The DNA of God

I received a sideways compliment recently. Hearing of my involvement with missions to Venezuela, I was asked by Michael Horner while we were in London if I had some Hispanic heritage. I don't as such and said as much. I'm not very dark compared to many, but I'm dark enough to have made the Hispanics at work wonder if I was Hispanic. So, I understand where the question came from. I went on to explain my mutt heritage: English, German, Irish and other north European, Cherokee, and something unknown that seems to be Mediterranean of some sort. Michael mused that he noticed that people of mixed heritage do tend to be physically strong and attractive people.

Where does one go with a comment like that? I duly appreciated it, although I've never seen myself as particularly attractive. So I opened up a discourse on genetic speciation and the reintroduction of lost genetic potential in isolated populations. (It's okay - he understands these things. One of the things I enjoyed in London was the intellectual capital represented in our group.)

At precisely the same time as this was taking place in London my wife, Lois, and our kids were spending time in the Sierra de Perijá with the Yukpa Indians. I had wondered from an anthropological perspective of their level of homogeneity. After they got back top civilization, Lois posted some photos from their time there and I noticed striking morphological clues that this tribe had likely been genetically isolated for some time. While she respectfully didn't get any photos, she offered recently that there was an alarmingly high incidence of physical deformity in the tribe. That's an indicator that the population size has remained small enough to lose the genetic variety necessary to cover genetic defects. In other words, people can't find mates in their own ethnicity that aren't too closely related to them. That's the problem with Kinism. (By the way, it also evidences that speciation does not result in eventual mutation.)

Also in London with our group were several people from South Africa. Our purpose was to minister to an ethnic group who vacations in London in the summer. Remarkable about the presence of the South Africans is that there were white and black South Africans working side by side. I remember the years of Apartheid and how God changed all that seemingly overnight. There are still racial tensions in South Africa, but the testimony of our brothers and sisters we met in London is that God had changed their hearts. Now, with new hearts for the people of God here were two ethnicities formerly at great odds working side-by-side to reconcile yet a third ethnicity to the One who reconciles all things.

Genetic information is what causes all living things to reproduce after their own kind. Young are produced in the image of their parents. If this is observed then could it not also be observed that God creates his spiritual children after His spiritual likeness? This is DNA that comes directly from God. It is inextricable from the existence of those who have His DNA. Just as physiological DNA determines our basic morphologies, spiritual DNA determines our basic spiritual nature. We don't need a good mix of genes to give us healthy spiritual DNA, however, because God gives His children spiritual DNA that is perfect and incorruptible. Inasmuch as we are His, we possess His beauty. It doesn't matter what your human ethnicity or physical DNA - if you are a child of God, you are beautiful.

Are Chimps More Evolved Than Humans?

We hear all about how 96% of the DNA of chimpanzees is similar to that of humans. But how is it similar? Is it qualitatively similar, quantitatively similar, or some combination of the two. One single genetic molecule is responsible for progeria, so what kind of differences can we expect to see when we change 4% of the millions of the molecules in our genetic code that define our morphological construction?

But what I really notice from a recent Answers in Genesis article is that Chimpanzees actually have more genetic code than humans. If molecules-to-man evolution is supposed to increase genetic information, then should the naturalists who believe in it not conclude that chimpanzees are more evolved than humans? Think about it.

Poor Argumentation in the Origins Debate

A week ago, Biologists from the University of Manchester issued a press release concerning the change in the breed of St. Bernards over time. Specifically, they observed quantifiable changes in the breadth of the skulls of St. Bernards, the angle between the nose and forehead and the acuteness of the ridge above the eyes. My observation scientifically is the same as that of Answers in Genesis. Namely, that their observations were primarily with respects to morphology, not genetic structure.

The interesting part to me, however, is not that the observations were made. I suppose someone could make them for some scientific reason. I don’t know what that reason would be. The thing is, the University biologists billed their find as a challenge to creationism. The study of morphology is no challenge to creationism. The only challenge is in answering the reporting of this press release as though the scientists had actually discovered something that put a nail in the coffin of creationism.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Biologists should know better than to think that slight changes in morphology or any phenotype indicate a change in genotype. What I’m saying is that different types of animals have different genes. For human beings, I have the same genotype as my wife. However, I am tall and have dark features. My wife is short and has light features. My kids have my olive skin, but their hair is closer to my wife’s color. We have produced offspring of the same genotype, but with phenotypical variations allowable within that genotype. No amount of selecting for variations within a genotype will ever change the genotype. Even evolutionary biologists know this. Evolutionary theory holds that changes in genotype occur not by selection, but by accident. It’s only by intentional misinformation given by evolutionary propagandists that have resulted in the false idea that selection for desirable phenotypes changes a population’s genotype.

Creationists believe in selection as being necessary for speciation within a family. That is, the genotypes remain the same, but marked differences in phenotype occur as undesirable variants are removed leaving only the desirable phenotypes within a relatively isolated population of that genotype. Therefore, this study poses no scientific challenge to creation science. Rather, it presents a serious flaw in the less-than-scientific press releases by evolutionary scientists. This is no isolated incident, but is typical of too many pseudo-scientific conclusions made by scientists. It should be alarming that many of these scientists are teaching such poor scientists to the next generation of scientists in our places of higher learning.

If you look in the comment thread of the article in Physorg.com that repeated the UM press release, you will find a discussion where theistic evolution is proposed. It is true that scientists with different philosophical presuppositions often arrive at different conclusions given the same empirical data. Theistic evolution is a result of presuppositional differentiation. However, the presuppositions are often different than those between earnest naturalists and consistent theists. The presuppositions that drive most theistic evolutionists is the desire either for the existence of God (or to allow them some compatibilistic means to be nonconfrontational toward theists) as well as the belief that such press releases as the one from UM in some way indicate proof that evolution is true.

These types of scientists and those who believe them may be earnest in their argumentation. Too often, I suspect that the conclusion was developed prior to the argument and the argument tailored to propagate the desired conclusion. Either way, such argumentation at this is poor and decidedly not scientific.

Original Sin

Here's a question that could stir the nest. With all the talk about the scientists trying to produce life artificially I haven't heard this question asked yet. (Of course I haven't gotten through my blog reading yet.) If scientists one day are able to artificially produce a man with no parents, will he be free from original sin?

Was Christ free from sin because he had no biological human father or because He is God?

...or both?

What was the purpose of the virgin birth?

Don't let this cause you to doubt like Mother Theresa. Let it refine your thinking and strengthen your faith.

Busy Summer - Recent Thoughts

I know I haven't posted much lately. For those of you who don't read my Xanga, I did recently post about my recent camping trip with Mark Sherrill and Adam and Matthew Hatcher. This has been a busy summer, however, on a number of levels. For one, we're in full swing at work. I work in the laboratory furniture industry and this is the time of year when colleges and universities are especially inclined to renovate or build new labs. For another, my wife and kids are in Venezuela and we're all a little homesick. We've been blessed with the technology to be able to talk every day and lately my wife and I have taken to typing sweet nothings to each other into the wee hours of the night. 3 weeks and a day and we'll all be reunited in Venezuela.

I was able to catch up on my online reading yesterday and found a few unrelated items of interest.

---

Because of the absence of my wife I've been particularly enjoying PaPaTevia's musings about marriage on his blog recently in the wake of his 25th wedding anniversary.

---

If you're like me and find archeology interesting, you may like models of ancient sites. Here's a rather large one of ancient Jerusalem.

---

Here's a humorous video from repentandtrustdotorg on YouTube. "8 Reasons I Don't Share My Faith" - do you identify with any of these reasons?

---

There were also a couple of interesting posts about genetics. On Answers in Genesis, they report that scientists have found another layer of complexity in the genetic code. Scientists have found, much to their astonishment that a single gene can produce more than one protein depending on what enzyme "reads" it. This is a form of information compression that make zip files look like child's play. On Triablogue they have a humorous "report" about the discovery that humans share 50% of their genes with bananas.

---

On a theological note, Strange BaptistFire posted an article about the Glory of God.

“Glorify” is the verb form of the noun “glory,” which translates the Hebrew word kabod, meaning “weight” or “heaviness.” This word speaks to heaviness in terms of dignity, and indicates a radically humbling emotional impact on any who encounter true glory; as seen, for example, in the experience of the Prophet Isaiah, who, when encountering the glory of God, began to call down curses upon himself for his sin (Isaiah 6).

Consider that God already has "glory" and we can give Him no glory that He doesn't already have. When we glorify God, we don't give God more glory than He already has. Instead, we recognize His glory and align ourselves with Him.

---

In Him,
-Jim

It's in the Code

I've been coding some new tools for work so my mind is filled with an unspeakable language. Don't believe me? Despite the apparent words, you can't verbalize the punctuated syntax. Try reading this aloud:

Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Dim currentField As String
Dim currentRow As String()
File1Index = 0
OpenFileDialog1.ShowDialog()
PathFile1 = OpenFileDialog1.FileName
Using MyReader As New Microsoft.VisualBasic.FileIO.TextFieldParser(PathFile1)
MyReader.TextFieldType = FileIO.FieldType.Delimited
MyReader.SetDelimiters(",")
While Not MyReader.EndOfData
Try
currentRow = MyReader.ReadFields()
File1Index = File1Index + 1
LineIndex = 0
For Each currentField In currentRow
LineIndex = LineIndex + 1
If File1Index = 1 Then
Select Case currentField
Case Is = "PartQty"
PQIndex = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartMat"
PMIndex = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartRemark"
PRemIndex = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartRemark2"
PRem2Index = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartRemark3"
PRem3Index = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartRef"
PRefIndex = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartL"
PLIndex = LineIndex
Case Is = "PartW"
PWIndex = LineIndex
End Select
Else
Select Case LineIndex
Case Is = PQIndex
PartQty(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PMIndex
PartMat(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PRemIndex
PartRemark(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PRem2Index
PartRemark2(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PRem3Index
PartRemark3(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PRefIndex
PartRef(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PLIndex
PartL(File1Index) = currentField
Case Is = PWIndex
PartW(File1Index) = currentField
End Select
End If
Label1.Text = currentField
Next
Catch ex As Microsoft.VisualBasic.FileIO.MalformedLineException
MsgBox("Line " & ex.Message & "is not valid and will be skipped.")
End Try
End While
End Using
End Sub

Ok. It's not supposed to wrap, but you get the idea. And this is Visual Basic, so it's easier to read. It makes the tower of Babel seem like it must have been a cake walk.

This is rather simple code. More complex programming can have millions of lines of code. And we have yet to create a program as complex as the simplest self-reproducible genetic code with all of the code for the molecular machinery required for self-reproduction that would have had to be in place in order for the first molecular machinery to be made. (Oops! That's kinda circular, isn't it?) And to think, it all happened by accident. (Mff. Let me get my tongue out of my cheek.)

You know, I'm still debugging my simple program. I wonder how the first genetic code that happened on "accident" was able to debug itself...