Thursday, July 22, 2010

Is chromosome fusion proof of evolution?

I am going to change from my normal style of posts just briefly to discuss a current issue that may be a little more technical. The issue is that primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes while Humans have only 23 pairs. Evolutionists claim that for this to be true and for evolution to be viable, we have to find 2 pairs of our chromosomes fused. And they believe they have found just that (note: the evidence for this is good, but not conclusive), so evolution is true.



While this seems compelling at first glance, is it?

First, this argument is a fallacy called 'the fallacy of confirming the argument'. Meaning 'If P, the Q. Q therefore P' or 'If we have a common ancestor there will be chromosome fusion. There is, therefore we have a common ancestor.' When in reality, all that is shown is that there is a fusion.

Second, this is not compelling evidence even if true because it is a difference between us and them, not a similarity. It would be far more compelling if everything was similar, not different with a possible explanation. What evolutionists would need to find is the primate in our supposed ancestry that has the fused chromosome to show that this change did actually occur. Without it, all they have is yet another difference in our genetics.

Third, mapping the chromosomes is one thing, knowing the intricacies of and total function of how and why they work is quite another. And that is something we are nowhere close to understanding.

Again, a common designer would use similar tools and similar plans for similar creations. For instance, I make shoes and boots for use in my hobby. To make the shoes, I use the same pattern as I do for the boots and alter it into a shoe. Same with God's creation. He uses genetics and alters them as needed. So He used the same coding principal and fused two together in one and not the other to achieve the desired result. It is not a big deal at all.

Some will claim that making them similar and fusing them together is being deceptive.
However, it is not deceptive in the least. The fact they are similar still points to a common creator. The fact that they are different shows simply that He had to change them to get the desired result.

Evolutionists then claim that chromosome fusion shows that evolution is 'science' because it is a testable and falsifiable prediction. The evolutionist says "if evolution is true, we must explain this difference and here is our explanation. If the explanation was not here, evolution would be falsified."

They will then say that Creation is not science because it makes no such falsifiable prediction. However, this is completely false. The Creationist says "If Creation is true, we must show there are differences and here it is. If there were no differences, Creation would be falsified."

In conclusion, this again is fact verses concept. The SCIENTIFIC FACT is there is a difference in the number of chromosomes between apes and man. There is POSSIBLE evidence to show where two chromosomes may be fused. But that is ALL the evidence shows. The story used to explain the difference (either fused through evolution or through planned design) is philosophy.

In His Service... Arthur Smith

2 comments:

  1. If God created us in our current form, please advise why do the blind mole rats have eyes with layers of skin over them?

    Why did He create vestiges of eyes for salamanders?

    Why do whales have leg bones?

    Why would God with all of His infinite wisdom create the IMPERFECT design of the rabbit's digestive system?

    Why do emus have wings?

    Why do some snakes have pelvic spurs?

    Why do the eyes of some cavefish that do NOT have the ability to see?

    It's due to evolution and nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now you are pulling the bait and switch. Change within a kind (ie speciation), happens. It is observed and quite undeniable. However, that does not equate to the genetic change from one kind into another.

    I will quickly answer a few of these but will not get deep into it because I use to debate these topics endlessly, relentlessly and passionately However, I have learned that I did this in error. As Christians we are instructed both in Old and New Testaments not to do this. We are to be ready and able to provide answers, which I can do. But we are instructed if we run into people who will not listen, we are to leave them to their beliefs. NOT to debate them to death. Thus, if you are truly wanting answers, either because you are honestly seeking answers, or at least true understanding of your opposition's view, then I will provide them. If you are looking to debate, win or prove your intelligence over a delusional Creationist, I will suggest that there are a plethora of sites out there that will happily engage your challenge.

    So, Whales do not have leg bones. They never have nor ever will be legs. they are used in reproduction to anchor onto the mate. This is a well known fact that even your side recognizes.

    The rabbit's digestive system seems to work quite well for the rabbit or there would be no rabbits according to 'survival of the fittest'.

    Eyes for mole rats and cave fish are speciation - change within a species. I would guess wings on Emu's would do the same though they also help in balance.

    Blessings... Arthur

    ReplyDelete