Thank you. I hate making such large quotes, and it
seems most of the atheists don't want to read the
source for themselves, beyond a sentence or two.
Many never go past the title or author before turning
their noses up and ignoring the rest.
Well sure, the original was in a table, I had to write it out to post here. I had to because they are not going to bother reading it, especially if it's from AIG. Now they have seen it and when you confront them with something like that the thread gets a little bet quieter, sometimes almost civil.
As you posted, the numbers mean that the differences
in chimp and human DNA are far larger than can be
accounted for using any means.
This paper had a way of calculating a U, which is a calculation based on time (5mya), generation (20 years), then population size which I think was about 100,000, but they tried different variations:
Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans. Genetics 2000)
The divergence here is at 1.33%, what are the effects on fitness when the divergence is 5% or 30% or 50%? We know that evolution happens, this is my favorite example of evolution in action. I should add that given the time line from the Ark touching down on Ararat I believe that adaptive evolution must happen quickly. In fact, Mendel, who I quote in my signature was trying to develop hybrids. He said the reason the research was started was because of a strong tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. In other words gradualism doesn't square with Mendelian genetics. At any rate, check this out:
A brand new gene that is not produced from gene duplication or exon shuffling, it was produced from non-coding regions of the arctic cod's genome. This suggests design, a providential molecular mechanism for the adaptive evolution of living creatures. It's coevolved at least 4 times. You can't get there from copy errors which is was genetic mutations actually are:
In the living cell,
DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being
replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic
cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus,
mutation is a failure of DNA repair.
This is one of the repair mechanisms:
DNA ligase, shown above repairing chromosomal damage, is an enzyme that joins broken nucleotides together by catalyzing the formation of an internucleotide
ester bond between the phosphate backbone and the deoxyribose nucleotides.
DNA Repair
Three guys got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how this stuff works.
Trio gets chemistry Nobel for figuring out DNA repair
Just imagine if someone figured out the molecular mechanism responsible for that cod fish. My point is simply this, there is nothing scientific or empirical that can dismiss God as the first cause of the universe, life in general or man. These posters and the scientific community at large my not believe the Genesis account or the New Testament witness regarding creation but it's not because of science. Their bias is cultural and presuppositional, not clinical or empirical.
The critical thing to realize is Creationism is not anti-evolution or anti-science, it's opposed to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions:
all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
The power of modern genetics is that most of their work can be found online or the library. Fossils they keep hidden away in vaults with an occasional paper cropping up from time to time. Science is the tool, evolution is the process and genetics is the prize. Never let them tell you otherwise, there is no rational reason we must assume exclusively naturalistic causes unless we reject God himself in our understanding.
Grace and peace,
Mark
