One of the regular contributers to the comments section of Sandwalk has suggested we read Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross. Apparently this is a very good explanation of how evolution is compatible with the Bible.Hugh Ross is the ruler of Reasons to Believe, an organization that promotes the integration of science and fundamentalist Christianity. Here's part of their Statement of Faith.
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.Fazale (Fuz) Rana is a biochemist who works for Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe.
I've seen Hugh Ross in action when he was here for a two day symposium organized by Denyse O'Leary and some of her friends. Hugh Ross is a genuine kook with nothing to say that's even remotely interesting to scientists. I don't know about Fazale Rana. Has anyone read this book?
31 comments :
As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.
I found the escape clause. Care to guess how many books of the Bible are available "in their original writings"? Which makes the entire statement meaningless.
It's easy to reconcile the bible with evolution. All you need to do is read the bible in the context in which it was written. Trying to reconcile it with literalism...that requires all sorts of absurd convolutions of logic.
Ross and Rana are old-earth creationists, meaning that they believe that species come into existence through miracles. Thus they deny common descent. Reasons To Believe (RTB), as near as I can tell, is fairly popular among evangelical Christians for the same reasons that explain the appeal of ID: their view looks like a "middle ground" between extremes of young-earth creationism and "atheistic evolutionism."
Rana is a biochemist, but clearly not a biologist, and perhaps as a result (sorry Larry) his writing on evolution is simplistic and riddled with errors, large and small. RTB positions itself as a voice for scholarly and thoughtful creationism, and it's true that they eschew the "culture war" tactics of most creationists. But their writing (so far) on evolution is fatuous at its best, and suspiciously propaganda-like at its worst. I would enter their treatment of "junk DNA" as Exhibit A in this regard. RTB enthusiastically embraces ID's ideas, but distances itself from the stealth creationism strategy, preferring an openness that I and others find refreshing.
I haven't read Who Was Adam? but I've been looking through two of RTB's other recent offerings on origins, Creation as Science and Origins of Life. Creation as Science presents the "RTB model" of global origins. I find the model to suffer from vast and numerous flaws, many of which are detailed in a review at NCSE. Who Was Adam? was recently reviewed there as well.
I haven't read the book either, but it's probably just more of their standard shtick.
They pick some well established scientific theory like the big bang, find some obscure bible verse that when twisted way out of context seems to support the science. Then they claim "the bible said it first".
For example there is a verse in Isaiah which says, "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in". Thus Ross claims that the writers of the bible knew that the universe was expanding.
> Thus they deny common descent.
For humans, thus the book.
> Rana is a biochemist, but clearly not a biologist...
I believe he's a chemist.
I read the book, I think mitochondrial Eve is a strong point, for this is unexpected if humans descended from chimps. You wouldn't, for instance, expect a mitochondrial chimp Eve--at least, I wouldn't.
But I am not a biochemist, only a techie guy who as we know, such tend to be interested in such matters...
lee -
having not read the book myself, I can't know if they do actually make a strong point using Mitochondrial Eve... but I honestly can't see how. Firstly, chimps and humans descended from a common ancestor, not one from the other. And, if I remember correctly, Mitochondrial Eve was not necessarily an individual but the population of females from whom all humans received their mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial Eve may change as populations die out, creating a more recent "Eve". This is in no way affected by our common ancestry with chimps; there must have been a Mitochondrial Eve-Chimp as well at some point (as for any other sexually reproducing eukaryote whose mitochondria are contributed by one parent).
I would also be interested in if they mention that Y-chromosome Adam lived thousands of years after mt-Eve...
Lee--
RTB denies common descent in general, not just "for humans." Look it up. Fuz Rana is a biochemist. Look it up. And although RTB's work on evolution is uninformed and ill-conceived, I'd be surprised if they would be so ignorant as to claim that "humans descended from chimps." Rana is wrong about some pretty important things...but he's not stupid.
lee_merrill wrote:"I read the book, I think mitochondrial Eve is a strong point, for this is unexpected if humans descended from chimps. You wouldn't, for instance, expect a mitochondrial chimp Eve--at least, I wouldn't."
As long as we accept
1. that every human has exactly one mother (surely no one disputes that),
2. that all the mitochondria in a human are maternal (not so certain; John Maynard Smith in particular suggested that the evidence was less than overwhelming, but most biologists think it is true),
then it is abolutely certain that Mitochondrial Eve existed, but that by itself tells us nothing about her species. Mitochondrial Eve was a unique individual in the sense that there is only one of her at any one moment but was not unique if one considers very long spans of time. There is a woman living today who will one day be Mitochondrial Eve, but we have no way of identifying her, or of knowing whether her descendants when that day arrives will be what we would call humans.
Larry said… “Hugh Ross is a genuine kook …”
Dragon replies… Larry, I think your notion of life having no meaning or purpose is worse than ‘kooky.’ But, I would never call you a “kook,” because you are not “... insane” (Webster). Your comments show that you are grossly uninformed about Hugh Ross. One can only hope that your ignorance is unintentional.
Larry said… “…with nothing to say that's even remotely interesting to scientists.”
Dragon replies… I wish this forum had the space that allowed me to show what “scientists” find interesting about Hugh Ross.
I realize that your comments are probably entertaining for most Sandwalk fans, but they are personally and professionally dismissive toward someone who is at least your intellectual and scientific peer. They also imply that you are not even remotely interested in allowing Sandwalk to be a safe place for rational dialog on the disputable points of science. Anyone reading Hugh Ross’ “Creation as Science” may disagree with his Christian worldview slant on science, but they would, with no effort at all, see that Ross has a command of the grand mosaic of science that you could only hope for.
From the first time a person looked to the heavens or put their nose near a smelly corpse, people have wondered about the world and their place in it. Darwin opened to science and all of us the first rational mechanism (model) to analyze and test the natural world to help us understand what seems impossible to understand. Broadly stated, no one since Darwin has provided a viable method with which to investigate science and communicate through science over cultural, language and even religious barriers in our search for a deeper understanding of ourselves and why life feels the way it does. The ID’ers don’t have one, as admitted recently by Phillip Johnson. The young-Earthers won’t even attempt it. On the other hand, if you read Ross’ “Creation as Science” yourself, you would see that Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, evolution (whatever you wish to call it) has a viable rational competitor in Hugh’s testable model for our origins. And, “Creation as Science” provides you with much scientific substance on which to comment vs. caustic ‘meaningless’ straw-man arguments.
For you guys in the ‘States,’ Happy Thanksgiving!
Dragon
SFMatheson said... “RTB enthusiastically embraces ID's ideas,”
Dragon replies… No, SF. I view you as being completely wrong on this. RTB has taken many hits of many kinds from ID’ers and those sympathetic to ID, because RTB does not have the same objective or agenda that the DI or other ID sympathizers does, not even close. For example, did you see the recent RTB post concerning Phillip Johnson’s admission that ID is not a scientific theory. If not, you should.
Dragon
mel said... “I would also be interested in if they mention that Y-chromosome Adam lived thousands of years after mt-Eve...”
Dragon replies… Check it out, Mel. It’s in the book.
Dragon says,
I realize that your comments are probably entertaining for most Sandwalk fans, but they are personally and professionally dismissive toward someone who is at least your intellectual and scientific peer. They also imply that you are not even remotely interested in allowing Sandwalk to be a safe place for rational dialog on the disputable points of science. Anyone reading Hugh Ross’ “Creation as Science” may disagree with his Christian worldview slant on science, but they would, with no effort at all, see that Ross has a command of the grand mosaic of science that you could only hope for.
Here's an example of the "command" that I cold only hope for from someone who is "at least" my intellectual and scientific peer (p. 140).
The Cambrain explosion does fit RTB's biblical model, which proposes that the Creator worked efficiently and effectively to prepare a home for humanity. A huge array of highly diverse, complex plants and animals living in optimized ecological relationships and densely packing the Earth for slightly more than half a billion years perfectly suits what humanity needs. These life systems loaded Earth's crust with sufficient fossil fuels and other biodeposits to catapult the human race toward technologically advanced civilization.
Kook.
Dragon, why don't you give us some elements of this "testable model" that Hugh Ross is supposed to have.
After being exposed to creationist thought for about fifteen years, I have never seen a creationist "model" that is testable, nontrivial, and not already disproven.
jackd said... "Dragon, why don't you give us some elements of this "testable model" that Hugh Ross is supposed to have."
Dragon replies... OK, but after Thanksgiving.
BTY, Thanks for asking and being respectful. As an amateur who doesn't have the resources on demand that some of you do, it's nice to read your comment and question.
Dragon
Larry said… “Here's an example of the "command" that I cold only hope for from someone who is "at least" my intellectual and scientific peer (p. 140).
The Cambrain explosion does fit RTB's biblical model, which proposes that the Creator worked efficiently and effectively to prepare a home for humanity. A huge array of highly diverse, complex plants and animals living in optimized ecological relationships and densely packing the Earth for slightly more than half a billion years perfectly suits what humanity needs. These life systems loaded Earth's crust with sufficient fossil fuels and other biodeposits to catapult the human race toward technologically advanced civilization.
Dragon replies… Larry, no one visiting Sandwalk needs to be told that you disagree with Hugh Ross’ conclusions. It’s the ‘worldview’ thing again. I’m the amateur, you’re the pro. What purely and specific scientific points, leading to his conclusion, do you dispute?
jackd said... "Dragon, why don't you give us some elements of this "testable model" that Hugh Ross is supposed to have."
Dragon replies… A little perspective first, before the avalanche of pejoratives. Hugh Ross probably thought about “Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach To End The Creation/Evolution Wars” for a couple decades. Then his publisher told him he had to condense his thoughts into 225 pages. Now, I am trying to put an abstract into this skinny blog column, while standing naked (an amateur) in the opponent’s locker room.
Amazon provides some peeks at the book.
Appendix C: Biblical Origins of the Scientific Method - “Testing (scientific method) before believing pervades both the Old and New Testaments.”
Appendix F: 89 Predictions Arising from Four Creation/Evolution Models for the simple sciences, complex sciences, theology and philosophy.
· RTB Model
· Naturalism
· Young-Earth
· Theistic Evolution
The RTB model “strives to uphold both scientific and biblical integrity as it attempts to reconcile the goals of the scientific community with the goals of the Christian community. It is testable, falsifiable and predictive.”
The RTB “model must 1) give a wider and more detailed view of what’s going on; 2) make better sense of the established data; 3) provide more reasonable and consistent explanations for the phenomena under investigation; 4) result in fewer unexplained anomalies and gaps; and 5) prove more successful in anticipating or predicting future findings.”
Scientific Data for Creation/Evolution Models to Explain, “abbreviated list of the 86 most essential realms of data from the record of nature that must be accounted for by a reasonably complete creation/evolution model.”
“Belief impacts action, emotion impacts belief.”
· H.G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds”, What people believed and how they acted.
RTB model endeavors to place everything in the realm of testability to be either falsified or affirmed.
RTB model shows how it has fared to date, compared to current scientific discoveries.
Chapters:
- 1&2 describe the most polarized creation/evolution models.
- 3 sets forth method for testing reality and compares explanatory success of models.
- 4 develops RTB biblical/scientifically testable foundations.
- 5-9 compare RTB model to latest scientific findings (details, details).
- 10-12 anticipate how RTB model and others will be strengthened or weakened by future scientific findings. Example comparrisons:
- “Non-theistic naturalist models of the universe predict that new astronomical discoveries will ‘increasingly’ establish that the universe does not have an actual beginning (implication = a beginner) but that the universe in some respect will prove to be eternal and self-caused.” (implication = no beginner)
- “RTB creation model predicts that disputes over the validity of the big bang (implication = a beginner) will diminish as astronomers learn more about the origin and structure of the universe.”
- Young-Earth creationists predictions …
- Theistic evolutionists predictions…
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD quoted from the RTB statement of faith as follows: “As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.”
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said… “I found the escape clause. Care to guess how many books of the Bible are available "in their original writings"? Which makes the entire statement meaningless.”
Dragon replies… Bayesian, in case you are interested, just one method used by the monks to assure accuracy, when making (many) copies from the original writings of scripture, was to count the letters from the beginning of a word and from the end of a word to see if they arrived at the same middle point each time. They then used the same method of proofing by sentence, paragraph, page, chapter and book. They painstakingly devoted their lives to such endeavors, the same way scientists (like Larry Moran) do today in classrooms and laboratories. You probably devote yourself to something, so that what you leave behind is trustworthy too.
Ian said... “It's easy to reconcile the bible with evolution. All you need to do is read the Bible in the context in which it was written.”
Dragon replies… Reading the Bible in “context” can be challenging. It’s like deciphering the nuances of someone else’s love letter, or like the nature of an inside joke. In scripture and science, all the answers aren’t obvious and interpretation unavoidably involves one’s worldview, or the meaning and purpose that one assigns to what is read or heard (a priori). It’s like determining why the Maple Leafs lost to the Canadiens. Both teams are real, can be measured, tested and play by the same rules. But deciding the specific factor leading to success or failure is tricky. It may depend on whether you live in Montreal or Toronto (subjective ‘interpretation’).
Ian, read page 75 of “Creation as Science” where Ross lists 10 categories of scripture (not interpreted by young-Earthers) that have been confirmed by 20th-century mainstream cosmologists (from the beginning of the universe to its end), and you’ll have an opportunity to apply your worldview to both science and scripture. Notice how the Bible has comparative and predictive qualities, and nature, through science, has qualities that either confirm or deny scripture. The Bible doesn’t have to be a science textbook. Its people and events occurred in the same natural environment studied by scientists. It therefore provides a valid historical and testimonial comparison - the best and most comprehensive available. With valid scientific and scriptural data, one may infer meaning (if you believe in that sort of thing).
Ian also said... “Trying to reconcile it with literalism...that requires all sorts of absurd convolutions of logic.”
Dragon replies… Using the word “literalism” is tricky. For example, in Genesis, the word day may mean ‘literally’ a 24-hour period of time. It may also mean ‘literally’ an era (Don’t tell the young-Earthers. They think they are the only ones that are right.). Scholarship is important, when determining context, that’s why we have universities (Thanks to Larry, his peers, and tax-payers/me.). I imagine the same kinds of contextual issues must also exist in science. This is what Ross is trying to do with “Creation as Science” - bring the best scientific and biblical scholarship to both venues, and see where it tends to point.
>>Mel: if I remember correctly, Mitochondrial Eve was not necessarily an individual but the population of females from whom all humans received their mitochondrial DNA.
Nope, the mitochondrial clock does seem to point to one individual, thus the surprise.
>> I would also be interested in if they mention that Y-chromosome Adam lived thousands of years after mt-Eve.
Actually paternity seems to extend to multiple individuals before mitochondrial Eve.
>> athel: As long as we accept [one mother per person and mitochondrial DNA is maternal] then it is absolutely certain that Mitochondrial Eve existed.
I would expect we would see many maternal individuals involved, as the species evolves towards humans.
lee_merrill: the mitochondrial clock does seem to point to one individual, thus the surprise.
No surprise. The surprise would be if it were otherwise, as that would mean that all our information about transmission of mitochondria was wrong.
Earlier, I said: As long as we accept [one mother per person and mitochondrial DNA is maternal] then it is absolutely certain that Mitochondrial Eve existed.
I'll explain this more below.
lee_merrill replied: I would expect we would see many maternal individuals involved, as the species evolves towards humans.
I'm sorry, but here you display a common misconception of who mitochondrial Eve was. She was not in any useful sense the originator of all humanity, and at the time she lived there were plenty of other individuals similar to her.
To explain why there was only one of her, consider a simple case in which the entire population contains just ten women. Some of them will have one daughter, others will have more. Suppose, for example, that A, B and C have one daughter each (A1, B1 and C1), D and E have two each (D1, D2, E1, E2), and F has three (F1, F2 and F3). Then we have ten altogether, so if the population size is stable, G, H, I and J can have no daughters. So in just one generation 40% of the original women have no descendants through the female line.
The same sort of thing happens in the next generation, so the probability that any one of the original ten has a granddaughter through the female line is (roughly, because we should be calculating discrete probabilities, not continuous ones) 0.6 times 0.6, or 0.36.
After three generations we have 0.6 times 0.6 times 0.6, or 0.216. After four it is 0.13, and after five it is 0.08 -- already less than one in ten. So by then, and if not by then then with high probability within a couple of generations later, only one of the original ten women will have any female descendants through the exclusively female line. So this woman will be mitochondrial Eve for that population.
With a more realistic population size, say 100 million women, and more accurate estimates of the distribution of daughter numbers for each mother, we will get a loss of about 50% of lines in every two generations. At this rate it takes surprisingly few generations to get a probability of less than 1 in 100 million that any particular one of the original 100 million women has any descendants through the exclusively female line: about 53 generations, or around 2000 years.
This does not, however, that mitochondrial Eve lived just 2000 years ago, because there is the crucial point of geographical isolation taken into account. Clearly it is not true that all the women in one generation constitute one homogeneous group. As a result the time needed for all the lines except one to die out is much longer than the calculation suggests.
Incidentally, the reason why mitochondrial Eve lived long before Y-chromosome Adam is that men are much more variable than women in the numbers of children they have. No women have 20 daughters, but some men have 20 or more sons, etc. Thus lines die out much faster in the all-male line than they do in the all-female line. (My great-grandfather had six sons, all of whom survived to adulthood and raised families, but I am the only one left in my generation descended in the all-male line, and I have no sons, so my great-grandfather's Y-chromosome will be gone when I die (assuming that he didn't have any sons that I don't know about)).
Athel and lee merril, Dragon asks if you mind if I watch your critique of the following from the RTB web site?
Y-Chromosome Reveals Evolutionary Limits
Y-chromosome studies have just answered a long-standing anthropological question: Are modern Japanese people descended from the Jomon or from the Yayoi people?1 The Jomon migrated to Japan from the Asian mainland about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago when sea levels were so low that land bridges permitted. The Yayoi arrived in ships from the Korean peninsula in about 250 B.C.
Research teams studied the Y-chromosomes of men all over Japan and throughout the eastern Asian coastlands. They also analyzed the Y-chromosomes from fossilized bones of ancient Jomon and Yayoi people. They found distinctive Y-chromosome markers of both Jomom and Yayoi progenitors in men throughout Japan. Slightly more Yayoi markers showed up in central Japan. Researchers conclude that the Yayoi initially landed in central Japan and subsequently spread north and south. As the Yayoi traveled and then settled, they apparently intermarried with the Jomon rather than supplanting them.
Even more definitively than the study on Jewish genes, this research on the Jomon and the Yayoi is helping researchers pin down rates and mechanisms of natural chromosome change. The advantages of the Japanese study are these: 1) it focuses on an island population that has been relatively stable for millenia, and 2) it can draw upon ancient DNA samples from the two migrant kiths.
The more we learn from chromosomal analysis, the better equipped we are to understand the development of life in Earth’s history. In 1996, a Y-chromosome study fixed the date for the common ancestor of all human males at between 37,000 and 49,000 years ago.2,3 This study examined a large segment (100,000 nucleotide base pairs) of the Y-chromosome but in a very small sample: only five humans and one chimpanzee.
A more recent research project examined a much smaller portion of the Y-chromosome (729 nucleotide base pairs) in a slightly larger sample of humans (21), chimpanzees (2), orangutans (4), western gorillas (4), and an eastern gorilla(l).4 Except in the chimpanzees, researchers found no variations in this Y-chromosome segment within each primate species. Nor did they find any Y-chromosome differences between the western gorillas and the eastern gorilla. Significant differences were reported, however, between humans and gorillas, gorillas and chimpanzees, and chimpanzees and humans (comparisons were not done with orangutans).
The lack of variation within human, gorilla, and orangutan species suggests the relatively recent origin of these species. The significant chromosomal difference between species suggests that any common ancestor must date back to the far distant past. These two conclusions seem inconsistent, given the naturalistic assumption that all these species arise from a common ancestor.
How have scientists responded to this inconsistency? They speculate that Y-chromosome analysis may be, after all, an unreliable indicator of ancestry. To support their opinion, some have pointed out that the mitochondrial DNA date for humans’ common ancestor is earlier than the date posited by corresponding Y-chromosome studies.
My response? I see that scientists remain hesitant to challenge the assumption that all modern primates are descended from a common ancestor through strictly natural processes. Further, the difference between the mitochondrial date and Y-chromosome date makes sense. The mitochondrial DNA analysis focused on women, not on men. And though it delivered more ancient dates for the common ancestor of all women than did Y-chromosome analysis for the common ancestor of all men, the difference is small, on the order of a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of years. Such findings are consistent with the biblical record. Scripture a significant time difference between the common female ancestor of all women, Eve, and the common male ancestor of all men, Noah. Depending on the number and duration of gaps in the Genesis genealogies (a subject debated among Old Testament scholars), the time difference between Eve and Noah could be anywhere from a few thousand years to a few tens of thousands of years.
The study based on 100,000 nucleotide base pairs of the Y-chromosome did show some variation within the human species. Variation among humans was measured at 0.00942 percent. The comparison of the five humans with the one chimpanzee showed a difference of 1.35 percent. These percentages suggest that Y-chromosome analysis cannot be totally unreliable as an indicator of ancestry. Definitive answers will require much larger sample sizes, certainly more than two or four or even a few dozen individuals, and analysis of more than a few hundred nucleotide base pairs.
References
1. John Travis, "Jomon Genes: Using DNA, Researchers Probe the Genetic Origins of Modern Japanese," Science News, 151 (1997), pp. 106-107.
2. Hugh Ross, "Searching For Adam," Facts & Faith, v 10, n. 1 (1996), p. 4.
3. L. Simon Whitfield, John E. Sulston, and Peter N. Goodfellow, "Sequence Variation of the Human Y Chromosome," Nature, 378 (1995), pp. 379-380.
4. Wes Burrows and Oliver A. Ryder, "Y-Chromosome Variation in Great Apes," Nature, 385 (1997), pp. 125-126.
Actually paternity seems to extend to multiple individuals before mitochondrial Eve.
This is not true, it's also a logical necessity that there is one last common ancestor to all Y-chromosomes, and the data indicate that Y-chromosome Adam lived after Eve.
There is nothing special about humans - for any other group of eukaryotes, we can calculate when its last ancestor in the direct maternal line might have lived.
Here is a human-chimp mtdna tree. The bonobos are missing, though. MtDNA Eve is only where the small human bush comes together. There is also a single mitochondrial mother to all chimps, and in the center, a mitochondrial ancestor to all humans, chimps, and bonobos (mitochondrial Lilith?)
From the article quoted above:
The lack of variation within human, gorilla, and orangutan species suggests the relatively recent origin of these species. The significant chromosomal difference between species suggests that any common ancestor must date back to the far distant past. These two conclusions seem inconsistent, given the naturalistic assumption that all these species arise from a common ancestor. How have scientists responded to this inconsistency?
Well, what inconsistency? It seems entirely reasonable that there is less variation within than between species. Lack of variation doesn't have to mean a recent origin of a species, it could be a bottleneck. I don't know if each species seemed monomorphic from the small sample in 1997 or if Hugh Ross is misrepresenting the study, but we have more data now and primate species certainly aren't invariable Y-chromosome-wise.
Windy said... "Well, what inconsistency" - from the RTB article.
Dragon replies... As an amateur, this is all out of my league. But, I love learning. So, I'm going to see if I can get a better characterization of the "inconsistency." Thanks for the response.
Windy, as I try to find a more clear characterization of the "inconsistency" you dispute, and as I refer back to a previous thread where you also dispute the lack of verifiable links between chimps, hominids and humans, I offer the following RTB abstracts for your reading pleasure.
“More Evidence that Humans are Distinct from Neanderthals” January 19, 2007
A new analysis of the archeological record indicates that modern humans and Neandertals (also known as "Neanderthals") behaved in fundamentally different ways. RTB’s creation model views Neanderthals and other extinct hominids as nonhuman primates that lacked spiritual capacity. On this basis, the RTB model predicts that humans and the hominids should be biologically and behaviorally distinct from one another. It turns out that the activities of male and female Neanderthals were very similar to each other. In contrast, modern-human males and females, who were contemporaries of Neanderthals, displayed different and complementary activities. To say it another way, Neanderthals displayed a much-less-complex social organization than humans, in line with the expectations of the RTB creation model. This degree of difference in male and female roles likely promoted the survival of humans and led to the extinction of Neanderthals.
- Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, "What’s a Mother to Do? The Division of Labor among Neandertals and Modern Humans in Eurasia," Current Anthropology 47 (2006): 953-80.
Related Resource
-"Dietary Differences Separate Neandertals from Humans" by Fazale Rana
-Who Was Adam?, by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross
“More Human and Chimpanzee Genetic Differences” January 13, 2007
New genetic research indicates that humans and chimpanzees display significant genetic differences. Previous studies demonstrated that gene-expression patterns (the ways genes are used) in human and chimpanzee brains differ. The latest work continues in this vein by showing that human and chimp genomes differ in microRNA content. These small RNA molecules regulate gene expression and could well help explain the biological differences between humans and the great apes. Instead of supporting an evolutionary connection, this study and others like it could be taken to indicate that the Creator used the same raw materials (genes) to construct both humans and chimpanzees but employed these materials in such a way to generate radically different organisms.
- Eugene Berezikov et al., "Diversity of microRNAs in Human and Chimpanzee Brain," Nature Genetics 38 (2006): 1375-77.
- Related Resources
- "Humans and Chimps Differ" by Fazale Rana
- Who Was Adam?, by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross
“Biblical Account of Humanity’s Origin Confirmed by Genetic Study” January 9, 2007
A new genetic study confirms the biblical account of humanity’s origin and spread. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA from 81 people indicates that some people groups now living in Africa originated in Asia. These groups represent a "back-migration" into Africa after humanity originally spread from near the Middle East (likely including Africa). The movement by these peoples into Africa occurred between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago. The timing of this event and the pattern of human migrations is compatible with the biblical account of humanity’s origin.
- Anna Olivieri et al., "The mtDNA Legacy of the Levantine Early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa," Science 314 (2006): 1767-70.
Related Resource
- "New Y Chromosome Studies Continue to Support a Recent Origin and Spread of Humanity" by Fazale Rana
- Who Was Adam?, by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross
Dragon
Dragon, thanks for the effort, but I don't know how often I'll have time to check this old thread for replies. Especially when Rana's rationalizations don't sound at all convincing or interesting. Of course humans, neanderthals and chimps "differ" - they're different species! That species differ is in no way a problem for evolutionary biology.
Ask yourself this - if neanderthals had been found to have the same division of labor as humans, or chimps to have identical microRNA to humans, would Rana have admitted that this is a problem for the "RTB" model, or found a biblical rationalisation for the new result? Why aren't these creationists producing any research on microRNA and Neanderthals themselves based on their "biblical" predictions, but simply inventing explanations for other people's results?
Windy said… “Ask yourself this - if neanderthals had been found to have the same division of labor as humans, or chimps to have identical microRNA to humans, would Rana have admitted that this is a problem for the "RTB" model,”
Dragon replies… Of course, he would have, because he’s an honest person, as I presume you to be.
Windy said… “would Rana [have] found a biblical rationalization for the new result?”
Dragon… First. How is a “biblical ‘rationalization’” different from a naturalistic ‘rationalization’? The point here is that it’s not only who does the research, it’s also who interprets the data (through a naturalism or creationism lens).
Windy said… “Why aren't these creationists producing any research on microRNA and Neanderthals themselves based on their "biblical" predictions, but simply inventing explanations for other people's results?”
Dragon replies… Your statement assumes that creationists aren’t producing any research (an erroneous assumption). The “results” are the empirical data. The “results” must be ‘interpreted’. You impose a naturalistic interpretation. What’s inappropriate about an alternate interpretation, as long as it’s by a qualified professional and by the customs of the scientific method?
Finally, Rana wouldn’t base research on "biblical" predictions - a priori. He doesn’t need to. However, doesn’t an ‘a priori’ naturalistic world-view bias scientists, just as you seem to think the Bible does with Christian scientists?
What’s inappropriate about an alternate interpretation, as long as it’s by a qualified professional and by the customs of the scientific method?
Science has no requirement about being a qualified professional, as long as you can produce something original. But Rana's essays are not "by the customs of the scientific method": they are not published research.
Anyone can invent POST HOC explanations for results someone else produced. If Rana et al have hypotheses that they think help explain stuff, they should at the very least email the paleontologists and geneticists BEFOREHAND saying "hey, you should look at X, I predict you will find so-and-so". Otherwise their "science" remains untested blather.
Windy said... "If Rana et al have hypotheses that they think help explain stuff, they should at the very least email the paleontologists and geneticists BEFOREHAND saying "hey, you should look at X, I predict you will find so-and-so"."
Dragon replies... Thanks, Windy! You just made my case for every Sandwalk visitor to read Hugh Ross' “Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach To End The Creation/Evolution Wars”
For years, both Ross and Rana, and other RTB scholars have fequently visited, spoken to, and taken extended questions from audiences of scientists from all fields. Last summer, Ross was invited for a closed visit with NASA scientists.
You just made my case for every Sandwalk visitor...
Or to the one or two still following this thread...
...to read Hugh Ross' “Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach To End The Creation/Evolution Wars”
I'm not going to buy a copy if that's what he expects... can he send me one for free? or to Larry? :)
Windy said... "I'm not going to buy a copy if that's what he expects... can he send me one for free? or to Larry? :)"
Dragon replies... Larry quoted from Page 140. It looks like he's got a copy. Borrow his. I'm sure he'd be glad to lend it out. :)
As a former Christian, and now an atheist, I think Ross is not a kook, but misguided due to his bais toward Christianity.
Post a Comment