America

"Whatever has happened since Obama took office, America is still everywhere with its fingers in nearly everything, and that gigantic fact about our world is not going to change anytime soon" (Peter J. Leithart, Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective (Cascade Books, 2012), x).

 

Woot, Woot! I ordered this book a couple weeks ago and today it finally arrived in the mail. I have no idea how the USPS crammed the Amazon package into my mailbox, but I was able to extract it successfully. Score: 1 to 1. Therefore, I will dedicate all of my posts to the USPS.

Socialism: Bury the Carcase?

Gary North, a prolific author, began An Economic Commentary on the Bible in 1973. In 2012, he finished the series. Quite the providential Prolegomenon to The Affordable Care Act.

The Bible is hostile to all forms of socialism and the welfare state. I have spent over three decades proving this, verse by verse. So far, Christian socialists refuse to present detailed exegetical support for their case. They do not respond to me. Meanwhile, socialism has visibly died. Communism is defunct. There was never an intellectually coherent theoretical defense of socialism, and now it has failed visibly. It impoverished those nations that adopted it. Socialism is a dead mule. It was always sterile. It is time to bury the carcase (Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs (Point Five Press, 2012), 3).

 If Socialism is a dead mule, then what is The Affordable Care Act? The "last hurrah"? A funeral dirge sang drunkenly graveside of said mule? Perhaps. 

Evolution, Again

I found the following section, from the ARJ article referenced in my prior post, illuminating.

In general, creationist research into the area of human-chimp genome similarity has been largely limited to the interpretation of claims made in evolutionary research without fully addressing the highly selective methods used or the non-alignable data that is often omitted. Nevertheless, many important points and discoveries have been brought to light.

Prior to the completion of the chimpanzee genome project, molecular biologist David DeWitt points out that despite the supposed high DNA similarity between human and chimp, significant differences exist in cytogenetics, types and numbers of transposable elements, insertion and deletion events, gene expression patterns and mRNA splicing (DeWitt 2003). In a later report, DeWitt also demonstrates that if a 5% genome-wide difference is accepted, this level of similarity is still insufficient to support various hypothetical models for selection and common ancestry consistent with evolutionary timelines (DeWitt 2005). The rate of mutational buildup in the genome of humans was further tested in computer simulations by Sanford et al. (2008) and found to represent a serious challenge to Darwinian evolutionary timelines irrespective of reported human-chimp genome differences.

Many mutations (DNA sequence differences) separating human and chimp from a common ancestor are thought to take place in regions where the genome is non-coding, a finding recently confirmed by an evolutionary report (Polavarapu et al. 2011). While evolutionary reports of non-coding DNA differences between humans and chimps continue to emerge, the logical association between these differences and the now well-documented functional and feature-rich nature of the entire non-coding region of the human genome is dramatically down-played. The wide diversity of research into the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) has spectacularly confirmed the many critical features of non-coding DNA (The ENCODE Project Consortium 2011). In the area of creationist research, biologists Woodmorappe and Batten were some of the first creationist authors to illustrate how a diversity of data in the field of non-coding DNA provided support to the genome-wide function of a wide variety of important non-coding sequence classes and DNA features (Batten 2005; Woodmorappe 2004). In a recent comprehensive review that discusses a wide variety of design features in non-coding DNA, molecular biologist and intelligent design proponent Jonathan Wells thoroughly debunks the fraudulent concept of junk DNA (Wells 2011). For a brief review on the subject associated with a summary of Wells’ book see the recent article by Tomkins (2011b).

Perhaps the greatest ongoing discrepancy between human and chimp that does not fit with the so-called high similarity claims, is the marked differences in behavior and anatomy as summarized by creationists Anderson (2007), Purdom (2006) and Wieland (2002). These obvious differences between human and chimp do not seem to correlate with the supposed claims of nearly identical DNA similarity between the taxa. In fact, a secular science writer for the BBC has recently published an entire book documenting this paradox titled Not a chimp (Taylor 2009).

While many creationist authors tentatively accepted the standard evolutionary claims regarding human chimp DNA similarity, a number of reports indicated that the “nearly identical” dogma was not as clear-cut as it seemed to be. In fact, it was indicated that evolutionary data reports on human chimp DNA similarity largely represented pre-screened data that is already know to be homologous (similar in sequence) at some level, such as highly similar protein coding sequences shared among the taxa (Tomkins 2009a, 2009b). In addition, a recent literature review combined with a bioinformatics research project, evaluated the hypothetical fusion of two chimp-like chromosomes (2a and 2b) to form human chromosome 2. This project showed that the evolutionary primate fusion paradigm was seriously flawed in a number of key respects, further discounting nearly identical DNA claims (Bergman and Tomkins 2011; Tomkins 2011c; Tomkins and Bergman 2011).

Evolution, Again

Here is an article from 2011 in the ARJ (Answers Research Journal). The author discusses some of the most relevant and famous human-chimp genome studies, contrasting those findings with his own research, which shows that,

. . . a very conservative estimate of human-chimp DNA similarity genome-wide is 86–89%. Results from this study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee genomes are at least 10–12% less identical than is commonly claimed. These results are more clearly in line with the large anatomical and behavioral differences observed between human and chimp.

The article is technical yet well written, and even a non-specialist can follow it. The above quote is seminal, but not as much as this closing quote from the Conclusion.

The conservative nature of these estimates is further noted by the fact that the 40,000 sequence chimp sequences that were tested, represent pre-selected homologous sequence already known to align to the human genome [emphasis CCS]. 

Evolution: Much Ado About Nothing

Yesterday Mashable posted an article about YouTube channel EvolutionDocumentary, which has assembled 300+ YouTube videos on Evolution. The Mashable article ends on a rather, how shall I put it, hubristic note.

We're not sure about the rights arrangement here [I assume he means copyrights and intellectual property rights of the various BBC, PBS, Discovery Channel, National Geographic videos utilized for this YouTube channel] . . . It's great for students, folks who want to brush up and perhaps those who need a little convincing that science is, you know, real.

Come again? ". . . those who need a little convincing that science is, you know, real." Alright. I'm game. I'll give this a quick whirl. Come along with me, click the EvolutionDocumentary link.

The opening video is "Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes" and the narrator begins by saying,

Humans and chimpanzees parted company in evolution about 6 million years ago from a common ancestor [CCS|Tree & The Seed is already suspicious].

The narrator goes on to discuss the similarities between the human and chimpanzee genomes. He points to a visual display that has symbols representing the genome data. They've created a matrix with series of parallel rows, a running comparison of the human genome against the chimpanzee genome. The columns are populated with elements/entries which symbolize the various human and chimpanzee genome data.

As you run your finger across the parallel rows you see that there are similarities down the columns. "T-T", "A-A", "C-C", etc. However, differences between the human and the chimpanzee genomes are offset, represented by a new image. Instead of a connecting "|" line, there is a picture of a man. Very cute. A man swimming around in a sea of human and chimpanzee alphabetic-symbolism.

The presuppositions are glaring. Just let the tape roll and you will catch them. The Narrator says,

 All away along here they are identical. . . . Follow along this row here--chimp/human, chimp/human--identical, identical, identical, there's a difference. . . . all the same, all the same, no difference at all between the human and the chimpanzee . . . now we see a difference . . .

Identical? Identical? Difference? Identical? Identical? No difference at all . . . now we see a difference? Hold the phone. Let me get this right. You're telling me that something can be both identical and different? I thought those were mutually exclusive? So you dump all of this data on me and, Wham!, I'm just suppose to believe in Evolution? And if all of this isn't already confusing enough, the Narrator closes with an absolutely startling, jaw-dropping presuppositional disclosure. He says,

 Almost all of the human genome and the chimpanzee genome is identical. A tiny number of differences account for all of the really quite large differences that we see between humans and chimpanzees.

I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I will tell you what all of this means. It means that the argument for evolution, from the genome standpoint, has nothing to do with "science that just looks at the hard facts," which is a mythical idea if there ever was one. When this guy talks we learn more about what he thinks and what he presupposes to be true than what we learn about genomes. This Narrator is a talking head for EvolutionDocumentary. "Hard facts" did not convert him to be so inclined towards evolution. "Hard facts" are a laughable concept, but for the sake of argument, assuming there is such a thing as a "hard fact", then rest assured readers, and know that it was not genome"hard facts" that convinced this man. Yes, proof is in the pudding, but it aint' here. Rather, he already presupposed the truthfulness of evolution (contra the Narrator, I presuppose that God created the world in six days, that there was a real, literal Adam and Eve, etc., and I believe all of that on the authority of God's word--I believe it because God cannot lie).

The Narrator carries his presuppositional sensibilities with him. He is a walking (upright), presupposing interpreter, and a technical education can't change that for anyone, not one lick. A "blank slate" has never walked up to human genomes and chimpanzee genomes and thought out loud, "Well, let's figure out what we have here?!?"

The Narrator said, "A tiny number of differences account for all of the really quite large differences that we see between humans and chimpanzees" . . . and in the face of all of the "quite large differences" he suggests that this means that 6 million years ago we shared a common ancestor. The theory of evolution presupposes that a mythical, common ancestor existed, so I am not surprised that an evolutionist sees genomes and thinks "common ancestors"--to the guy with a hammer, everything is a nail. If only a small number of differences account for the really quite large differences, then why go to such lengths, and attribute importance to, discussing the large number of similarities? Isn't it just a wash or moot point? Seems to me that quantity doesn't determine quality, and if that is the case, then couldn't someone argue this from the other direction? E.g., "Well, such-and-such a things have next to nothing in common, well, that is, except for these few similarities which account for the really large number of defining attributes, and since they have that minority in common with one another it means that this carrot and the Sun have a common ancestor 6235697891 years ago. It has to be true. They are both the color Orange." Yes, consciously hyperbolic, that.

I will not watch the 300+ videos. I may watch a few of them, but not all. This opening video is not compelling. Logically this stinks. Please bear with me, the end is near. We will use symbols. Human genome = H. Chimpanzee genome = C.

H = H
C = C

Pretty basic. However, there is one more thing. The Narrator in his own words said that the human genome is not the same as the chimpanzee genome. He said there are tiny differences that account for all of the really quite large differences we see between humans and chimps. This means that . . .

H ≠ C

The human genome is not the chimpanzee genome. Yes, I know there are similarities. But as a whole they are not identical. They are not exact. If you look at two things that are not exact in order to argue that the similarities between the two inexact things infers that so many millions of years ago there was an exact common ancestor, then you are wasting my time. Give me a break. You want me to place my faith in your judgment? I do not think so. In the words of my two year old, "No, Not! No, Not!"

If H ≠ C, then what you have is 0 identicalness. That is a zero. It is meaningless to look at similarities between two inexact things and deduce a common ancestor 6 million years ago. To quote Ayn Rand, who was addressing a totally different topic, "If you write a line of zeroes, it's still nothing." Got that? Evolution is nothing.

0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness +  = nothing identicalness

However, today we see Much Ado About Nothing . . .

0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + "scientific" interpretation of genomes by a God-hater-who-does-not-take-God-at-his-word = 6 Million Year Old Common Ancestor Identicalness