Expert: Marilyn - 5/26/2008

Question
QUESTION: In the webpage "An Evolutionary Manifesto", at UVM, the University of Vermont, that can be Googled, they show pictures of the G-Band patterns for four primates; Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Orangutan, and Human.

They show very similar chromosome G-Band patterns and chronosome counts, with just a few architectual transpositions, and a couple chromasome count difference, but, otherwise, show large tracts of architectural similarity, compared to plants or other animals with grossy different chromosome counts and architectural patterns (suggesting evolutionary distance).

***And, contrarily, no lifeform like a bacteria or plant or fungus for examples, has ever been scientifically shown with such similar chomosome counts and architecture as Humans and Apes, to show that gross lifeform differences have similar G-Banding patterns.  Which would be a scientific breakthrough, and destroy Darwin too.

Now the Bible says that God made us a special creation from the clay of the earth, and not derived from primates, accordingly in Genesis 2:7.

***Why did God not spend the time and at least rewrite our genetics, so for example, we had 100 chromosomes and with the G-Band architectures grossly rearranged.  It wouldn't have proven that there is a God, but it would have killed Darwin's great idea in its tracks.  In fact, scientists might think we were aliens from another planet, if anything, because our genes would have been so different from any lifeform on earth.

God can do anything ... but He cut-and-pasted primate code to make human code.  Was God being lazy, or trying to be the author of direct confusion?

Thank you for your answer, ahead of time."


ANSWER: Hello Shawn;

Yes, it's clear that human genetic material is virtually identical to apes, as I recall, especially chimpanzees.  Naturally, this leads believers and honest seekers to ask the very questions you're asking.  And it does appear that God has set the whole thing up as a puzzle with no clear edges, no tidy black and white--just a lot of confusing gray.

We humans want our mysteries to have clear resolutions.  Sherlock Holmes retains popularity through time because he always figures it out through his spectacular reason.  But God doesn't pander to our desire for black and white and clear solutions to anything.  Instead, He keeps everything stirred up, He doesn't leave a clear cut trail, but instead only little markers here and there that a person can ignore if he so chooses.  For some reason God values faith right up there with love.  Not only that, He insists that we must choose to believe in Him.  He will not make His case so clearly that we have no other choice.  For the person who is willing, the evidence is sufficient.  For the person who is not willing, there will never be sufficient evidence.

In Gerald Schroeder's book, "The Science of God," he discusses Genesis 2:7.  In the Hebrew text the word indicating a human soul is "neshama" and an animal soul is "nefesh."  In this verse the English (NIV) version says, "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."  In the Hebrew it says God breathed into the adam (adam means "man") the neshama and he became TO a living soul.  

The word "adam" derives from adamah which means "ground or soil."  God formed the adam from the adamah.  Genesis 2:19 (NIV) says, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."  In Hebrew this would read the same as Genesis 2:7, God formed the animals from the adamah.  

So what does it mean "He formed."  As you mention in your question, it appears He reused code He'd already generated to create the apes and also, most likely, the early hominids, such as Neanderthal etc. and us.  UGH, I agree with you, why can't He just make this simple.  

Today people understand Darwin's theory to indicate that everything has evolved, gradually transformed by its environment and the capricious god of evolution called "chance."  But the fossil record does not actually back up this idea.  Creatures spring into the fossil record fully formed.  Honest scientists admit there simply hasn't been enough time for such living diversity to exist if chance were the only guiding force.  And some of these scientists present the hypothesis that life on earth was planted (and possibly guided) by aliens!  Ann Coulter summarizes the problems with evolution in her book "Godless" in chapters 8 and 9.  These two chapters are a very good compilation and analysis basically showing evolutionary theory is bankrupt.

But here we are confronted with this passage in Genesis 2:7!  The Bible clearly says the man's body was formed first and then God breathed into the body.  Incidentally, according to Jack Hayford, and his understanding of the Hebrew, God breathed the "breaths of life," meaning all the breaths for every human that would ever exist.  That is, God has given to the male the sparks that when joined with the female's egg causes a human being.  Both Adam and Eve were infected with sin when they rebelled against God, but Eve's eggs remained free of sin because they do not carry that spark, that "breath of life" or the neshama.  Adam's sperm was infected with sin, because in it were all our "breaths of life."  Thus, Jesus can be born fully human and totally free of sin--His "Breath of Life" came directly from God and His human body from His mother's egg.  I digress.

In Genesis 1:24 (NIV) we read, "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds..."  To my mind this verse indicates a limited "evolution," the kind we see all the time.  For instance, human beings take wolves and breed them for certain characteristics and end up with Jack Russel dogs, dalmatians and so on.  Darwin's finches exhibited this type of "evolution" with their beak adaptations according to what the land demanded, but dogs have not stopped being "wolves," and Darwin's finches didn't change into horses--they evolved according to their kind.  Therefore, the Bible does not describe any kind of evolution where a fish becomes a lizard.

But, as our genetic information might imply, apes are "according to our kind."  If you take this tack, then God used evolution to form the body into which He breathed the neshama.  Yet, on the other hand, if you look at an evolutionary chart, evolutionists show each hominid beginning and ending with itself.  Some of the hominids were around at the same time.  But they don't seem able to document any truly transitional forms.  This is a big booger evolution cannot explain--where are the transitional forms?  Transitional forms are really difficult.  For example, if you're a ground bird walking around, the transition to the flying bird with a skeleton full of holes that reduces your weight and allows you to fly is a certain death sentence.  Light weight birds can't run very fast, a bird now half his weight on his way to flying is what wolves call lunch.

But, typical of God, He muddies the water sufficiently that it's impossible to point to absolutely black and white evidence.  Maddeningly, He insists on faith!  For the atheist, there is not sufficient evidence of a Creator, for the believer, the evidence is profound--it's obvious--God created the all that there is.

In Genesis 1:28 God commands humanity to have dominion over our environment, to rule it.  It's clear the original intention was for human beings to be the gods of the earth, see John 10:22-39; Psalm 82, with the Lord God as our Over-King.  But Adam ruined all that, committing treason and selecting God's enemy as his over-king.  

You notice during Jesus' temptation when the devil announces he can give Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, Jesus doesn't argue with him.  That's because he could deliver on that promise.  But I digress.  The universe is a material universe, it's a separate realm from the spirit realm where God sits upon His throne.  To rule a material realm, God's "in His Own Image" creation must reside in a material body.  We have material bodies--animal bodies, if you will permit the description--into which God has breathed the neshama, the eternal spirit after His Kind.  

In essence we humans are a confusing creation, both animal after that kind and god after our Father the Lord God, the Creator of the Universe and Master of Time.  Jesus embodies a similar duality in His Person, both fully God and fully human.  God places us in animal bodies to reign in a material universe where, like gods we have dominion.  

Were our animal bodies evolved "after our kind?"  Unfortunately, regardless of how much research persons may do, this question will never be resolved utterly to the intellectual satisfaction of anyone unwilling to apply his faith one way or the other. The agnostic, seeking God without faith, will never find Him.  The atheistic evolutionist must apply his faith to believe in evolution every bit as much as the Christian must apply his faith to believe God made the all that there is.  And that's just the way God likes it.

Sincerely,

Marilyn

Incidentally, I highly recommend Schroeder's book, however I think he errs in his analysis of when adam first appeared.  I think we're much older.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: A very thourough and deep answer, you are to be commended.

Wouldn't the alien DNA example still not be an absolute cut and dry proof of there being a God, as scientists and athiests could say that we have come from somewhere else with carbon and pritien based life, not of earth, but not even be able to explicity prove that?  Plus not just the Christians, but all worlds religions with special creation theories could have looked at it as an implication of their God at work, even though it isn't a proof.

A proof of God that IS black and white would be like a structured DNA base pair copy of the bible being written into our DNA, explicitly shwong of manufacturing by a creator.  But we don't see that, or even a more shade-of-gray of a unique rewriting of human code compared to monkeys and apes.

It would be a similar but not identical situation as today, but not as confused as you say God likes us to be in, because God teaches us in 1 Corinthians 14:33 """For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."""

I will strongly consider your previous answer, as it is deep, but that will take time, and I'll find that book, as it sounds very intriguing.

ANSWER: Random House recently released "The Devil Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski a book that analyzes some of the matters you've been grappling with.  http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780307396266.html
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/03073962
I recommend this book to you.

Sincerely,

Marilyn

Hello;

I didn't intend to indicate that God intends for us to be confused.  What I intended to say was that God will never make things so utterly clear that faith is not required.  I took little convincing, as Paul and the Psalmist say, the heavens declare the glory of God, but others require more.  God will never offer utter beyond argument proof for some  will always have an argument.  It is as Abraham said in Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man, if they won't believe the law and the prophets, they won't believe even if someone were to rise from the dead.

I Corinthians 1:27-29, "But God deliberately chose the foolish things of the world to shame and confound the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.  He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are.  So that no flesh may glory in His presence, so that no flesh may boast before Him."

What I'm saying is what seems perfectly clear to me or to you will not be clear to someone else who rejects the Lord as Creator.  Whatever a person believes, whether that be evolution, that is creation of everything by chance (a theory that has proven at best implausible or inconclusive and at worst bankrupt), or that God created everything (which cannot be utterly proven to the unbeliever's satisfaction)--whatever a person believes, he believes it by faith.  In the meantime, God's truth confounds and confuses those who would boast.

If the objective is to prove God's existence, two examples come to mind.  One:  the existence of the Jewish people and the fact that they've returned to their ancestral lands.  No other people group in the history of the world have returned to their ancestral lands after two thousand years absence, never mind retained their racial and religious identity as the Jews have.  Second:  all the Apostles, save John, died preaching Jesus raised from the dead.  A person may die for something he believes to be true, but he will not die for a lie.  If Jesus had not indeed been raised, then these men would not have died preaching Him raised.

Sincerely,

Marilyn

Forgive me, I'm posting this again because this revision does not appear in the answers' log.  

Marilyn

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for the references.  I will examine the new book in your revised answer.  I have read and enjoyed your first suggested book by Schroeder of "The Science of God".  While some of it was interesting, like the logarithmic sequence of Genesis, some of the statistics he uses on evolution, make me as a mathematically inclined engineer unsettled in inaccurate representation of strong parallel processing in the early earth.  However, I can say Michael Behe's book, suggested by E. Christy, here on AllExperts, regarding intelligent design, "Darwins Black Box", has many more strong arguments of the difficulty of reaching from inorganic chemistry to self reproducingand regulating chemistry.  I would suggest that book for you, as it's arguments are, admittedly, more persuasive than Schroeder, even though Behe has some holes in his style too, they are fewer and further between.

I will order the "The Devil Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions", Berlinski's book.  Thank you for the Christian centered book suggestion.

*sigh* the reccent news of the completion of the chimpanzee genome project to read its entire DNA, is still *very* disconcerting for me, showing a >99% similarity of the core use gene DNA, and a 95% similarity of the rarely used so-called junk DNA, all measured on the *base-pair* level.  God may be a good engineer, by reusing monkey code, to *create* humans, but we humans would have been far more impervious to germs and viruses if God had only made our code a unique, but not giving away His existence, creation separate from common animals codes.  And it takes little faith to simply *LOOK* at the chimpanzee DNA science, like looking at the planets and knowing they exist, to see human DNA and primate DNA are showing great base-pair similarity, with recent science news.

Then it becomes a case of, "Christians ignore the science showing great DNA similarity and architecture on the base pair level, we are created, but God copied monkey code to make us from the clay of earth as in Genesis.".

Unique DNA wouldn't prove creation by God.  It wouldn't remove faith.  It would simply give people the choice between, 1) we are alien life, or 2) we are created by God.  Science or religious faith choice still exist, and confusion can still occur.

But our choices, from hard data are, 1) we are evolved or closely related with primates, or 2) God copied monkey code to keep us in the dark by our own science, even more dark than God using alien code.  God prefers more confusion than less, as God could have written natural looking, but alien DNA to confuse us, but decided to do one better against human understanding, by basically copying code from an animal with improvements, to give us poor scientist Christians even more problems.  God has a socially chaotic proclivity with His creation's souls, by the recent Human and Chimpanzee genome project hard science data.

It is hard being a Christian and a scientist.  Ignorance is bliss, and preferrable to knowledge, it seems, with God.  Be as a simple minded child.

Answer
Hello Shawn;

Sir Fred Hoyle was irritated when LeMaitre's "cosmic egg" was proved fact by the predicted background radiation of that awesome singularity the Bible describes as "God said, "Light be," and light was," Genesis 1:3.  He recognized right away that if there's a beginning, there has to be a Creator God.  Presently, atheistic scientists think they've dealt with that irritating fact through string theory and the idea that our universe is nothing special, it's just one of *perhaps* millions.  But the concept that our universe isn't all that special is a God-renouncer's fantasy.  There's even less proof for that idea than there is for the existence of God the Creator.

Yes, on one hand it would have been nice if our bodies were dramatically different.  But as you pointed out, it wouldn't really change anything in the end.  Hoyle and others already argue that life on earth was planted by aliens because it sprang into existence too quickly to have appeared by chance.  Have you considered that possibly that if we were dramatically different genetically it would only make things worse.  People like Hoyle would have more ammunition to argue the alien theory than ever.

I want God to be a good Engineer.  I see Him as the first and greatest Engineer.  As you said, on an engineering basis it makes sense to reuse things that work.  I want Him to be Logical and create things to operate according to Laws.  If He doesn't, He's not noble and worthy of adoration.  

Many Christians like you find the concept that our bodies are very animal in nature very disconcerting.  Unlike you, many tend to discount the DNA evidence.  Here's my view on it.  The fossil record shows species springing into existence fully formed.  So called transitional forms are very, very few and those may *disappear* upon closer examination as the believed horse evolution fell when it was discovered that early "horse" forms weren't horses at all.  So, species spring into the fossil record fully formed.  Why God has to make early hominids, I don't know.  I don't see Him as having to "practice" at anything.  But my point is, human beings were a dramatic, sudden thing.  Before there were the various early hominids, such as Neanderthal and what have you and then, bang, here's homo sapiens, fully formed.  Genesis describes sudden change like that after long periods of stasis.  

God didn't copy monkey code to keep us in the dark.  He copied monkey code because it was efficient, it was the right engineering decision.  You don't have to abandon reason, just recognize God is the Greatest Engineer.  Yes, if you were doing it you'd have given human beings different DNA to protect them better against disease.  It's your assumption that would be the result, but until you research that aspect further, you don't KNOW that it would actually provide humans with significant advantage, it might instead put humanity at a disadvantage.   

If you start with the assumption that God is logical, operates according to reason, made things to function according to laws and He obeys the laws He's created, you've got a pretty good start on coming to terms with the puzzle He seems to have created.  In the end, it's just the guys who don't want to believe in Him anyway that get confounded and end up wandering around in circles chasing their tails.  

The atheistic scientists of the world start with a bottom up mode of thinking.  They say, higher forms like human beings evolved from the lower forms and so on back to the primordial soup. Never mind explaining where the primordial soup came from.  Oh, wait, I forgot, their latest fantasy is that our universe is only one of millions, never mind that the "mega-universe" or "cosmic landscape" idea can't be proved.  And atheists want to insist they don't live by faith.

As an engineer, you know that nothing worthy was made from the bottom up.  Everything worthwhile had been made from the top down:  first it was an idea, then it was planned (for humans we'd add researched and tested), then it was built.  Human beings created from the bottom up?  Really.  That's like saying a tornado can make a 747 out of parts on a runway and that's when you give the tornado the parts, never mind having the tornado MAKE the parts.  Or like taking some bits of metal and putting them in a washing machine and expecting to get a watch.  Things aren't made from the bottom up, it's not logical at all; ergo the atheistic view of a bottom up creation lacks logic.  Can anything as complex as a starfish or even an amoeba be created through or by something that has no logic?  And created out of what?

Science has gotten way off base with this trying to prove God doesn't exist or trying to write Him out of the picture.  Scientists aren't supposed to be involved in figuring out WHO did anything; they're supposed to be figuring out HOW.  But as Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  If scientists don't start with the assumption that God did it, they get mired down and can't understand HOW.  If religion denies what science honestly discovers, it becomes stupidity.

Early church fathers bought into the Greek idea that the earth was the center of everything.  Here comes Copernicus and Galileo who had the balls to use a telescope and prove Copernicus' math and the church fathers were in a conniption fit.  But Galileo didn't stop being a Christian just because his discoveries didn't agree with church doctrine, he remained as devoted to God as ever.  He knew his Bible.  He couldn't find anything in it that said the sun revolved around the earth.  Galileo was successful because he assumed God isn't a liar (He doesn't plant false evidence or ask "trick" questions) and He's logical.    

When you think about it, it doesn't make sense for the earth to be the center.  The Bible says, "God is light."  Our light source is the sun.  We revolve around God and receive life from Him, the earth revolves around the sun and receives life from it.  Our solar system is a picture of God's relationship to us.
  
For centuries everyone seemed wedded to the Greek philosophers' idea that the universe is eternal, even though the Bible clearly says it had a beginning.  Religious leaders explained Genesis 1:1 as a nice spiritual statement not having any bearing on the material universe.  Boy, were they wrong.  Now, we have the crowd who want God to be a magician who didn't create any laws and obey them while He created, He just abracadabra created the universe in six 24-hour days. (This crowd usually poo-poos the "big bang" too.)  The Bible doesn't say six 24-hour days, it says six eras.  It's a fight over translation and interpretation--sounds a lot like Galileo and the religious leaders of his day.

My point is, the Bible is true; the material evidence (DNA, fossils etc.) are true, when the two seem not to agree something is wrong with our understanding of what the Bible says, with our science (either it's not complete or is incorrect) or with how we're thinking about all of it as a whole.  

I know I said God muddies everything up because He wants us to believe in Him by faith and that's true, in a sense, but it's also true that for those who believe in Him, He will make things clear.  You're on the right track digging and digging and pressing God to explain Himself.  That's how great breakthroughs happen.  

George Washington Carver was a slave child when the Civil War broke out.  But he gave his life to Jesus and he had a love for plants.  His powers of observation and how to apply what he observed were pretty good.  When the American south was in trouble because they didn't have a profitable crop to rotate with cotton, he started working and praying.  Peanuts were already known to help replenish the soil.  Peanut butter already existed as a product from peanuts, but farmers needed more things to do with peanuts. Carver found many other uses for peanuts and lots of other discoveries as well.  According to Carver's own testimony, his discoveries all came from prodding God to reveal His secrets to him.  His research was like prayer for him.  It was hard work and he loved it.

Personally, I don't have any problem anymore with the idea that my body is almost identical to a chimpanzee's body.  It's my "Breath of Life" that sets me apart more than anything.  But it's true, in various places in the Bible persons who've seen God attribute to Him some very human-like parts.  He has hands, a face, a waist, feet like fire, but God has a spiritual body.  The Bible says I have a material body that operates in a material universe which God has given to humanity to rule and reign in.  It says I'm a spirit who has a soul (mind, will & emotions) and I live inside a body.  My body is just the tent in which I reside.  I need a material body to function in this material world.  I don't mind that most of my body's genetic material is copied. Was it the other way around?  Where do chimpanzees show up in the fossil record anyway, before or after humans?  I just realized, I don't know. Do you?

For me the question of whether or not God created the universe and everything in it is settled.  For me, the burning question is, how did God do it?  We don't know.  Why did He do it that way?  In many cases, we don't know.  What is magnetism?  We don't know.  What the heck is gravity?  We don't know.  What is time?  We don't know.  We're not anywhere near answering these questions.  The similarities of DNA code is just the surface of your issue.  It's like realizing a book is filled with letters and that many books have many of the same letters, but not being able to read the books.  We're not anywhere near answering the, "How did God create life?", question either.    

It's hard being a Christian, if one truly lives the life, regardless of whether one is a scientist or not.  But on the other hand, it's the greatest life choice available on the planet!  Just keep poking around and nagging God, He'll answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Marilyn