AN

Thanks for your message. As is my custom, when I receive a message on a
creation/evolution topic that would be of interest to my list CED
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/), I copy my
response to CED, minus any of the senders identifying information.

--Original Message Text---
From: AN
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:45:15 -0400

AN>... tells me that you can provide substantiation for the belief that
>man and ape share a common ancestor.
>
>This interests me greatly, and I would really appreciate any insights you
>can provide.

>Thank you,

First, no offence intended, but I note from searching your name on the
Internet, that you have some prominence in the evolution controversy and
seem to have a position against "that man and ape share a common
ancestor." If that is the case, then probably nothing I say would "provide
substantiation" *to you* "that man and ape share a common ancestor."

However, for the benefit of members of CED, and those who read its
archives, my reasons "for the belief that man and ape share a common
ancestor" are briefly as follows (see also my web page, "Why I accept
common ancestry" <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html>).

1. BIBLICAL
a) There is no Biblical verse that states "that man and ape" do
*not* "share a common ancestor."

b) There are Biblical verses that indicate "that man and ape" *may*
"share a common ancestor", e.g.:

(i) both man and animals were made on the same day in
Genesis (Gn 1:24-31);

(ii) both animals and man are described by exactly the same
two Hebrew words chay nephesh that English Bibles
translate in Gn 2:7 as "living being/living soul" (NIV/AV)
for man; and as "living creatures" for animals in Gn 1:21,24
(NIV & AV);

(iii) both animals and man are blessed by God and told to
"Be fruitful and increase in number" (Gn 1:28) and given
the same food to eat (Gn 1:29-30);

(iv) both man and animals are described as being formed
from the ground (Gn 2:7,19)

(v) both man and animals are described as having in their
nostrils the breath of life (Gn 2:7, 7:22)

(vi) there are verses that speak of man as being like the
animals:

"I also thought, `As for men, God tests them so that they
may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that
of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies,
so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no
advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All
go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all
return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if
the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (Ecc
3:18-21).

(vii) The account of Jesus driving demons that were
possessing men into pigs (Mt 8:28-32) presupposes some
psychic commonality between man and at least the higher
animals.

2. SCIENTIFIC
a) All life (bacteria, plants, animals and man) share a common
genetic code, and a common basic biochemistry and molecular
biology;

b) man and chimps share about 98% of their DNA and proteins;

c) man and apes share very similar karyotypes (chromosome
maps);

d) man and higher primates share the same vitamin C pseudogene,
and so are unable to synthesise vitamin C, unlike the vast majority
of other mammals;

e) man and apes have identical endogenous retroviral sequences
(ERVs) embedded in their genomes.

3. OTHER
a) My original position was opposed to common ancestry. It was
one of the bitterest pills I have ever had to swallow to admit that
my evolutionists opponents on the Calvin Reflector were right on
that major point (see
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199505-10/0391.html);

b) I have won few friends and made more enemies (both
creationist/IDist and evolutionist) for my acceptance of common
ancestry. However, `truth is its own reward' and `one on the side of
the truth is a majority';

c) Common ancestry is not necessarily evolution since evolution:

i) requires also a *fully* naturalistic mechanism (both
Darwin and Dawkins said it would not be evolution, but
*creation*, if God intervened supernaturally at *any* stage
in life's history;

ii) evolution did not unequivocally predict *single*
common ancestry (Darwin spoke of life descending from "a
few forms or one"; molecular evolutionists are now
invoking multiple common ancestors to get away from a
single complex common ancestor that is at the root of all
the molecular phylogenetic trees; and evolutionists would
be *very* happy if they found life on Earth that did *not*
share a common ancestry.

d) It is a fallacy of false alternatives to claim there are only two
positions: 1) design without descent; and 2) descent without
design; when there is clearly a third alternative, 3) design *with*
descent (my position, and Behe's);

e) Some evangelical theologians (e.g. A.H. Strong, C.F.H. Henry;
D. Kidner and J. Stott) either accept, or have no problem with,
common ancestry of man and animals.

f) At least one leading member of the ID movement, Michael Behe,
accepts common ancestry, and I suspect that there are other leading
IDists (no names no pack drill!) who either accept common
ancestry or have no problem with it. Even the leader of the ID
movement, Phillip E. Johnson, while he rejects common ancestry,
has stated that, "The `evolution of human beings from apes' is not
an unacceptable hypothesis for me" and "Obviously, God could
have made humans unmistakably distinct from other creatures and
did not do so." (see tagline quote).

g) Acceptance of common ancestry by creationist/IDists:

i) undercuts the evolutionists where their position is
strongest (common ancestry), and requires them to provide
adequate evidence to support the other half of their theory
where it is weakest, that the mechanism was *always* and
*everywhere*, *fully* naturalistic;

ii) allows a very powerful design argument, whichI call the
"`Construction Project' Argument from Design".

Once again, thanks for your message, the CED copy of which I will
reference on my "Why I accept common ancestry" page. However, if you
wish to discuss this further, please feel free to join CED. I have a long-
standing policy, as per my very first post on CED, "not to get involved in
private discussions on creation/evolution/ID because: a) I don't have the
time; and b) I regard these as topics which should be discussed *publicly*"
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/1)

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since Hasker speculates about my own subjective leanings, I will try to
satisfy his curiosity. The "evolution of human beings from apes" is not an
unacceptable hypothesis for me. Obviously, God could have made humans
unmistakably distinct from other creatures and did not do so. The
hypothesis of LCA [Literal Common Ancestry] was bold but justifiable as
of 1859, if it were stated in testable form rather than as a dogma.
Subsequent investigation, when evaluated without extreme Darwinist bias,
establishes that LCA is disconfirmed for the plant and animal kingdoms as
a whole, and also in this specific case. Even if "evolution" in some vague
MCA [Metaphorical Common Ancestry]sense should turn out to be the
true explanation of the similarities between apes and humans, Darwinian
science has only wild speculation to offer to explain the unique human
characteristics: relative hairlessness, upright posture, and especially human
consciousness. I do not know whether I am a "progressive creationist." For
the time being, I am content to say that, however God chose to create, it
was not by neo-Darwinist LCA." (Johnson P.E., "Response to Hasker,"
Christian Scholar's Review, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 1993, pp.297-304.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pjcsr223.html)
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
& http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProblemsOfEvolution/ Book: "Problems
of Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
& http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------