Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

08-23-2021 , 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

Talk about scientific dishonesty.
Now that's a good summary of your posting history.

Lagtight, you could take this as an opportunity to tell Alter2Ego what SJG had to say about creationists quote-mining him like this.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-23-2021 , 06:58 AM
A lot of scientists get to the genetic code being written like a book and it brings them back to believing in God bc there’s literally no way the book wrote itself.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-23-2021 , 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
A lot of scientists get to the genetic code being written like a book and it brings them back to believing in God bc there’s literally no way the book wrote itself.
I would be interested in seeing anything to suggest that this kind of reasoning has swayed anything like a significant number of scientists. It sounds like an argument you've heard someone make and are projecting that it must be convincing to many.

Calling DNA a book is yet another analogy. But DNA isn't actually a book. Books are made of paper. It's not a language, languages are for communication between agents. It's not even a code in some stricter definitions.

It's a group of chemicals that interact, and we describe it in different ways. But whether it's the type of thing that requires agency is the very thing you're being asked to establish.

I can get why books need a publisher. Now explain how DNA is like the book. Just stating the analogy doesn't help me get there.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-23-2021 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
W0X0F:

Everyone reading this thread is waiting to see you prove it's a false statement. Merely declaring that the statement is false is an example of talking loud and saying nothing.
I doubt your first statement there.

But just as I can't prove the non-existence of god, no one can prove the non-existence of a way for life to come from non-life. Sorry if you don't see this. Ergo, the original statement is false.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-23-2021 , 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
I would be interested in seeing anything to suggest that this kind of reasoning has swayed anything like a significant number of scientists. It sounds like an argument you've heard someone make and are projecting that it must be convincing to many.

Calling DNA a book is yet another analogy. But DNA isn't actually a book. Books are made of paper. It's not a language, languages are for communication between agents. It's not even a code in some stricter definitions.

It's a group of chemicals that interact, and we describe it in different ways. But whether it's the type of thing that requires agency is the very thing you're being asked to establish.

I can get why books need a publisher. Now explain how DNA is like the book. Just stating the analogy doesn't help me get there.
It literally is a code or sentence of the 4 nucleotides written like a book to make up your dna.

This isnít even debatable science either.. we can argue over God and science all day long. But the simple FACT is the genetic code is written like a book.

So who wrote the book???
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-23-2021 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
It literally is a code or sentence of the 4 nucleotides written like a book to make up your dna.

This isn’t even debatable science either.. we can argue over God and science all day long. But the simple FACT is the genetic code is written like a book.

So who wrote the book???
No, not literally. Figuratively. There's no pen or typewriter or word processing software involved so it's not written like a book. It doesn't have pages. It doesn't have an author's name written on it. It's not communicating between conscious agents. It's not a language. It's not symbolic. That's all analogical.

Don't ask me "who" when the very thing in dispute is whether a "who" is required.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-23-2021 , 05:13 PM
Some people wrongly think that Biblical Creation says that God created humans from nothing, like we popped up from "thin air". In fact, the Book of Genesis doesn't say that at all. Everything else in the universe, except humans, was created from nothingness or from something unspecified. But for humans, the Book says that Adam was uniquely created from "dust" rather than nothingness. (I mentioned this in an earlier post). "Dust" is not thin air and it is not nothing either. Why the exception? Why does the Book of Genesis go to the trouble of specifying this? Why choose "dust" over nothingness or over some purely inorganic material? Well, what dust is composed of ? We know that dust typically contains non-living materials and, more importantly, dust typically contains microorganisms. For example one study of African outdoor dust found the most abundant bacterial species, during the dust event, grouped in three different phyla: (a) Proteobacteria: Rhizobiales, Sphingomonadales, Rhodobacterales, (b) Actinobacteria: Geodermatophilaceae; (c) Firmicutes: Bacillaceae.

Could it be that as a way to create humans God decided to invigorate other living things, namely microorganisms? Choosing "dust" instead of some totally dead substance or instead of nothingness would make sense if that were the plan. So the Book of Genesis' account could very well imply that we humans are descended from microorganisms. This belief is also in accordance with the Theory of Evolution, while the "thin air" creation myth conflicts with the Bible. Bible literalists should take note.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-24-2021 , 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
A lot of scientists get to the genetic code being written like a book
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
I have less than 0 understanding about evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
It literally is a code or sentence of the 4 nucleotides written like a book to make up your dna.



This isnít even debatable science either.. we can argue over God and science all day long. But the simple FACT is the genetic code is written like a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
I have less than 0 understanding about evolution


You should listen to yourself. And also perhaps read an actual book on ToE?
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-24-2021 , 06:26 AM
Beau ur good at taking things out of context.. which just shows all your posts are misguided.

My understanding on TOE can’t be used as proof anyways.

Dig deeper!
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-24-2021 , 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerlogist
Some people wrongly think that Biblical Creation says that God created humans from nothing, like we popped up from "thin air". In fact, the Book of Genesis doesn't say that at all. Everything else in the universe, except humans, was created from nothingness or from something unspecified. But for humans, the Book says that Adam was uniquely created from "dust" rather than nothingness. (I mentioned this in an earlier post). "Dust" is not thin air and it is not nothing either. Why the exception? Why does the Book of Genesis go to the trouble of specifying this? Why choose "dust" over nothingness or over some purely inorganic material? Well, what dust is composed of ? We know that dust typically contains non-living materials and, more importantly, dust typically contains microorganisms. For example one study of African outdoor dust found the most abundant bacterial species, during the dust event, grouped in three different phyla: (a) Proteobacteria: Rhizobiales, Sphingomonadales, Rhodobacterales, (b) Actinobacteria: Geodermatophilaceae; (c) Firmicutes: Bacillaceae.

Could it be that as a way to create humans God decided to invigorate other living things, namely microorganisms? Choosing "dust" instead of some totally dead substance or instead of nothingness would make sense if that were the plan. So the Book of Genesis' account could very well imply that we humans are descended from microorganisms. This belief is also in accordance with the Theory of Evolution, while the "thin air" creation myth conflicts with the Bible. Bible literalists should take note.
You could take it even further. While I don’t believe for one second that there was any scientific insight in the oral traditions of the Hebrews that later became compiled into the Genesis creation account, it is possible to reconcile it with much of what modern science says about the origin of the universe. You just can’t take it literally, and you have to realize that the Genesis account is a fable, a story serving a moral purpose, not necessarily a totally realistic account.

First of all, Genesis says it took God six days to create everything. Why? God is omnipotent; presumably just by divine will it could all have been done instantly. What is the message behind the fact that it was done in six days instead? Remember, we’re dropping the literal reading here, so the true message is that creation was not an event, but a process. Everything did not instantly spring forth as we now see it, but rather developed over time. Since it’s not a science book, the details are omitted as to how long it took (plus the Hebrews likely would have had no real understanding of the number 13.7 billion or any way of even expressing such a large value).

The first day: “Let there be light”. Well, the first “day” in our universe corresponds to the Big Bang and the inflationary universe. At the earliest moments after the Big Bang, the universe was dominated by radiation. It’s would not have been visible light, but gamma rays at the high energies imvolved, but close enough, especially to prescientific people who would not have understood what gamma rays are and that they are light that has a wavelength too short to be seen.

Second day: creation of the firmament - corresponds to creation of matter/antimatter pairs from the energetic radiation filling the universe. Third day - starts to get a bit more convoluted since plants were created and we aren’t there yet in a scientific account, but gathering the waters and creation of lights in the firmament could correspond to the vcombination of electrons and protons to form neutral atoms, which made the universe transparent to light.

From there the correspondences become more obvious; creation of the stars and sun corresponds to scientific models of stellar formation. Days 5 and 6, dealing with creation of animals and humans correspond to evolution.

Again, I’m not suggesting any accuracy in the Genesis story; the story was not intended to be accurate scientifically. The point is that it is possible to reconcile religious belief with scientific accounts of the universe. Believers would be much more convincing if they did not deny scientific reality and instead look to reconcile with it. Science is necessarily mute on the existence of any deity; it does not imply atheism as many theists on here seem to think.

Last edited by stremba70; 08-24-2021 at 10:45 AM.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-24-2021 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
I don't think any of this is controversial or unclear:

Biology is a Natural Science, therefore biological life would be natural.

Unless you think God is natural, then your comment about God would be about non-natural life, usually the term 'supernatural' is used.

Biology has nothing to say about the supernatural.


You are claiming that there is no difference between what I called natural life and supernatural life - it's all "biological life". As I've already asked, how do any of the ways we try to define biological life apply God? Does god grow, move, reproduce etc.?

The answer you've given so far is something that doesn't apply to most life.
Life is non-uniform acceleration.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-24-2021 , 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba70
You could take it even further. While I donít believe for one second that there was any scientific insight in the oral traditions of the Hebrews that later became compiled into the Genesis creation account, it is possible to reconcile it with much of what modern science says about the origin of the universe. You just canít take it literally, and you have to realize that the Genesis account is a fable, a story serving a moral purpose, not necessarily a totally realistic account.

First of all, Genesis says it took God six days to create everything. Why? God is omnipotent; presumably just by divine will it could all have been done instantly. What is the message behind the fact that it was done in six days instead? Remember, weíre dropping the literal reading here, so the true message is that creation was not an event, but a process. Everything did not instantly spring forth as we now see it, but rather developed over time. Since itís not a science book, the details are omitted as to how long it took (plus the Hebrews likely would have had no real understanding of the number 13.7 billion or any way of even expressing such a large value).

The first day: ďLet there be lightĒ. Well, the first ďdayĒ in our universe corresponds to the Big Bang and the inflationary universe. At the earliest moments after the Big Bang, the universe was dominated by radiation. Itís would not have been visible light, but gamma rays at the high energies imvolved, but close enough, especially to prescientific people who would not have understood what gamma rays are and that they are light that has a wavelength too short to be seen.

Second day: creation of the firmament - corresponds to creation of matter/antimatter pairs from the energetic radiation filling the universe. Third day - starts to get a bit more convoluted since plants were created and we arenít there yet in a scientific account, but gathering the waters and creation of lights in the firmament could correspond to the vcombination of electrons and protons to form neutral atoms, which made the universe transparent to light.

From there the correspondences become more obvious; creation of the stars and sun corresponds to scientific models of stellar formation. Days 5 and 6, dealing with creation of animals and humans correspond to evolution.

Again, Iím not suggesting any accuracy in the Genesis story; the story was not intended to be accurate scientifically. The point is that it is possible to reconcile religious belief with scientific accounts of the universe. Believers would be much more convincing if they did not deny scientific reality and instead look to reconcile with it. Science is necessarily mute on the existence of any deity; it does not imply atheism as many theists on here seem to think.
Totally agree.
There are essays on the web that demolish the Genesis account of creation when taken as strictly scientific. There is no need to repeat them here. But when taken mostly as poetry or an allegory, IMHO Genesis is fine literature with deep meaning.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
08-25-2021 , 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
Beau ur good at taking things out of context..
Hey thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
.. which just shows all your posts are misguided.
Oh nooo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
My understanding on TOE canít be used as proof anyways.
Errr, proof of what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemianwrapsody
Dig deeper!
Now I'm really confused. What am I digging for?
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
09-05-2021 , 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
I would be interested in seeing anything to suggest that this kind of reasoning has swayed anything like a significant number of scientists. It sounds like an argument you've heard someone make and are projecting that it must be convincing to many.

Calling DNA a book is yet another analogy. But DNA isn't actually a book. Books are made of paper. It's not a language, languages are for communication between agents. It's not even a code in some stricter definitions.

It's a group of chemicals that interact, and we describe it in different ways. But whether it's the type of thing that requires agency is the very thing you're being asked to establish.

I can get why books need a publisher. Now explain how DNA is like the book. Just stating the analogy doesn't help me get there.
Bladesman87:

Telling us that DNA is merely "a group of chemicals that interact" is a poor attempt at minimizing the fact that the DNA is a code. Your attempt failed, and here's why:

Credible science has repeatedly confirmed that DNA is code. Do you understand the significance of DNA being a CODE?

Let us know.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
09-05-2021 , 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
Bladesman87:

Telling us that DNA is merely "a group of chemicals that interact" is a poor attempt at minimizing the fact that the DNA is a code. Your attempt failed, and here's why:

Credible science has repeatedly confirmed that DNA is code. Do you understand the significance of DNA being a CODE?

Let us know.
Saying "nuh-uh" isn't much of a refutation. Credible science(TM) calling it a code is purely an analogy and the reactions are driven by thermodynamics, electrostatic interactions, etc. I'd like to hear your explanation of the significance of DNA actually being a code because you've got a lot of work in front you to prove that it is.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
09-05-2021 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alchemist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
Bladesman87:

Telling us that DNA is merely "a group of chemicals that interact" is a poor attempt at minimizing the fact that the DNA is a code. Your attempt failed, and here's why:

Credible science has repeatedly confirmed that DNA is code. Do you understand the significance of DNA being a CODE?

Let us know.
Saying "nuh-uh" isn't much of a refutation. Credible science(TM) calling it a code is purely an analogy and the reactions are driven by thermodynamics, electrostatic interactions, etc. I'd like to hear your explanation of the significance of DNA actually being a code because you've got a lot of work in front you to prove that it is.
Alchemist:

If that is the best response you can come up with, I strongly advise that you wait for Bladesman87 to help you out. Perhaps the two of you can DREAM UP something that says DNA is a not a code.

"​Genetic Code

The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein."
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Code

You and Bladesman87 have got your work cut out convincing any sane person that DNA is not a code.


I will wait.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
09-15-2021 , 06:18 AM
Quote:
A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code;
And here is the error. If we zoom in with a microscope on to some DNA, what do you think we see? It's not tiny letters. It's a mishmash of chemicals doing what chemicals do and reacting with each other.

The genetic code, written using the symbols A, C, G, and T, is a code. But DNA itself is not. This is a map for the territory error. The genetic code is a representation of DNA but it is NOT DNA itself.

Now this is, in almost all circumstances, a total nitpick. We describe DNA as a code, we talking about coding and non-coding RNA/DNA and whatever. It's common language, and it's scientific language, and it has a meaning well understood and I take no issue with it.

The only time I ever have to bring this up is when people start to make inferences like "DNA is a code therefore there must be a coder". Then it's important to point out that DNA is NOT a code in that sense of the word. When a cell replicates its DNA it isn't "communicating" in the way agents do. It isn't having a covert conversation through symbols. It's a chemical reaction. The "code" is what we humans have created to describe and explain that reaction. We've given the entirely arbitrary letter A to one chemical, and C to another. It isn't written on the DNA itself.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
05-29-2024 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52
At every turn as to how god operates, it's magic, magic, magic. Why is that? Might it be that the story originated in a magic revering culture, and in order to wow people with a religion, you needed to keep trumping other's magic claims?

How did god create the world? "Oh. That was by magic. He just said the word and 'poof' ... it happened."

How did god come to earth in the flesh? "Well. That was by magic. He impregnated a woman supernaturally. Obviously we can't have sex creating our god. That's dirty."

How did they survive that storm on the sea? "Oh. That was by magic. Jesus lifted his hand and the winds obeyed."

How did he feed the 5,000? "Oh. That was by magic. The fish just kept multiplying for as long as he needed."

How did Jesus heal the sick? "Oh. That was by magic. He just touched them, they touched his robe, he commanded it, etc."

How did they survive death? "Oh. That's very supernatural. You know how the Egyptian Pharaoh's were jettisoned to Orion. It's like that. Magic."

How did he walk on water? "Oh. Magic. He has magical abilities like that. And since other god's claimed such a power, we had to match it when we designed this religion."

How did he turn water into wine? "By magic."

How did he heal the blind? "Well, he wasn't into ophthalmology or anything like that. Even though he was omniscient, he decided to use dirt and magic to heal the blind."

How did he part the Red Sea? "Well, you know. There's a pattern developing here. He did it by magic."


A magic story is a magic story and it isn't anything else.
FellaGaga-52:

I don't know who told you the Almighty God created the world by the use of magic tricks. Magic refers to tricks of hand and illusions. The Creator used miracles to create humans and other living things. His only-begotten son, Jesus Christ, performed miracles.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
06-04-2024 , 12:15 PM
Macroevolution is the most outlandish conspiracy theory in history. It's funny how non provable geologic and biologic theories can only be proven with the flawed "millions of millions of years" hypothesis that uses dating methods primarily based on presuppostions and not science.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
06-04-2024 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Macroevolution is the most outlandish conspiracy theory in history. It's funny how non provable geologic and biologic theories can only be proven with the flawed "millions of millions of years" hypothesis that uses dating methods primarily based on presuppostions and not science.
Science is science .
Your phone , internet works great right ?
Medical science too ?
Why the ones you talk about wouldn’t ?

U don’t seem to know how science works to claims what u claim ….

But hey , believing something u can’t even try to process through experimentation like god should have more value and more reliable ?
lol .
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
06-05-2024 , 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Macroevolution is the most outlandish conspiracy theory in history. It's funny how non provable geologic and biologic theories can only be proven with the flawed "millions of millions of years" hypothesis that uses dating methods primarily based on presuppostions and not science.
Just curious: what presuppositions do you think there are that make dating methods unscientific? The only presupposition actually necessary to make dating methods work is that the basic laws of the universe do not change over time. It would be pretty tough to do any science if we didnít start with that presupposition. For most of our history that in fact was truly an assumption, but a necessary one - without it pursuing science would make no sense anyway. Since the mid-20th century though this no longer is just an assumption. Emmy Noether proved an important theorem - now known as Noetherís theorem - that proves that any basic symmetry that holds in the universe implies and is implied by a conservation law.

In this case, the symmetry is one very easily understood by any lay person, temporal symmetry. This is exactly as I describe above; the basic laws of the universe are the same at all times. The corresponding conservation law is also a familiar one - the conservation of energy. We have plenty of evidence for this law. We have in fact NEVER seen it violated in any observed interaction. Physicists are so confident in this law that when they observed subatomic particle interactions that appeared to violate energy conservation, they predicted that there must be an unobserved particle involved in the interaction that has the energy needed to preserve energy conservation. You probably would argue that this is a desperate attemp to save a consensus theory and you would be absolutely justified in that opinion, except for one small fact. We actually detected the predicted particle that nobody would ever have thought to look for were it not for energy conservation. It had exactly the properties necessary, including the property of being very difficult to detect. Its existence is now well-established; it is called the neutrino and is important in many interactions.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
06-08-2024 , 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Macroevolution is the most outlandish conspiracy theory in history. It's funny how non provable geologic and biologic theories can only be proven with the flawed "millions of millions of years" hypothesis that uses dating methods primarily based on presuppostions and not science.
BGnight:

You are 100% correct. The so-called scientists always come up with "millions of years" for the self-development of various things in the universe, while relying on dating methods that have proven to be flawed. Just about all of the dating method scientists rely on are notoriously flawed. Some examples are Radiocarbon Dating, Potassium-Argon, and Radiometric Dating. Even Thermoluminescence measurements are flawed.



Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
06-11-2024 , 02:36 AM
Interesting factoid: over 90% of homosapien DNA is the same as other primate DNA, at times approaching 99%. So the question is: If human beings did evolve from other animals, would you expect this to be the case? And the answer of course, is yes.

On the other hand if god created human beings from scratch, this need not be the case at all. It could be the case, but in the creation story "he" has limitless power to create them any old way. Yet he chose this 99% match which jibes perfectly with evolution. God could have done it any way, evolution had to do it this way, the way we see it in the world.

Hmm. Well maybe god created humans in such a way as to make it look like they evolved from earlier primates, so that Charles Darwin would take the bait, devise his theory, and help send many scientific types to hell. Could be. All you have to do is believe it and it becomes reality.

And maybe in a world believed to be teeming with witches, ghosts, demons, Beelzebubs, devils, anti-angels, evil infants, hell hounds, incubi ... maybe in a world believed to be teeming with that cast of characters, an opposing cast was created by primitive man, in various cultures over and over and over, and life was seen superstitiously as a supernatural battle between all these creatures. And none have ever been seen.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote
06-11-2024 , 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52
Interesting factoid: over 90% of homosapien DNA is the same as other primate DNA, at times approaching 99%. So the question is: If human beings did evolve from other animals, would you expect this to be the case? And the answer of course, is yes.

On the other hand if god created human beings from scratch, this need not be the case at all. It could be the case, but in the creation story "he" has limitless power to create them any old way. Yet he chose this 99% match which jibes perfectly with evolution. God could have done it any way, evolution had to do it this way, the way we see it in the world.

Hmm. Well maybe god created humans in such a way as to make it look like they evolved from earlier primates, so that Charles Darwin would take the bait, devise his theory, and help send many scientific types to hell. Could be. All you have to do is believe it and it becomes reality.

And maybe in a world believed to be teeming with witches, ghosts, demons, Beelzebubs, devils, anti-angels, evil infants, hell hounds, incubi ... maybe in a world believed to be teeming with that cast of characters, an opposing cast was created by primitive man, in various cultures over and over and over, and life was seen superstitiously as a supernatural battle between all these creatures. And none have ever been seen.
It¬’s even more than just sharing DNA. One could plausibly argue that humans, chimps and gorillas have systems with similar functionality, so God just was doing modular design and co-opting systems from one species to perform similar function in another. In reality we see something else now that gene sequencing is possible. We see DNA sequences in humans, chimps and gorillas that are very similar to sequences seen in retroviruses. These viruses, like any virus, insert their genetic material into a host cell, and that host cell incorporates it into the cell¬’s genome.

Very rarely, but occasionally, retroviruses attack a germ cell - either a speed or an ovum - and therefore the retroviral DNA is inserted into the DNA of the organisms offspring. As mentioned before we see evidence of this in modern organisms¬’ genomes. There is an interesting pattern to the insertions though. Consider humans, chimps and gorillas. Prior to gene sequencing, the best evidence suggested that there was a common ancestor of all three species. The ancestral line of the gorilla split first leaving a common chimp/human ancestor, which diverged later into the two modern species. Given that, we would expect to see some of these retroviral insertions shared by all three species (when the common ancestor of all were infected). We would also expect to see insertions shared by chimps and humans, and other insertions that are unique to each of the three. What we do not expect to see are insertions found in gorillas and chimps, but not in humans. There is no ancestral species common to those two modern ones that isn¬’t also common to humans. What is actually observed is precisely this pattern.

Obviously being all-powerful and all, God could certainly have stuck random bits of viral DNA into genomes however he wanted. But that certainly begs the question of why he would insert non-functioning viral DNA into these species in the precise way that supports the lineage of ancestral species that is derived from other independent lines of evidence. Apparently he does want biologists to go to hell after all!

EDIT - for completeness, there also are no insertions shares by humans and gorillas but absent in chimps. This too is obviously expected based on the evolutionary relationships. There are no gorilla/human common ancestors that are not also ancestral to chimps as well.

Last edited by stremba70; 06-11-2024 at 09:48 AM.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Quote

      
m