Chromosome 2

Was watching a gentleman on youtube who has fallen away from being a follower of Jesus Christ. One of the reasons he did so was because he said Chromosome 2 seems to indicate so clearly that there is common ancestry with the ape. Sorry, I am not a scientist so I may not be articulating this question very well.

1 Like

So what is your question about this? Without an actual question, responding is rather like taking a shot in the dark. Still, I would say that if that one point is all it took to convince him to abandon his belief in Jesus, he likely was already looking for an excuse to do so. Can you give us a bit more context or perhaps the link to the video so we can respond more in-depth?

1 Like

Sorry I guess I need to be more specific in how I worded this. Does the argument about chromosome 2 point toward common ancestry between apes and man? I have been looking through so many Christian websites and have found no good argument that counters this belief. A good reference or book talking about this would be very helpful. My original post was referencing this youtube video.

1 Like

Yes Rhett did have a lot of points as to why he stepped away from Christianity. This one was the most interesting to me and the one I could use some help working through. He is a very famous and influential you tuber.

1 Like

First, similarities in dna between species point equally well to 2 possibilities. Common descent, OR a common DESIGNER. If you are building similar things, why would you reinvent the wheel every time. Once you have an elbow joint that works pretty well, you’d use it anywhere you need that same function. Thus, such similarities do not provide evidence either direction on the question of God’s existence.

Second, even if you do decide that there is common descent, you still have the problem of life’s origin. Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is a crock. Even if they COULD produce all the necessary amino acids and parts of RNA & DNA through a purely natural process (which they can’t), the odds of getting even the amino acids to form the necessary proteins for the first cell is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe (even at 13.7 billion years…even at 13.7 QUINTillion years). Add to that the question of how RNA and DNA somehow got introduced into the process & where the code came from (through a purely natural process), and we are past the point of mathematical impossibility (even if you introduce multiple universes - for which there is no evidence at all). Thus, there is no natural explanation for life’s origins.

Finally, there are a number of Christians who believe that God used an evolutionary process to create life on earth. This is not a natural process as He was directing the process all along the way. If this is true, then common descent is nothing more than God’s directing the process through the various branch points.

1 Like

While they don’t address this exact question, some good books on evolution vs intelligent design are “Darwin’s Black Box,” “The Edge of Evolution,” and “Darwin Devolves” all by Michael Behe (a biochemist). They go from the late 1990’s through to just a couple of years ago & show the progression of information that has been learned in that time. There are also “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer. These go into some detail about the informational requirement to actually build cells in the first place. Finally, for a more philosophical overview of the topic as a whole, you can try “Scientism and Secularism” by J.P. Moreland. He differentiates between science and scientism (the philosophy that tries to use science to advance its own agenda).

Here is a short book review pointing out some of the limitations of Behe’s arguments in his book, Darwin Devolves

Hi Nathan,
I am a scientist and also a Christian. Many scientists are able to affirm the theory of evolution while still believing the Bible. There are various ways that we think about the challenges. Some of the other threads on this forum show a few of the different approaches that scientists take.

Quoting myself from another thread post on this forum, in case this way of thinking might be helpful to you:

Because I am a scientist, I am not skeptical about scientific findings and trust them to be true. I trust the scientific process, because scientific ideas come from many different disciplines and the models are vetted by many different smart people who challenge each other’s ideas. Thus, the best ideas come to the fore. I also do not believe that God would use scientific data to mislead us. Thus, I affirm evolution.

However, I also affirm Biblical inerrancy. Because God created both the physical world and all the creatures in it, there must be a way to reconcile the scientific data with God’s word given to us in the Bible, even if the best way to reconcile those truths is not fully apparent to us right now. It will all become clear to us when we get to heaven, and I think that it is OK for us to be uncomfortable with not fully understanding right now. God leaves room for mystery. I take comfort in the fact that since many people are thinking about how to resolve the Adam and Eve story with evolution, there are many options for thinking about those things, even if all the current options have some limitations. The fact that there are various ways of thinking about how to resolve the Biblical story with evolution assures me that there is a reasonable solution, which will become fully clear to us in heaven.

Thank you Christopher. I really appreciate your input on this topic. I have read several of Behe’s books. I will take a look at the book you mentioned. It seems very intriguing.

Michelle. I really appreciate your viewpoint in this. Are there any resources you would recommend on the perspective of melding Darwinian Evolution and Christianity? I would really enjoy looking more into this perspective. I did find this resource that I found interesting on Have you read Behe’s latest book? I started reading it a month ago.

1 Like
  1. year chemistry student here, so far from knowing everything. I think DNA in itself is already evidence to some degree that there must have been one common ancestor. But i feel like this question doesn’t lead you further. So even if you might disagree, let’s just assume it would be true.
    I’ve recently heard an analogy by Michael Ramsden that stuck with me: Imagine there is a pot of water boiling on a fire. Someone walks past and asks: “Why is the water boiling?”. There are at least two valid answers to this question. “Because the burning wood is releasing energy and the energy is being transferred through the metal of the pot to the water. Now once the water received enough energy it changes it’s state to gaseous.” Another answer could be: “Because I want to make some tea.” And it is the same with Chromosome 2 and many similar questions. Why does a scientific explanation mean that God is not in there. I hope this thought helps you as well.
1 Like

Thank you. I heard Michael Ramsden the other day use that analogy. Good stuff. Definitely makes me think.


That book review is largely a copy of a review from Science. It is full of what I will charitably call “errors.” Their claim, for example, that Behe ignores exaption is apparently based solely upon the fact that he doesn’t use that actual word. He does describe what it is and gives his reason for not finding it to be a credible mechanism. The link that napalm747 posted has a number of responses from Behe and others to the various accusations.

1 Like