Home » Human evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion » Christianity Today article on the Biologos vs orthodoxy “crisis”

Christianity Today article on the Biologos vs orthodoxy “crisis”

Or so some paint it. I’ve now had a chance to read Christianity Today’s “The Search for the Historical Adam” by Richard N. Ostling (June 2011). Recommended to all. I’m not sure re crisis. I think it comes down to a simple choice. Linked here. Some notes follow:

The basic thesis of the article is that a huge conflict is shaping up between Christians who believe that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.” and people who believe that such ideas “simply do not fit the evidence.”

It is illustrated by a grotesque picture of Adam and Eve as if they were only indifferently human (Adam doesn’t have a neck and Eve doesn’t have a waist). And the serpent probably moonlights as “Happy Snake” on Daycare TV.

The apple looks plausible, and tellingly rotten at the stem end. So Rob Day’s illustration brilliantly outlines the problem:

One thing the article does is make American Scientific Affiliation’s position crystal clear for the average pew sitter:

The Adam account in Genesis has long been subjected to scientific challenges, but “there was a lot of wiggle room in the past. The human genome sequencing took that wiggle room away” “

So ASA is not for scientists who don’t thinkthe current consensus should trump everything else.

Dumped biologians could make own Expelled film

Biblical exegete Daniel C. Harlow, along with theologian John R. Schneider, are being investigated for violating doctrinal standards at Calvin College, for their work in ASA’s Perspectives. BioLogos (Christian Darwinist think tank) has as its biblical expert Peter Enns, whose Old Testament theorizing led to his suspension from Westminster Theological Seminary (p. 26). Similarly, Tremper Longman III found that he was no longer an adjunct faculty member at Reformed Theological Seminary, due to an article he published at BioLogos, saying that nothing insists on a literal understanding of Adam. So, if this is the new orthodoxy, it’s revolution, not evolution. Also Bruce Waltke, from Reformed, for similar discordances. These people could make their own Expelled film; they were expelled for Darwinism, not for doubting Darwinism.

If the Bible is infinitely flexible, how can it really be authoritative?

Ostling identifies as critical factors, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s teaching that “links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ), helpfully providing the passages: Rom 5:12-19, 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 42-49; and Acts 17 (speech) (p. 24). The obvious problem is that if Biologos’s demand that we adopt the shifting sands of current science thinking and simply fudge the significance of these passages for salvation were accepted, Christianity would not so much change as be obviated.

How much attention should one pay to claims about what science shows?

Dennis Venema, Biologos’s senior fellow for science, would have us know (p. 25) that

the chimp genome(total genetic heredity encoded in DNA), which was fully mapped by 2005,displays “near identity”with the human genome as detailed by Collins’s team, with a 95 to 99 percent match depending on what factors are included.

As Reasons to Believe biochemist Fuz Rana has pointed out (and he’s quoted), that would merely suggest that genes don’t count for much in determining what an entity will be like. As a result, the figure is widely disputed. What historic theological positions should depend on the outcome of this squabble?

Interestingly, a recent Uncommon Descent book prize contest strikingly revealed what accepting current science findings as an orthodoxy would mean. (That wasn’t its purpose.) Contestants were asked to say what we know – no fooling – for sure about the relation between Neanderthals and modern humans. A winning entry was:

I would say the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes have changed the understanding of the Human-Hominid relationship. It appears humans interbred with them, and that some human populations have relics of this meeting in their genome. That some, but not all humans have these genes supports proposed migration patterns.

That’s good to know but not a lot that we couldn’t have guessed if he had doubts about the insistence on widely different human “species.” So every time you hear an exotic speculation (e.g., we killed them all off!), that’s what you’re hearing – exotic speculation. The article certainly did not spell that out.  Science, in whatever state, is treated as the real authority.

Very little attention is paid to intelligent design, identified as a “third option” (p. 24):

One gets the sense that evidence for design in nature would make no difference as to what we should consider plausible. It’s strictly Darwinism vs. the Bible.:

A third alternative is the newer “intelligent design” approach, which deems the Darwinian “natural selection” model of evolutionary theory to be improbable and posits that some designing force lies behind nature, but does not explicitly define this as the God of Judaism and Christianity.

Because Ostling and Christianity Today accept uncritically whatever Darwinists tell them as “fact,” there is no room for ID’s requirement that evidence be evaluated.

A Darwinian, not a Christian view of evil is floated, in defense of Christian Darwinism

This had to happen, of course: John R. Schneider at Calvin College weighs in, according to “The Search for the Historical Adam” (Christianity Today, June 2011 )

Vices we associate with consequences of the Fall and original sin, such as self-serving behavior, exist in lower primates and would have been passed on via evolution to humans. Thus Eden “cannot be a literal description of how things really were in the primal human past.” (p. 26)

So does the Evolutionary Agony Aunt chair the psychology department there? Yes, it’s real, just as real as Christian profs getting in on the act.

Old Testament scholar John Collins of Covenant Seminary is brought on to give the “conservative” view at various points, and clearly identifies what is at stake, for example:

“If Adam and Eve lacked ‘an actual existence we nullify so many things in the Bible it results in a different story.’”

Similarly, Pastor Tim Keller of a local church near NYC’s Harvard Club where the BioLogos team held a workshop, told them bluntly,

[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. (P. 27)

But maybe, going this route, BioLogos can get new atheists like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne to revise their bad opinion of Christians.

Prediction: Based on Christianity Today’s article on Adam and Ever reinterpreted by BioLogos:

Genome mapper Francis Collins, who funded BioLogos, is hailed in the article as “one of the most eminent scientists ever to identify as an evangelical Christian,” an unexpected paean, and one that furrowed my brow (p. 23).  Given that he’s a supporter of human embryonic stem cell research (and many witnessed the look of joy on his face when Obama signed the death order) plus, he can live with abortion – and it’s 11 years since I wrote an article for Christianity Today that assumed that a stance against abortion was normal for an evangelical:

The prediction is: If the mag goes down this road steadily, in ten years, it will be flirting with theologians who are okay with involuntary euthanasia. Just a discussion among scholars, you know … And the fifth commandment really must be reinterpreted in the light of modern circumstances … .

This is only a crisis if you are trying to get away from the implications of being a human, not an animal, and a Christian as well.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

25 Responses to Christianity Today article on the Biologos vs orthodoxy “crisis”

  1. What evidence are these guys looking at when they say:

    ‘The Adam account in Genesis has long been subjected to scientific challenges, but “there was a lot of wiggle room in the past. The human genome sequencing took that wiggle room away”

    First was the ‘wiggle room’, they are talking about, the fact the neo-Darwinists, despite their best efforts at the fit, damn you, FIT!! method of science, never established a credible progression of fossils????

    New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution – U of M Press Release
    Excerpt: “The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual.”
    University of Michigan anthropologist Milford Wolpoff
    http://www.ns.umich.edu/Releas.....1000b.html

    The changing face of genus Homo – Wood; Collard
    Excerpt: the current criteria for identifying species of Homo are difficult, if not impossible, to operate using paleoanthropological evidence. We discuss alternative, verifiable, criteria, and show that when these new criteria are applied to Homo, two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, fail to meet them.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.....0/abstract

    “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
    http://www.geneticarchaeology......lieved.asp

    Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens – 05/27/2009 – Creation Safaris:
    Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period….”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: “Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be.” By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.”
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20090527a

    “But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with.”
    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

  2. And the genetic evidence is certainly not as neat and tidy as neo-Darwinists would have us believe. For prime example at how biased neo-Darwinists are with genetic evidence, I refer to this study:

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes.,,, Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate
    genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. (The 1,177 ORFan genes in humans are completely unique to our lineage)
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    In fact it turns out that the authors of the preceding ‘kick the ORFans out in the street’ paper actually did know that there was clear and unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore that strong evidence in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias of forcing the genetic sequences of chimps and humans to be as similar as possible. That is EXACTLY how you ARE NOT suppose to practice science!!!:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358547

    Moreover new ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as older genes:

    Age doesn’t matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones – December 2010
    Excerpt: “A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. “New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142523.htm

    New Genes in Drosophila Quickly Become Essential – 2010
    https://wiki.brandeis.edu/twiki/pub/Bio/MolGenJCSchedule/ChenScience.pdf

    I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot even account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes:

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”

    “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: – Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”

    further note:

    DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be.
    http://www.reasons.org/dna-com.....del-part-2

    Primate Phylogenetics Challenge Darwin’s Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – Excellent Summary Level Audio Podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....2_00-07_00

    A False Trichotomy
    Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

    And if similarity alone is to be considered in genetic studies, and all dissimilarity discarded then what do we do with this:

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    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

    ========================

    Icon Of Evolution – Ape To Man – The Ultimate Deception – video
    http://www.vimeo.com/19080087

  3. Denyse,
    You failed to mention that Jack Collins has just published a book on the necessity of Adam and Eve being real live historical people.

    http://www.amazon.com/Did-Adam.....038;sr=8-1

    But the hubris is saying that “Science proves Adam and Eve are unhistorical”. I would argue that on the contrary, science has been proving, reluctantly of course, quite the opposite. Instead of finding the “out of Africa” and the “ancestral Eve” expected, we are getting remarkable evidence that all our genes trace back to a Middle Eastern “bottleneck”, otherwise known as historical Adam and Eve.

    What a great time to be proclaiming the exact opposite story–that Science proves the real historical existence of Adam and Eve!

    (Now why wouldn’t CT be carrying _that_ story?)

  4. …we are getting remarkable evidence that all our genes trace back to a Middle Eastern “bottleneck”, otherwise known as historical Adam and Eve.

    How far back was that bottleneck?

    Why aren’t Noah and his family the bottleneck?

  5. Mung:

    “Why aren’t Noah and his family the bottleneck?”

    Depending on how much genetic diversity there was amongst Noah and his extended family it might not be detectable. He only had three sons and they only have one wife each . . . I think.

    Theoretically of course. :-)

  6. as to,,, “Why aren’t Noah and his family the bottleneck?” ,,, Surprisingly,,,

    Book Review; Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man:
    Excerpt: The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood. Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah’s sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature.
    http://www.godandscience.org/n.....05-09.html

    Does human genetic evidence support Noah’s flood? – Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4116168

  7. Thanks Dr. Sheldon for referencing this book.

    Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care
    http://www.amazon.com/Did-Adam.....038;sr=8-1

  8. 8
    Elizabeth Liddle

    Can someone cite the primary sources for the evidence that all modern humans descended via a middle eastern bottleneck?

    Thanks.

  9. Lizzie:

    From the Wikipedia article on ‘Population Bottleneck” for what it’s worth (I’ve left in the reference numbers):

    Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one’s mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one’s father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans’ female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[4]

    This is consistent with the Toba catastrophe theory which suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[5] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[6] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[5]

    However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[7] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e. a single breeding pair).[5][8]

    On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a ‘long bottleneck’ to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[9] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[10]

  10. I looked up the aforementioned Toba catastrophe theory and there doesn’t seem to be an agreement on where the postulated few thousand human couples lived after surviving the volcanic eruption.

  11. Further corroborating evidence as to the ‘genetic bottleneck’ at Noah;

    ,,,there is actually very strong archaeological evidence tracing all human races to the three sons of Noah:

    Tracing Your Ancestors Through History – Noah’s Descendants – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/ancestors.xml

    TABLE OF NATIONS (GENEALOGY OF MANKIND) by Tim Osterholm
    Excerpt: The fact is, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate; resulting partly from linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and, more recently still, from the findings of physical anthropologists, who are, to this day, recovering important clues to lines of migration in ancient historic times. As implied in verse 32 of Genesis 10, this Table includes everybody; meaning that so-called fossil man, primitive peoples (ancient and modern) and modern man are all derived from Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
    http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

    The following video outlines some surprisingly strong geological evidence for a global flood that will make any honest person scratch their head in wonder:

    Startling Evidence That Noah’s Flood Really Happened – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8

    This following article points to a global anomaly in sediment layers. A anomaly that would be expected from a global flood perspective:

    Ancient Earth Smackdown at Santa Fe Tells Global Story – August 2010
    Excerpt: “Geologist John Wesley Powell called this major gap in the geologic record, which is also seen in other parts of the world, the Great Unconformity.” Clicking on the link elaborates further: “The Great Unconformity is a geologic feature that exists across the world at a relatively consistent rock strata (or depth relative to sea-level).” Any unconformity worldwide in its extent would seem to require to a global catastrophe.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100810a

    Worldwide ‘planation’ also points to a global disaster from water:

    Planation surface
    Excerpt: planation surface, any low-relief plain cutting across varied rocks and structures. Among the most common landscapes on Earth, planation surfaces include pediments, pediplains, etchplains, and peneplains. There has been much scientific controversy over the origins of such surfaces.
    http://www.britannica.com/EBch.....on-surface

    It’s plain to see – Flat land surfaces are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood
    Excerpt: A planation surface is a large, level, or nearly level, land surface that has been ‘planed’ flat by running water. Scientists believe that running water cut these surfaces because they are covered by rounded rocks. Water is the only agent we know that can produce rounded rocks, by tumbling them against each other as it transports them along.,,, Planation surfaces sometimes cut across tilted sedimentary rocks. They are especially easy to recognize. The layered sedimentary rocks are often a combination of hard and soft rocks. Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly.,,, Geomorphologist Lester King has documented that planation surfaces are abundant on all continents and found at different elevations. He noted about 60% of Africa is a series of planation surfaces. Some planation surfaces are located on the top of mountains.
    http://creation.com/its-plain-to-see

    This ‘global anomaly’ of planation, is exactly what we would expect to see from a global flood perspective, yet the dating of a global catastrophe(s) from water, as far as I know, is not yet known to accurate detail. Indeed I know of no secular reference of any known ‘mass extinction’ that mentions any ancient global disaster for water covering the face earth, to form this worldwide ‘unconformity’ and planation. And yet, there the worldwide anomaly sits. An anomaly that certainly requires a global deluge to explain!:

    The following video is very interesting for it shows a geological formation that is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic flood, yet Charles Darwin himself had ‘predicted’ the geological formation was formed ‘gradually’:

    Where Darwin Went Wrong – geology video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o

    This following secular article ‘honestly’ admits that ‘some big canyons’ were formed by catastrophic floods:

    Secular Geology Admits to Rapid Canyon Formation by Megafloods – June 21 2010
    Excerpt: “Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.” Quoting Michael Lamb of Caltech, co-author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, the article said that such is not always the case: “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100621a

    The following article investigates eight anomalies of the Grand Canyon that strongly suggest rapid formation by a catastrophic flood of global proportions:

    Eight factual descriptions of the Grand Canyon
    http://www.canyonministries.co.....iew/31/54/

  12. BA77: Your first link is broken. Ooops!

  13. Thanks ellazimm;

    Tracing Your Ancestors Through History – Noah’s Descendants – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/1

  14. 14
    Elizabeth Liddle

    Thanks. I knew about the Toba catastrophe inference, but I was not aware that anyone had suggested that the survivors were confined to the middle east.

    And of course, there is rather a large difference from a calculated bottleneck of around 70,000 and an a priori bottleneck of eight!

    At the very most there were 10 alleles for each human gene aboard the ark (two each for the Noah parents, two each for the there wives) and for the species taken on board by pairs, four.

    Any genetic model that is to be consistent with the Ark event must account for the collosal explosion of polymorphisms that would have to have taken place over the few thousand years since the postulated Flood.

  15. 15
    Elizabeth Liddle

    Sorry, that should be 15,000 individuals. Oops. Still room for more than 10 alleles, though!

  16. Elizabeth, it seems to me that someone who is adamant that they are ‘not a neo-Darwinists’ that you do a damn mighty fine job of impersonating one, or as that commercial once said, I am not a doctor but I play one on TV,,,

    In your criticism of the ‘Noah bottleneck’ it seems that you have forgotten, once again, to mention the fact that neo-Darwinists cannot even account for the origination of a single novel gene, a single novel protein, nor all of biology, but none-the-less you feel free to take talking points from them as to what is required to explain the ‘collosal explosion of polymorphisms’,,, Well Elizabeth, neo-Darwinists, despite the unearned blind faith you place in there interpretations, have severe problems explaining this very problem,,,

    i.e.

    Biological Variation – Cornelius Hunter
    Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye.
    http://www.darwinspredictions......_variation

    Besides Darwinists being severely misleading as to the fact that Natural Selection actually reduces genetic information instead of creating anything ‘new’, these following studies reveal the fact that Darwinian evolution cannot even account for the fact a parent species/kind will have a more ‘robust genome’ than its sub-species.

    Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity.
    A mouflon population (considered an ancient “parent” lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. “What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we’ve found that it has been maintained,”
    Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta

    Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes.
    “This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks.”
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992.

    These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the ‘limited and rapid variation from a parent kind’ predicted by the Genetic Entropy model:

    African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
    “The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).—-surprising implication of the study?—- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages”
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=16846905

    Cichlid Fish – Evolution or Variation Within Kind? – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

    Elizabeth, you may find comfort in someone continually lying to you for whatever misguided reason,,,

    ” Strong Enough ” HQ. Sheryl Crow
    excerpt lyrics; ‘Lie to me. I promise I’ll believe. Lie to me. But please don’t leave.’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bxE3W1RTz8

    ,,, but myself, I am severely offended when someone lies to me just a few times, much less lie to me repeatedly over and over as neo-Darwinists constantly try to do!

    Yes indeed, I gladly believe in a flood from God, than a flood of lies from man!!!

    NEEDTOBREATHE – Washed By The Water (video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuOs3x94Wos

  17. 17
    Elizabeth Liddle

    bornagain77: I am not “adamant that [I am] not a neo-Darwinist”. I don’t really know what the term means. But if you mean, do I subscribe to the standard biological model of evolution, yes, I do. I’m sorry if I inadvertently suggested otherwise.

    And yes, biologists can account for the origin of new genes perfectly well within a Darwinian framework. The most straightforward mechanism is gene duplication.

    I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome.

    It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of.

  18. 18
    Elizabeth Liddle

    BTW, bornagain77: I don’t lie. I may be wrong, and I may even be biased, but I don’t lie.

    I know you didn’t accuse me of lying, but I just thought I’d get that straight in case you ever did. I’m more than happy to be disagreed with, but I post in good faith, and I’m more interested in finding out where I’m wrong than proving that I’m right.

    In my experience, that’s true of most people, when push comes to shove.

  19. 19

    “It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of.”

    Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exist, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room.

  20. 20
    Elizabeth Liddle

    Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can :)

  21. Elizabeth you state;

    ‘I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome.’

    ,,,And my bet is that you will not ever believe that it is not possible for neo-Darwinian processes to explain no matter how crushing the evidence is against it.

    notes:

    ,,, Rather than falsifying the gene duplication scenario right now, let’s, once again, go to the heart of the matter and falsify neo-Darwinism, by showing that neo-Darwinism CAN’T POSSIBLY be the explanation for everything we find in molecular biology,,,

    Here is the falsification of local realism (materialism), upon which neo-Darwinism is based.,,,

    Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of materialism, to offer a complete explanation of reality:

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)

    And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (materialism) as the true description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale!

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis – May 11 2010
    Excerpt: “This is the first study to show that entanglement, perhaps the most distinctive property of quantum mechanical systems, is present across an entire light harvesting complex,” says Mohan Sarovar, a post-doctoral researcher under UC Berkeley chemistry professor Birgitta Whaley at the Berkeley Center for Quantum Information and Computation. “While there have been prior investigations of entanglement in toy systems that were motivated by biology, this is the first instance in which entanglement has been examined and quantified in a real biological system.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....151356.htm

    Myosin Coherence
    Excerpt: Quantum physics and molecular biology are two disciplines that have evolved relatively independently. However, recently a wealth of evidence has demonstrated the importance of quantum mechanics for biological systems and thus a new field of quantum biology is emerging. Living systems have mastered the making and breaking of chemical bonds, which are quantum mechanical phenomena. Absorbance of frequency specific radiation (e.g. photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfers through biological polymers (e.g. DNA or proteins) are all quantum mechanical effects.
    http://www.energetic-medicine......Page1.html

    i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put
    more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must show local realism to be sufficient to explain the quantum non-locality we find within molecular biology! i.e. one must refute the decades of work that went into falsifying Einstein’s conjectures for local realism!!!

    ,,, As well, desperately appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology, or anything else for that matter, destroys the very possibility of doing science rationally;

    Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever.

    “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    =================

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007

  22. 22

    You are going to demonstrate how neo-darwinism brought information into existence in the first place???

    Please feel free to use whatever definition of information you like. If that definition is meaningless, then we’ll surely both know it.

    For what it is worth, I follow the common etymology of the word: that which gives form, to in-form (the latin verb informare). This defnition is not in conflict with the more technical definition of a set of symbols that can cause a transformation within a system.

    The problem you face is not the definition of the word so much, it is that the state of an object must be in some way “sensed” or “experienced” in order for the information to come into existence. That is the mechanism which is missing from the narrative; it is simply taken for granted for the past 60 years.

    I am delighted that you intend to tackle it here and now. ;)

  23. … all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve …

    Well, since Eve is “the mother of all living” all males should be able to trace back to Eve too. But then, since Adam is the son of God, we should be able to trace our DNA all the way back to God, imo.

  24. I looked up the aforementioned Toba catastrophe theory and there doesn’t seem to be an agreement on whether the postulated few thousand human couples lived after surviving the volcanic eruption.

    WHAT!?

  25. so,

    anyone claiming the evolutionary biology has no theory for the addition of information to a sequence:

    Can mutations remove information?

Leave a Reply