Adam, Eve, and human population genetics: addressing critics—Poythress, chimpanzees, and DNA identity (Part 1) | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
23

John,

We must read different scholars, but that is not the point. I am not advocating

[quote=“johnZ, post:22, topic:445”]
the idea that anyone can interpret anything in whatever way they choose
[/quote] but, I am saying that we should use all possible sources of assistance, including the best science available, in our work of interpretation. As for my rationale for interpreting the early chapters of Genesis as poetry - what is the alternative? Interpreting them as a factual narrative? That raises problems too numerous to discuss here. Your girlfriend example is cute but does not apply to our case. How could God have imparted factual knowledge to a pre-scientific people who knew nothing of geology, astrophysics, genetics or any other aspect of modern biology? He could only have done that by using the authors of Genesis as “human typewriters”, compelling them to write down words that couldn’t possibly have any meaning for them, for people around them, or for believers for centuries to come. Would the God we worship really do that?

It seems to me we are rapidly approaching an impasse in our discussion - I simply don’t share your foundational commitment to a literalist reading of Genesis. I don’t believe such a reading is required in order to be a faithful reader of the Scriptures, and, based on my 30-year experience as a biology professor at a Christian university, it does more harm than good by presenting young Christians with unresolvable dichotomies. The Catholic Church ended up with egg on her face after the Galileo affair, and, as Giberson and Collins have pointed out, Evangelicals are making the same mistake with regard to evolutionary biology. Let’s learn from the past!

24

I certainly see the issues. The problem was that what was originally being called junk DNA has (much of it) now being discovered not to be junk DNA. To exclude indels which can significantly impact protein synthesis is simply not valid. If indels have a negative effect on gene function then they are significant. If they are weeded out, then they will no longer be measureable either, and thus not relevant, but until they are non-existant, they are still there.

Your example of the sentence comparison is a good illustration of what you mean, but it is somewhat selective.

The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% identical.
The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% non identical.
The gene sequences for human are over 96% identical.
The gene sequences and for human and chimp are 96% identical human .

In a short logical sentence it is easy to try to decipher some sense out of a poorly written sentence. But in a genome that is specifically designed to program proteins and overall structure and physiological functions, the misplacement of a base pair, or the insertion/deletion, will usually cause dramatic changes in function/physiology/structure. That is why there are so many correction mechanisms for improper placement of basepairs or single bases. To imply that these indels are not significant is inappropriate, it seems to me.

It also occurred to me that as I recall reading somewhere, about 25% of the genome in a sequence would be similar based on pure random chance, as well as that a percentage of the genome would have to be similar for most organisms based on the necessary regulation of nutrient conversion, oxidation processes, and protein synthesis for tissue construction, regardless of species. Thus this necessary similarity for organic eukaryotic life would have a certain baseline similarity which should not be included in the species similarity comparisons.

It is a sort of philosophical question, but also scientific, as to whether the similarities are more significant, or the differences are more significant.

25

If we are to learn from the past, we should be careful to really understand what the problem of the past was. In the Galileo/Copernican issue, people looked at space and saw the stars and sun and moon go around the earth. That’s what they saw. Specific measurements told them they were wrong, but Galileo got caught up in the struggle between Copernicus and Ptolemy (and the church also got embroiled in it).

Today, we have scientists saying that the world looks old, and it seems to make sense that smaller organisms changed into more complex organisms over time. That is the perceptive reality. Now the question is whether this evolving theory is similar to the complex geocentric theory and whether there are too many measureable difficulties with it to sustain it, or whether it in fact is the simple explanation it is purported to be. Therefore it is good and legitimate to challenge it on every front, and to test whether in fact it stands up under scrutiny, or whether it must constantly be adjusted and more circles and patterns added to it to make it a sustainable theory. Obviously there are theological motivations, but scientifically speaking, the motivations are irrelevant to the challenges. Thus the church having egg on her face is irrelevant to this discussion. It might have egg on its face for accepting or defending the evolutionary scenario, if it eventually is shown that evolution cannot account for the present reality and existence. Either way, egg on face is not a helpful part of the discussion.

26

I am comfortable associating soul with mind. But how does Mind develop from Brain? Some 100,000 yrs ago our Homo sapien ancestors had a brain size of 1,200 cc and the thinking capacity to survive in a harsh environment by making fur clothing and stone tools. But did that give them the capacity to make moral choices? Anthropology supports a Great Leap Forward taken by Homo sapiens, which led to a modern culture supported by abstract thought and language. It was not ‘a gradual process’–not Darwinian evolution taken in small steps with no direction. Could the GLF be the point in history when Brain became Mind, and our forebears were given the choice to live as God’s image, or else to rebel agains Him?

27

John,

This will be my last post on this thread - you are welcome to have the last word.

Evolutionary theory has withstood multiple challenges (some religiously motivated, some not) for the past 150 years. Modern evolutionary biology is to Darwinism what modern astronomy is to Copernicanism - there have been revisions and adjustments, but the core concept still stands. There have also been exciting major developments in the past few decades (epigenetics, Evo-Devo), but again, the core concept still stands. The Phillip Johnson strategy of “find any flaw, poke any hole” has proved fruitless. Criticism is always needed, however, and ANY scientific theory will always be probabilistic. Science cannot provide truth that is absolute, certain and universal - that is not what science does. Having said that, I always caution my more fundamentalist-oriented students NOT to hang their faith on the desperate hope that the entire evolutionary edifice is about to collapse. The collapse is NOT imminent.

28

Since there is not much to respond to in your comment, I will let you have the last word on this thread, Dan. :relieved:

29

What basis do you have for making such a strong negative assertion, JohnZ?

Have you examined all (or even any?) of the data for yourself? Are you aware that the assertion that the sequence data represents merely vague “similarities” is a creationist trope, and that real biologists use the quantitative DIFFERENCES to quantitatively and objectively test real evolutionary hypotheses?

30

Agreed, but the only honest, meaningful challenges are measurable (scientific) ones, not rhetorical ones.

What have you measured?

31

Joao, I did not say the similarities were vague, and I agree they use quantitative differences. I also agree that that populations change not individuals. (I should have said, “organism types”.) I also agree that evolution could produce either increased or decreased complexity (although decreased complexity is not normally the point - we do not see people arguing that people evolved into amoeba). I do not believe that I have offered huge distortions. I agree that meaningful challenges are measureable ones.

32

So, I repeat: what have you measured, JohnZ? What actual measurements have you actually examined to justify “it is not possible”?

33

How much of it? What proportion of the total has been reclassified?

34

Are you denying that the original thoughts about junk DNA have been revised greatly and that now much less of the DNA is thought to be junk? On a side note, are you also denying that many of the organs originally thought to be vestigial have been discovered to have a useful purpose?

I never said that sequence data represents vague similarities, and I don’t know of anyone who has said that. You misunderstood completely what I said. What I said was that some genetic differences lead to less significant differences structurally (meaning phenotypically), while other genetic differences lead to very significant structural differences. Some genes control hair color, while others control the formation of the liver, for example. One is more significant than the other.

It is interesting that the person who (with colleagues) invented the gene gun, Dr John Sanford, is a type of YEC, supporting ID and creationism . Does that mean that his gene gun is no good? I personally do not work in a genetics lab, but you do? Does that invalidate comments from anyone who does not work in a genetics lab (you seem to imply…)? It is not permitted to read the research papers or to comment on the general perspectives, or on the approach of the media or to put forward arguments made by other geneticists such as Dr. Rob Carter?

Dendrograms from an evolutionary point of view represent a perspective. Dendograms are not a genetic mechanism but a proposed picture of the results of a model. I have read that some of the algorithms used to produce dendrograms have the assumptions built in that guarantee the results. The general observable trend for speciation is that certain traits are lost, not gained, from an ancestor that has more variability. Some dendograms propose the opposite, that more traits are gained, rather than lost. But is this based on observable and testable data, or on speculation? Dr. John Sanford, one of the inventors of the gene gun believes more in devolution than in evolution, so it seems valid to ask this question.

I believe that without special direction, we would not find certain organs and organisms forming thru mere random mutations impacted upon by natural selection/adaptation. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But I believe it is a more reasonable conclusion, based on the necessity for a multitude of simultaneous beneficial genetic mutations occurring and fixing under a natural selection process in order to produce something that does not have a useful or viable intermediate.

You can check for yourself on Wikipedia or elsewhere how non-coding dna was originally (about 50 years ago) thought to be “junk”, and how that knowledge has changed to where most DNA even the non-coding (for proteins) has been discovered to have a purpose such as switchers, enhancers, silencers, regulators. This is common knowledge.

35

Could it be that all creatures have a soul? (define soul) but perhaps there was a point in time when the intelligence of the human mind had evolved adequately to allow for God to enter in communion with them, and teach them about Himself? When human self-awareness had advanced via evolution to that day, (or age) God intervened, and then the development of the human soul, mind took another step forward in the evolutionary journey to where we are now.
Following that theory, God came to speak with Adam and Eve, and they became the first human beings as we know, and are to this day, (But were not literally the first humans on earth) This line of thought would lead me to suggest that Adam and Eve were the first to become aware of an actual Creator. First to learn the difference between right and wrong, and from that knowledge become the first to actively choose wrong.
I feel strongly that God did not give His Holy Spirit to the world until after the resurrection of Christ, and so do not believe that He breathed His Spirit into Adam and Eve. That is whether Adam and Eve actually existed, or were the representations of the entire group of humans existing during that period.
I propose that another enlightenment and step forward in our evolutionary growth happened later, through the redemptive work of Christ, and gift of the Holy Spirit.

36

> Personally, I believe that Darwinian evolution brought my ancestors to the point, some 40 thousand years ago, when some epigenetic change equipped their brains to have a relationship with their Creator. They acquired a conscience and could be considered, potentially, God’s image bearers.

@aleo
You defined Darwinian evolution as gradual and undirected. I define God’s evolution as organic and directed. To me evolution is clearly directed, so our evolution is God’s and not Darwin’s. The Great Leap Forward (please provide a reference) works nicely with humanity becoming rational and spiritual, so here is another area where science appears to be in harmony with the Bible.

The Great Leap Forward would be the ability to think and communicate thinking which speeds up historical change exponentially.

@Mincaesar
I would agree that all creatures have a “soul” if you define the soul as a relationship with their Creator which impels them to work together to seek the mutual goal of harmonious survival. This is the view of ecology, that the universe has a rational and spiritual harmony, as opposed to Darwinism which claims it does not.

37

Roger, your comment gave rise to this thought: how do you rationalize or explain species extinctions in your scenario of ecological harmonious survival?

38

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m simply asking you to answer a question about your quantitative claim. Are you admitting that you have no idea how much was–and now is–classified as junk? “Thought” is irrelevant here. Junk is a simple negative classification of no known function. How much?

I explained quite clearly that you are using the term “similarity” in what appears to be a deliberately vague way. Do you see a theme here? Just fill in the blanks with what you actually know: __ of the human genome was classified as junk in the year _____. In the year 2015, __ still has no known function. Come on, try it! You might learn something.

BTW, merely being transcribed does not demonstrate function.

In biology, “structurally” has never been synonymous with “phenotypically.”

What you wrote was, “To date, while genetic similarities exist between man and animals such as chimps and mice… it is not possible to eliminate/explain the differences between them by relying solely on evolutionary explanations.” I’m asking what the evidentiary basis is for your sweeping, negative claim that “it is not possible” to explain. This would require demonstration of encyclopaedic knowledge of the relevant data, or it would warrant a retraction.

It’s more interesting that you evade all questions about your quantitative, empirical claims. BTW, the gene gun didn’t live up to its promise.

I am implying nothing of the sort, John. If you make explicitly quantitative and empirical claims, you should be familiar with the evidence. It’s that simple. Would you describe the presentation of hearsay as evidence to be an ethical behavior?

My questions about your claims have everything to do with evidence and nothing to do with your opinion or anyone else’s.

Sequence dendrograms, to which I was obviously referring, are no such thing. They are visual representations of mathematical data.

I didn’t claim they were a genetic mechanism, and they are definitely not “proposed pictures of the results of a model.”

Hearsay. Why don’t you look at evidence for yourself?

Evidence? Or are you just taking pure hearsay and adding “observable”? What have you personally observed? Any evidence at all?

This makes no sense. Dendrograms can’t propose anything. Dendrograms, in the context of human population genetics, the subject of discussion, are visual, mathematical representations of the actual evidence.

Inventing the gene gun does not even suggest any expertise in mathematical analyses in human population genetics, now, does it?

I did check. You are grossly misrepresenting what’s on the Wikipedia page. Have you even read it? If you had, you’d know that it explains the difference between noncoding and junk DNA, that one is clearly a subset of the other.

In what decade were noncoding regulatory regions first discovered?

Many, many things that are objectively false are claimed to be “common knowledge.” Why haven’t you answered a single one of my questions, John?

39

If you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, I would be glad to hear it Joao.

41

You don’t always need “a multitude of simultaneous beneficial genetic mutations occurring and fixing under a natural selection process in order to produce something that does not have a useful or viable intermediate.” Sometimes a single gene mutation can have significant phenotypic effects. For example, a single gene mutation in sticklebacks determines whether they are heavily armored or lack dermal bone armor. (R. D. H. Barrett, S. M. Rogers, D. Schluter (2008). Natural Selection on a Major Armor Gene in Threespine Stickleback Science, 322 (5899), 255-257 DOI: 10.1126/science.1159978). More importantly, mutations in the “master genes” that control rates of development can have very significant results. The difference between a tetrapod limb with digits and a paddle is simply the difference in the rate of apoptosis (programmed cell death) in the tissue between the digits. Whales and snakes, which are generally thought to have descended from four-legged ancestors, have hind limb buds as embryos, but those buds usually don’t develop; the same goes for digits in modern horses and birds that are usually not present in the adults. None of this is to say that God couldn’t be influencing the mutation process at the quantum level (as Robert John Russell and others have suggested) in order to achieve His purposes, but that is an issue that science, strictly speaking, is not qualified to address, unless one buys into Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” argument, which has been severely critized by Ken Miller and others.

42

Richard Dawkins, and other atheistic evolutionists, see Darwinian evolution as acting in very small steps and with no direction. Dawkins then “flies in the teeth of evidence” when in his book “The Ancestors Tale” (p.35), he states that humans appeared suddenly on the earthly stage as (in Jared Diamond’s terms) 'A Great Leap Forward. Dawkins then admits there is no scientific explanation of how this could happen, but it was if the Homo sapien brain was ‘somehow programmed’ for intelligence. Ian Tattersall presents a much fuller discussion of these events in “Becoming Human” and “Masters of the Planet; the Search for our Human Origins”. If you are interested in how all of this fits into my personal worldview, visit my web site: www.albertleo.com. (It is primarily a promotion for my Yosemite book, but just click on ‘Science & Religion’.)

43

I am comfortable with the belief that all creatures have souls, but only we humans who are called to a relationship with our Creator, have immortal souls. Since there can be no gradual transition from mortal to immortal, I had trouble maintaining this belief until I came across the recent anthropological evidence that supported the appearance of humankind as a ‘Great Leap Forward’. This could have occurred some 40K yrs. ago when one (or a couple) of the thousands of Homo sapiens then on earth had their Brains converted into Minds by some as yet unexplained ‘programming’. With this gift of Mind, came the ability to know right from wrong (a conscience), the ability to transmit abstract ideas via language, thus spreading the gift of humanity to the other Homo sapiens whose brains were ready to receive it. This gave them the potential to become God’s image bearers. To realize that potential, we humans have needed the help of both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.