“Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Chapter 4 “Evidence from Life” (Part 4)
Well, I am almost done with chapter 4 (yay). I had to slow down because my holiday vacation ended and I had to go back to work. Let me jump right in…
Monkey and Man DNA
No one will disagree after a visit to the zoo that chimps look more like us than any other animal… but the differences are so huge that we would never confuse a primate with a human. The proportions of the lengths of our arms and legs, the appearance of the neck, skull, pelvis, hands, and soft tissue structures–including our lips–clearly distinguish the two species. Internally, our proteins are 71 percent different from that of a chimp. We have 46 chromosome at meiosis while a chimp has 48. As one writer for Smithsonian admits, “just a few percentage points translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species.”
And DeRosa leaves it at that, which is puzzling. Compare any two species that cannot interbreed, and you have an unbridgeable gap. Why wouldn’t you? It says nothing about whether they diverged from a common species some time in the past. So, why call this fact an admission? Because if God created chimps and people in the same 24-hour day, then their inability to interbreed reflects what God did. But by the same reasoning, if God used Evolution, then the commonalities between the species is a reflection of what God did. This is an example of assuming your conclusion as your premise… precisely what DeRosa accuses Evolutionists of.
In “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Chapter 3 “Evidence from the Earth”, I discussed where DeRosa criticised Evolutionists for their use of the Geological Column. In DeRosa’s view, scientists theorized Evolution to age some fossils, used those fossils to age the layers within the Geological Column, used the Geological Column to age yet other fossils, then showed how the sequence of those fossils proved Evolution. He called it circular, saying you cannot use a hypothesis as a premise for proving that hypothesis. But, not only are Evolutionists not doing that, DeRosa (above) is doing that.
What I hoped was that DeRosa might reveal something about DNA itself that falsifies Evolutionary theory. He didn’t do that. In fact, I have never observed such an argument. However, in the following sections, DeRosa does try.
More To It Than The Code Itself
The most important point of comparison between genetic codes is not how similar the letter code is but how the genes act or are expressed… Giuseppe Sermonti… warns… “What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constituents than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents.”
In other words, some aspects of our physical appearance are governed more by the our gene sequencing than by our genes per se.
Sermonti makes the point that dramatic physical change does not necessarily have to be orchestrated by DNA directly.
He doesn’t doesn’t “at all”, but “directly”. But that aside, does DeRosa realize that Natural Selection does not distinguish between changes in a gene versus changes in a gene sequence? Perhaps not. He says nothing here against Evolutionary theory.
Physical Change Without DNA Difference
One example is the metamorphosis of a moth or butterfly… All this is is done with no change to the DNA of the organism. Clearly, a change of physical appearance does not mean there has to be a change in DNA.
Right. What’s your point? Ahhhh, here it is…
Sermonti concludes that it may not be DNA alone that determines the nature and structure of living things. There is a black box between DNA and the total function and purpose of an organism.
Sounds intriguing… is he arguing for a force, like God, that Evolutionists have yet to explain? Well, no…
Secular evolutionists who suppose that DNA changes can explain evolution need to heed Sermonti’s eloquent warning: “My view is that the problem is rather how the organism makes use of DNA, getting it to work or keeping it silent, and how it selects its areas of interest. DNA is not the starting point.”
Meaning what? Is he saying that Evolution could not work without God? I already believe that. Is he saying that Evolution would have to accommodate changes, not only to genes, but to gene interaction? The theory already already handles it. So, what is his point?
Just because we find the complete genome does not mean that we understand how DNA functions. Sermonti says we have great mysteries to explore in seeking to understand how DNA determines who we are.
Uhhhh… we are exploring them.
Common Designer, Not Common Ancestor
Evolution holds that organisms with similar designs must descend from one common ancestor.
That is not Evolutionary theory. Evolution holds that organisms with common genes must share a common ancestor. Designs can be similar, but have different DNA. Similarities may speak to the probability of a certain kind of feature evolving, with no common ancestor implied. For example, a wolf and a goldfish might have a common ancestor, but the fact that they both have eyes is not an argument for it. On the other hand, if a wolf and german shephard have the same genes for their eyes, then that implies common ancestry.
DeRosa then suggests that similarity between organisms doesn’t suggest a common ancestor, but a common creator who designed both.
That creator would have to be the perfect designer who knows all things and therefore chose the ultimate design, a universal design that can be utilized with the greatest efficiency to maintain all life. The evidence points to one magnificent, intelligent Creator.
No arguments here.
DeRosa then likens similar life forms to similar cars. Did the cars all descend from a common ancestor? Of course not. What DeRosa fails to realize in his argument however is that the fossil record can be arranged into a taxonomy that shows where common features in disparate species lead back to a common ancestor, and where they don’t. You cannot do that with cars. They simultaneously have too many similar and disparate features to trace back in a neat taxonomic tree. Not to mention the Japanese cars made with GM parts, the concepts of automatic and manual transmissions, gas versus hybrid engines, and so on. And don’t get me started on air conditioning. Did the faulty windows for the Model T form the primitive basis of today’s modern air conditioner? Or is it proof that Fords and Fridgidaires evolved from a common species?
The more repetitive a design, the closer it is to perfection.
DeRosa should review his section on Genetic Load. There, he made the case that repeating DNA through duplication was replete with so many mutations that the fitness of the human species is declining too quickly for Evolution to keep up. To make these conflicting statements, DeRosa would have to believe that repeating the design of DNA across species is evidence for perfection, yet DNA’s tendency to degrade is not evidence against perfection.
This is why Christians are constantly bashed by atheists. They’re lack of skill in following this kind of logic makes these incredibly sincere and faithful men look foolish… and I don’t mean the foolishness that makes us wise.
Let me end with DeRosa’s own conclusion for this chapter. I agree with every word, though perhaps not in the manner DeRosa would intend:
Does similarity mean we come from the same ancestry? Evolution hold that all organisms have descended from one common ancestor. Creation holds that all living things come from one common source, and are created by one Creator who set out an ultimate design for the universe … and all that is in it.
“For by Him all things were created… All things were created through Him and For Him” — Colossians 1:16
Amen.