciled, not reconciled. It still doesn't change the message. I know this is less than satisfying, but maybe that's part of the problem. We are trying to impose our own modern day questions and concerns on the Bible and trying to get the Bible to answer, when the Bible doesn't seem interested in doing so. And that might be the 'answer' we seek (or at least need to hear) that we need to focus more on what seems to be Scripture's priorities.

Example 1: Evidence for Human-Chimp Common Ancestry from Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)

Summary of Facts:

1. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the remnants of viral genetic material that get randomly inserted into our DNA as a result of viral infections, and subsequently get inherited (passed down to offspring). All vertebrates have ERVs in their genomes. [Analogy: Imagine you purchased an ebook from Amazon and downloaded it to your phone. Also, imagine that there are millions of different 'computer viruses' (different ERVs) floating around in cyberspace that can 'infect' your ebook by inserting a different word in a random location in your ebook.]

2. In humans, there are >100,000 such places in our genome where genetic material from these ERVs has been randomly inserted. [Analogy: Imagine that your ebook has been 'infected' by >100,000 different words that have been randomly inserted in >100,000 different random places in your ebook.]

3. Over 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are also found in the chimpanzee genome in the same, corresponding locations. [Analogy: Imagine that a friend of yours has a copy of the same ebook. You expect your friend's ebook to be 'infected' too, but with different viruses (remember, there are millions of different viruses floating around in cyberspace). But when you compare ebooks, you are shocked to discover that your friend's ebook has not only been infected with the exact same >100,000 different words, but they are also in the same >100,000 different places as they are in your own copy of the ebook].

4. The chance that any ONE same ERV would just so happen to coincidentally be inserted in the same location of the genome in both humans and chimps is ~1 chance in 10,000. The chance that this would happen twice is 10,000 x 10,000 = 1 chance in 100 million. The chance that it would happen 100,000 times by luck is 1 chance in 10,000^100,000 (the number 10,000 raised to the 100,000th power) which is such an astronomically improbable number that it would be a miraculous occurrence on par with a functional RNA self-replicator spontaneously forming by chance abiogenesis. (If we reject the latter on the basis of probability, then to not reject the former is special pleading).

Which is the more likely (more reasonable) explanation?: (1) that your ebook and your friend's ebook just so happened all by luck to independetly acquire all the exact same >100,000 different words in the same >100,000 different places (INDEPENDENT ANCESTRY); OR, (2) that your friend got his/her ebook from Amazon, too, just like you did, and the original ebook from Amazon that you both downloaded already had these >100,000 different words in the >100,000 different places (COMMON ANCESTRY)?

Possible Objection: But couldn't God independently create them separately "according to a common design"? Not in this case, because this is not original genetic material. These ERVs are viral genetic material from secondary viral infections that infected genomes after the fact (after creation).

It's Worse Than This: In fact, the evidence goes beyond this. ERVs are found in the genomes of all vertebrates, and as with humans and chimps can similarly be used to demonstrate common ancestry and shared evolutionary history for not just humans and chimps, but other primates, and vertebrates as well.

Here is a website that explains this in greater detail with helpful diagrams: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/11/

Whilst I havent studied ERVs , now I see what you say I might!

I see a weakness in the argument.
Back in the days I wrote lots of analytical software ( my background is maths, physics modelling, optimization adaptive etc etc)

As the intelligent designer I did the easy thing. I copied chunks of it from one place to another For similar function , different application. Sometimes I constructed formal libraries, sometimes reworking.

The irritating thing of course is bugs. And they are very hard to remove!
Lots of comments got copied from one app to another, redundant in some variations . The multiple apps shared common defects, even though they had no common ancestor . All were intelligent designed. , it was better to think of them as unusual combinations of bricks, the designer toolkit in which bricks had defects. Some apps had more inherited defects than others.

So the fact of many similar defects didn’t prove the software had a single common ancestor it didn’t . It proved a common toolkit, It doesn’t disprove common origin, but it certainly weakens the argument ,

If you like defects , one for you : researchers of the holy cloths, Eucharistic miracles , etc discovered in the linceul ( tunic)
A genetic defect FMF most common in non Ashkenazi jews , other maternal haplogroups discivered have been primarily holy land.

 

[TB2]

Whilst I havent studied ERVs , now I see what you say I might!

I see a weakness in the argument.
Back in the days I wrote lots of analytical software ( my background is maths, physics modelling, optimization adaptive etc etc)

As the intelligent designer I did the easy thing. I copied chunks of it from one place to another For similar function , different application. Sometimes I constructed formal libraries, sometimes reworking.

The irritating thing of course is bugs. And they are very hard to remove!
Lots of comments got copied from one app to another, redundant in some variations . The multiple apps shared common defects, even though they had no common ancestor . All were intelligent designed. , it was better to think of them as unusual combinations of bricks, the designer toolkit in which bricks had defects. Some apps had more inherited defects than others.

So the fact of many similar defects didn’t prove the software had a single common ancestor it didn’t . It proved a common toolkit, It doesn’t disprove common origin, but it certainly weakens the argument ,

If you like defects , one for you : researchers of the holy cloths, Eucharistic miracles , etc discovered in the linceul ( tunic)
A genetic defect FMF most common in non Ashkenazi jews , other maternal haplogroups discivered have been primarily holy land.

Thank you for your comments! Yes, in the case of ERVs we know they are secondary genetic material acquired after the fact and not original

 

[Mikeuk]

Thank you for your comments! Yes, in the case of ERVs we know they are secondary genetic material acquired after the fact and not original

My other half is a molecular biologist, director of a biotech lab. You have expertise in common.

 

[TB2]

My other half is a molecular biologist, director of a biotech lab. You have expertise in common.

Wow! You are diverse. Very impressive