Chimps and Chumps: What Makes us Different? Time Explores Evolutionary Similarities
"You don't have to be a biologist or an anthropologist to see how closely the great apes--gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans--resemble us. Even a child can see that their bodies are pretty much the same as ours, apart from some exaggerated proportions and extra body hair. "
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some who are predisposed to naturalism (darwinian evolution) will go to prove their point. We look alike and we act alike (except for when and where we don't), therefore, we must be related. In spite of the fact that a large majority of the American population has written them off as ridiculous, scientists still try and push this sad philosophy on us. The latest is this article in a recent edition of Time.I should probably admit at the onset that I'm not feeling very gracious as I write because, frankly, the absurdity of this flawed and ridiculous idea doesn't really even warrant the attention given it. So, if I sound a bit annoyed or sarcastic or in any way unfriendly, it's not meant to be directed at the writer of the article, but at darwinism, itself. It is a weak philosophy, poorly disguised as science, masqueraded as fact, pushed on a public that doesn't really care much for it. Nevertheless, here we are.
The thing that gets me is the double-talk that is always associated with darwinists and how they miss the obvious elements of design (even when they use design-related terms themselves) right in front of their faces. There are very significant differences between these species that go far beyond even what this article explains. Yet, even when they see that there are elements of our design that are put in specific order, they conclude it is random.Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. When it comes to DNA, a human is closer to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat.
Yet tiny differences, sprinkled throughout the genome, have made all the difference. Agriculture, language, art, music, technology and philosophy--all the achievements that make us profoundly different from chimpanzees and make a chimp in a business suit seem so deeply ridiculous--are somehow encoded within minute fractions of our genetic code. Nobody yet knows precisely where they are or how they work, but somewhere in the nuclei of our cells are handfuls of amino acids, arranged in a specific order, that endow us with the brainpower to outthink and outdo our closest relatives on the tree of life. They give us the ability to speak and write and read, to compose symphonies, paint masterpieces and delve into the molecular biology that makes us what we are.
Even before the human genome was sequenced back in 2000, says biologist Sean Carroll of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, "it was estimated that humans had 100,000 genes. When we got the genome, the estimate dropped to 25,000. Now we know the overall number is about 22,000, and it might even come down to 19,000."Catch some of the language used here: "the changes, they now know, also depend on molecular switches that tell genes when and where to turn on and off." Does that not sound as if there must be some level of intelligence simply for something to know when and where to turn on or turn off in order to create something specific? Is it really just me who reads that and concludes these folks just simply will not face the realization that they are fooling themselves, even though they use the language of creation? Instead, even though they have proven that some of what they previously called "junk" turned out to be anything but, still they feel confident enough to rule the rest of the dark matter as nothing more than "evolutionary residue." Somehow my level of confidence in what they rule as junk isn't very high. I know, I know...it's just me. Sure.This shockingly small number made it clear to scientists that genes alone don't dictate the differences between species; the changes, they now know, also depend on molecular switches that tell genes when and where to turn on and off. "Take the genes involved in creating the hand, the penis and the vertebrae," says Lovejoy. "These share some of the same structural genes. The pelvis is another example. Humans have a radically different pelvis from that of apes. It's like having the blueprints for two different brick houses. The bricks are the same, but the results are very different."
Those molecular switches lie in the noncoding regions of the genome--once known dismissively as junk DNA but lately rechristened the dark matter of the genome. Much of the genome's dark matter is, in fact, junk--the residue of evolutionary events long forgotten and no longer relevant. But a subset of the dark matter known as functional noncoding DNA, comprising some 3% to 4% of the genome and mostly embedded within and around the genes, is crucial. "Coding regions are much easier for us to study," says Carroll, whose new book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, delves deep into the issue. "But
it may be the dark matter that governs a lot of what we actually see."
Now, it seems that neanderthal man is going to be the next key to unraveling this complex accident know as human. This will hopefully, according to experts, be the next genetic sequencing project that may shed light onto the all-important connection between humans and apes. Fortunately, we have people like Eddy Rubin to narrate exactly what it was like back then. Somehow he got first-hand knowledge:
The Neanderthals weren't nearly as primitive as many assume, observes Eddy Rubin, director of the Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif. "They had fire, burial ceremonies, the rudiments of what we would call art. They were advanced--but nothing like what humans have done in the last 10,000 to 15,000 years." We eventually outcompeted them, and the key to how we did so may well lie in our genes.
This man sounds as though he's stating all fact...like he was there, yet it is much speculation. It's not that archeology hasn't turned up much of what he's talking about, but it is the conclusions that are drawn from the data that is pure speculation in order to work an agenda. He has no real idea of what he is speaking, but it sounds good fitting into his family tree...literally...swinging, I suspect.
Then, there is this. It is presented as a reason for why the process of mapping the genome is a slow process, but is unwittingly an admission regarding just how flawed their speculations can be:The job isn't an easy one. Like any complex organic molecule, DNA degrades over time, and bones that lie in the ground for thousands of years become badly contaminated with the DNA of bacteria and fungi. Anyone who handles the fossils can also leave human DNA behind. After probing the remains of about 60 different Neanderthals out of the 400 or so known, Pääbo and his team found only two with viable material. Moreover, he estimates, only about 6% of the genetic material his team extracts from the bones turns out to be Neanderthal DNA.So, in essence, degradation and contamination could (and probably has) easily lead to the speculation of an entirely new "species" if you will, that is, in reality, little more than dirty samples. That would never be admitted outright and attempts would at explaining it away would certainly be made, but the admission is there (as many have known for some time) and it must be considered in the process of determining what is reality and what is fantasy. In other words, what is used in order to support the conclusions these scientists are predisposed to reach, regardless of what it takes them to get there (sincerely or otherwise) may be somewhat flawed from the start.
OK, and now for the grand conclusion of this enlightening article:
For most of us, though, it's the grand question about what it is that makes us human that renders comparative genome studies so compelling. As scientists keep reminding us, evolution is a random process in which haphazard genetic changes interact with random environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its fellows. After 3.5 billion years of such randomness, a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins--and revel in a Mozart adagio. Within a few short years, we may finally understand precisely when and how that happened.Scientists have to keep reminding us because it is so absolutely absurd. These are most likely people who sincerely think they're on to something, so I don't mean to be unkind, but just read that paragraph again, would you? Random process...haphazard changes...random environmental changes...a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins--and revel in a Mozart adagio.
Seriously??
They want us to believe that chance led to our appreciation for a Mozart adagio all the while giving credit for that same adagio as creative genius. In other words, a creature (Mozart, though the word creature denotes something created, by the way...more double-talk) that was nothing more than the haphazard result of chaos, irrationality, chance, randomness and a whole heck of a lot of time produced something amazingly complex and beautiful in which there is intricate order and design, expressed by the harmonious participation of various, intricately designed musical instruments, each intentionally playing a very specific part in order to give life to what was carefully written upon the page...and appreciated by those with an innate appreciation for such created beauty.
That's irrationality.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 10/03/2006 06:20:00 AM
|
4 Comments:
Please take the time and effort required to understand the subject before posting your negative responses. Your response to the "Time" article shows an intentional effort to misunderstand the subject matter. You do a disservice to the followers of religious beliefs by making them and yourself look grossly misinformed and closed minded.
No, Philip, it is not a disservice and it is not a misunderstanding. If you've bought into this, then I understand it better than you do. This is not science. It is a philosophy of science. With all due respect, when the obviously ridiculous aspects of macro-evolution are pointed out, Darwinists cry foul. Rarely is there a reasonable explanation given for the obvious problems of evolution and the massive amount of blind faith to believe this stuff and the fact that there could never be a hint of what we call "rationality" if Darwinism is true. If everything is chance and determinism, there is no room for reason; there is no way to trust any thoughts we have; there is no right or wrong, no good or bad. These are merely arbitrary, man-made ideas that can change with a whim.
As a matter of fact, I welcome you to educate me. Please explain the nature and origin of rational thought in the Darwinian thought-structure. Don't just assume it as a reality. Tell me where it came from and how you trust it.
It's not close-minded if its not true and it's not open-minded if you blindly accept every silly philosophy that comes your way in the interest of being forward-thinking. As someone once said, sometimes your mind can be so open your brains fall out.
So, enough of the platitudes of how non-Darwinians aren't rational, learned, or estute. Reasons. Darwinism is a philosophy, so let's address it as such.
David,
You must know that there are many Christians who believe that evolution is true. They believe that God guided the changes of species over time to finally arrive at humans. What would you say to those Christians?
I ask because you yourself admitted that you are not very gracious to the idea, but find it "flawed and ridiculous". Would you say that perhaps these Christians have been fooled into believing something "flawed and ridiculous"? One would think that anyone who is, as Christians claim to be, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God could not be fooled into such beliefs- otherwise any Christian could end up just believing any old thing as long as it isn't directly condemned in the bible, no? Or even something you seem to find contradictory to the Word of God? (But I forgot, they have free will, which basically functions as the Christian escape hatch for their actions.) I wonder if you would say that anyone who genuinely believes in evolution can't really be a Christian? (Could you back that up biblically? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your strenght of conviction seems to leave little room for anything else.)
You seem to find the two ideas of Chrisitianity and evolution contradictory. And yet other Christians do not. How can this be?
Thank you, Janet, for your comments. Contrary to what some believe because I have taken a firm stand on this (though not recent nor uninformed) I have been very open to the arguments in favor of Darwinism. I've just found them very unconvincing and incoherent where it matters in real life. The fact is, it's a very flawed philosophy and no one lives consistently according to it.
I believe you make a very good point and pose an important question. The short answer is, yes, one can believe in God-guided evolution and be a Christian. The reason I say this is because the most important aspect, and the thing that makes one a Christian, is what one believes about Christ. Is He God? Did he die as a substitution for us in order to pay for the penalty of our sins that we, ourselves deserve, and does one recieve that free gift? These are the important things that makes one a Christian.
Having said that, one can believe a lot of things that aren't true. The fact is, Darwinian evolution (what some consider to be macro-evolution) is incompatible with Scripture. Now, no one who thinks through this rationally (and, by the way, Christians have a basis for believing in rationality) will deny that evolution is a part of life. Things change. However, one species becoming another is incompatible with the way Scripture says it happened. So, one can believe it if they choose (a mis-use of free will, as you pointed out), but that doesn't make it so.
The fact is, none of us experience the kind of evolution that some apply to our origins in real life. In other words, we don't see blind chance doing anything that leads to order. Things go from order to chaos, not the other way around. Yet all around us, through technology, music, science, and every other area of our lives, we experience design. Intentional design. Yet somehow, we find it harder to believe in a designer of the really complex things in the cosmos than to believe that complete and utter chance resulted in this amazingly complex and orderly world. I don't understand that.
So, all that to say, Christianity is based on the self-revelation of God in the Bible. The Bible doesn't leave room for macro-evolution (man was created as man by God, according to Scripture), so is, therefore, incompatible with Christianity. The fact is, Christians don't have the freedom to pick and choose what we believe about what Scripture says. If one is not predisposed to the possibility of a Creator, then the explanation of Scripture makes sense...it fits more in line with what we experience in real life.
I've been accused of being closed-minded for not accepting evolution. Yet those who adhere to Darwinism are close-minded to the possibility of a creator. Thus, my position doesn't make sense to them. My stance is as it is because I have dealt with this subject many times over the past couple of years on this blog (do a quick search) and it's always the same thing: Darwinists dance around the real life issues that train-wreck their philosophy and, instead, simply call names or dismiss the problems by trying to act superior and hoping their condescension will intimidate non-evolutionists into silence. I simply say it's a ruse. Darwinism is a false philosophy that doesn't answer the big questions of what we experience every day. It makes a sham of things like love, real love, and goodness, and self-sacrifice, and rational thought, and trust, and real freedom. All of these things go away with Darwinism, yet we all experience them and claim they are real. I've never heard a single Darwinist explain how these things can be real within their philosophical framework. They always borrow from outside their belief-system and assume them as "givens" without giving any solid reasons as to how they exist. In other words, Darwinism does not give adequate reasons for life as we know it...because evolution can't do it.
Thanks again, Janet. Take care.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home