Adam Versus Claims From Genetics - A Critique

By: Vern s. Poythress

Article location: http://www.frame-poythress.org/adam-versus-claims-from-genetics/
with the following note:

[Originally published in the Westminster Theological Journal 75 (2013): 65-82. Used with permission.]

Key question: Does evolution disprove Adam was a historical individual?

Ninety-Nine Percent Common DNA

• DNA 96-99% identical with humans

• However, they:

• Ignore repetitive portions

• Alternative splicing might mean they are not really repetitive, and only appear to be

• Compare only sequences that can be aligned naturally with one another

• This makes sense; local alignments vs. global alignments

• Consider only base-pair substitutions, not “indels” (see below)

• This is interesting... this is probably because the best scores came from bp substitutions. I would expect a combination of bp substitutions and indels would give an even better score

Or less

• 28% of human DNA was excluded due to alignment problems

• Citation:

• Ingo Ebersberger et al., “Genomewide Comparison of DNA sequences between humans and Chimpanzees,” American Journal of Human Genetics 70, no. 6 (June 1, 2002): 1490-97 [1492-93], http://www.cell.com/AJhG/abstract/s0002-9297%2807%2960701-0 (accessed September 19, 2012). 

• Do these sequences matter? What do these sequences code for?

• 7% of all chimpanzee sequences did not align with any human sequences

• Do these sequences matter? What do these sequences code for?

• 23% of human genome do not share an immediate ancestor with the chimpanzee

• Citation:

• Ingo Ebersberger et al., “mapping human Genetic Ancestry,” Molecular Biology and evolution 24, no. 10 (2007): 2266, http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2266.full.pdf (accessed September 19, 2012); referenced by Casey Luskin, “study Reports a Whopping ‘23% of our Genome’ Contradicts standard human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny,” evolution News, June 3, 2011, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html (accessed September 19, 2012).

• Includes genes and exons

The Challenge of Interpreting Data

• The author is eluding that Darwinism is a belief.

No Purpose?

• The author is stating that the scientific framework can only describe the process, not the purpose.

• I agree.

Gradualism

• This section is stating gradualism is possible regardless of what religious views you have

• Atheism and Darwinism are both religions because they make a claim about God

• I know atheists who will disagree.

• I would say it is a belief, but I'm not sure if I would define it as a religion

Interpreting the Evidence

• Darwinist are selecting the evidence that supports their claim, but are assuming the evidence that is not addressed will be understood later

• Interesting enough, this follows a similar pattern as the 'God did it' model

• Both atheism and Christianity are worldviews. Atheists make a stand that there isn't sufficient proof that God exists. I make a stand that there isn't sufficient proof Christian doctrines are wrong.

• The explanation for structural similarities between humans and animals is explainable in the Christianity worldview

Miracles and Solidarity

• “Does man have to be different to be proof that God made him directly?” The answer is no.

• Agreed

Do Percentages Matter?

• "The question of genetic similarity remains of interest to scientists, but it is entirely secondary to the question of human significance."

Junk DNA

• Interesting tidbit, but not sure how it fits into this article

The Function of the Framework

• "Scientists trust in current scientific theories, and in many cases the trust is warranted. But such trust is a form of faith, and it is unwise to denounce those who find themselves unable to muster the same faith.

• This is how we life everyday. We often cite people and papers and claim that is okay because they have been peer-edited and accepted. Most people don't actually read the methods and/or show that they are reproducible. They merely trust other people's claims.

• We place our hope on empirical evidence because the scientific framework is objective, while experiential "evidence" is not. However, the scientific framework is limited. It's inability to explain purpose is one short-coming it has.

• Science makes an assumption that the present always conforms to the past. For example, we expect objects to fall at roughly 9.81 m/s/s based on past experiments. However, this is no definite proof that the present or future will always perform the same as the past. If we do not make this assumption, the scientific framework becomes useless.

• This can also be said about God - how do you know He never changes (i.e. immutable)? If God does change, Christianity wouldn't hold. However, if God exists, but does not keep His word, we're in trouble regardless if we believe in Him or not.

Does Nonfunctionality Matter?

• "The fact that we cannot figure out purposes does not mean that God does not have any."

The Minimum Population Bottleneck

• "Statistical analysis allegedly shows that there never was a single original human pair, but a larger population; figures of 5,000 or 10,000 are sometimes encountered as minimal figures for any population “bottleneck” in human ancestry."

• This part didn't interest me too much - it was a claim I've never heard, and the author discredits it anyways.

How long ago did Adam and Eve live?

• There is a gap between Genesis 5 and Genesis 10

• There is also a gap in Matthew 1

• "Moreover, the genealogy in matt 1:2-16 places the name of Uzziah immediately after Joram (v. 8). When it does so, it omits the names of the intervening generations, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which 2 Chr 22–25 mentions. Matthew 1:8 thus has a “gap."
• Yayyy to support for old-earth? =P

Three Sides to the Analysis

• Author (paraphrased): This paper only addresses the scientific view, and not the theological view
• "In the midst of rapidly expanding research, popular claims made in the name of science easily fall victim to one of three failings:
• they overreach or exaggerate the implications of evidence,
• they misread the significance of technical research,
• or they argue in a circle by assuming the principle of purely gradualistic evolution at the beginning of their analysis."

Commitments

• "Scientists must believe (1) that the world displays regularities,

• (2) that human beings have minds so attuned to these regularities that they have a chance of discerning them,

• (3) that examination of the world and experimentation concerning its regularities are ethically legitimate, and

• (4) that scientists ought to and for the most part do remain honest in their examination of the world and their reports of their conclusions"

Understanding the Creation of Human Beings

• "What's the bible about?" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R-MsejlbWYghAp_KXFy0R-y5UIuhB_N-ZTGQeFhvaEc/edit)

Summary

I would recommend this paper for reading. I have not looked deeply into the citations to ensure the author is using the right context when citing journal articles, so I would not consider this a robust critique of this article. However, since I am biased, I am inclined to agree without diving into the citations.

Maybe another time.