Evolution from a genetic perspective

Thank you for your comment.

Yes, I know all this. I was just giving a bit of information to show the extent that people will go to to undergird their ideas when they can’t support them any other way. But you apparently all ready knew that. I’m way old and have been dealing with this stuff for a long time. Even believed it for a while.

Actually, I would say that the major drawback of PuncEq (and, for that matter, allopatric speciation, evo/devo, etc.) is that it is still dependent upon the same failed mechanism. If natural selection can’t get the job done gradually, how does shortening the time scale help? No logical sense.

1 Like

John, my 70th birthday is coming this summer so I am “way old,” too.

Hang in there!

1 Like

There has never been a time when the book on evolution is not being rewritten .
I could post the “science” charts concerning evolution I was instructed with in high school on any evolutionary website today and I would be the one labeled a knuckle dragging Neanderthal for coming up with such erroneous information.
90 % of the books ever written on evolution are considered obsolete today by evolutionists .
And that is because scientific discovery has left them no choice but to do so.

1 Like

But something that I find troubling is that seems to be going on in the creationist camp too in their attempts to support some of the scientific ‘evidence.’


Hi, Sam! We all have common DNA because, as many others have said, we all have common needs. It would only make sense that our DNA resembled each other because they need to function the same.

Many people say that we share much of our DNA with chimpanzees. It used to be thought that it was close to 90% but was recently discovered that it’s more like 60%. In fact, humans share more DNA with a soy bean than a chimp! And I’m sure most scientists would agree that we aren’t very closely related to a soy bean. All this to say, the common-DNA=common-ancestor argument should probably be investigated very closely before taken as fact.

My background is in wildlife rehabilitation, specifically specializing in orphaned and injured hummingbirds and large birds of prey. I know… extreme opposite ends of the spectrum! To really mix things up, I am one semester from having a B.S. in Entomology. I also study Genetics just because I’m super fascinated by all that. I say this so that perhaps it will offer some help in understanding where I am coming from.
Having considered the implications of believing in evolution from a scientific, philosophical and Biblical perspectives, I have not yet found a way to “meld” Darwinian evolution and Christianity.
Trying to be brief here… ha! Not gonna happen…. Lol…
When it comes to evolution, there’s nothing like studying insects that will leave you scratching your head. I’ve sat through many a lecture listening to a professor stumble their way through – or rushing thru – an explanation of how insects just “suddenly” appear. It gets even worse when they go on to explain the “sudden” appearance insects with fully functional wings. The sheer mechanics of it all is insanely complicated. And that’s just for each individual organism.
From a philosophical perspective, Darwinian evolution calls into question the character of God (any god) because nature is (currently), as Lord Alfred Tennyson said, “red in tooth and claw.” Darwin himself could not reconcile the so-called goodness of God with the ubiquitous brutality observed in nature. For example, he wrote of the struggle with this dilemma, citing specifically the parasitic behavior of Ichneumonidae wasps. In an article in Scientific American, Richard Dawkins recognizes this as well when describing animals dying very slowly from death, starvation, disease, parasites while others are running in fear to avoid literally being eaten alive. He concludes that this “pitiless indifference” is exactly what we should expect in a universe without design or purpose. Such a god, if one even exists, would be quite reprehensible and hard to love and worship.
Then we come to the Biblical perspective. As recorded in Genesis, the God of the Bible looks upon His completed creation, declaring it all to be good and very good. Intrinsic to evolutionary theory is a struggle for existence over eons of time resulting in the deaths of untold millions of animals of all kinds. So, Darwinian evolution has millions of years of animal death before the dawn of H. sapiens, which we would have to assume are the equivalent of Biblical mankind. However, the Bible is clear that death and decay (entropy) was introduced because of the sin of humanity (specifically Adam). Romans 5. Some say it only means spiritual death, but then one must ask, if physical death is not the penalty for sin, why the physical bodily suffering and death of Christ as payment for sins? Others say this death excludes animal death, but then we have verses like Hosea 4:1-3 which draws the irrefutable connection that animals are dying because of humanity’s sin. Isaiah 65:25 speaks of an end to carnivorous behavior and has God saying that on His holy mountain, “they shall not hurt or destroy” implying that such behavior is, in fact, NOT “good.”
In wildlife rehabilitation, I see lots of animal death and suffering. Hummingbirds with broken wings or having seizures from head trauma from just smacking into a window. Owls and hawks shot or caught in barbed wire. Others are starving from being inexperienced hunters or because they have internal parasites. Richard Dawkins’ quote haunts me because for 17 years I’ve seen some pretty horrific stuff. If this sin-induced death of which the Bible speaks excludes animals and can only be attributed to their Creator who then declared it all to be “very good,” then Dawkins’ and Darwin’s dilemma would be mine as well.
Sorry for the super long involved answer, but I do hope you find this helpful!

1 Like

I must say this is a really interesting point. I wonder what other areas of science may be going down blind alleys because they reject the God hypothesis a priori.

1 Like