This post was taken from my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science (2009 edition).1
Evidence for Theistic Evolution from Retrotransposons
In the past few years, great strides have been made in our understanding of the genome; some of these discoveries are destined to change the way we view our oringins. In his excellent timely article, "Human Evolution: How Random Process Fulfils [sic] Divine Purpose," Graeme Finlay explains how the human genome came to possess markers shared with other mammals. The natural processes that accomplished it have now been discovered. One of his examples of these processes is the retrotransposon.
Retrotransposons “are parasitic residents of the genome that copy-and-paste themselves into new sites of genomic DNA via an RNA intermediate.”2 One of these retrotransposons is the ERVWE1 insert. This insert came into the mammalian race via the gibbon. New world monkeys did not have this insert, but the later arriving gibbons did possess it. Also the orang, gorilla, chimpanzee, and humans have it. As the natural process that adds the insert proceeds, it reproduces a few of the chromosome bases that are situated beside it. This new set of inserts appears in the chromosome on the opposite side of the insert. Please see a section of the new world monkey chromosome and a section of the chromosome of the gibbon as it exists on through the rest of the species including the human species:
New world monkey species:
…CAATTATCTTGCAACCATG…
Gibbon through man:
…CAATTATCTTGCAAC [ERVWE1] CAACCATG…
The characteristic reproduction of the bases CAAC compels us to conclude that a natural process was employed to add this ERVWE1 insert into the gibbon genome and that, when the gibbon branched off to produce new species, the insert ERVWE1 was carried along to become part of the later species as well. Our example is not a rare occurrence. Finlay emphasizes this with the following satistic: “We have inherited at least 300,000 LTR retrotransposons and endogenous retroviruses in our DNA.”3
Finlay concludes: “Genes present in our DNA really arose when transposons acquired coding capacity in simian [ape or monkey] ancestors.”4 Finlay’s one article gives evidence for theistic evolution (of the pre-Adamic race per my thesis), the old age of the earth (since much time is required for these evolutionary processes), and the truthfulness of the Bible (because the Bible states that the pre-Adamites were the descendants of earth and heaven).
_______________
1Gary T. Mayer’s book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science (Bloomington, IN, Milton Keynes, UK: AuthorHouseTM, 2009), 172-73.
2Graeme Finlay, “Human Evolution: How Random Process fulfils [sic] Divine Purpose,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, no. 2 (2008): 106. Journal article may be accessed at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2008/PSCF6-08Finlay.pdf.
3Ibid.
4Ibid., 108
Are you interested in THE AGE OF THE EARTH, DARWINISM, THE HUMAN GENOME, BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES, HARMONIZING SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE? If so, here are some articles that might interest you. I have written a book on this subject entitled "New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science." I hope you enjoy this blog which is meant to help us understand ourselves and God's Word. Please return to find new posts. Your comments and emails would be greatly appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Gary it seems like I have come to some of the same conclusions you have. I could not have gotten there by myself though. My reasoning alone produced one understanding for decades. Then suddenly I began to see the text differently, in a way which pointed directly to Christ. I agree that Genesis 1 speaks of more people than just Adam and Eve being created and that they were created much later. I am impressed with how much effort you put into this. Here is the book I wrote for what has been shown to me, which is similar in some respects to what you are saying, https://www.amazon.com/Early-Genesis-Cosmology-Mark-Moore/dp/0996239014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503860488&sr=8-1&keywords=Early+Genesis%2C+The+Revealed+Cosmology
ReplyDeleteMark, I was looking at your comment today for the first time. I just found it. I am glad that people are attempting to harmonize the Bible and science. This way the young people can feel free to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. I am wondering if you checked out my article listed to the right that is entitled "Genesis 2:4 Must Refer to Genesis 1 Rather than Genesis 2." This will show what is really going on. The "Bible Commentary" recognizes that the Jew's had a way of using the conjunction to tell whether the word such as "these" refers forward or backward, but they thought it was the reverse to the way it actually works. This is discussed in this article. The 2015 edition of my book adds more to this and shows that the conjunction that begins Genesis 2:5 shows that the next material follows chronologically Genesis 1, thus separating the Genesis 2 account from the Genesis 1 account. At least it looks that way to me. My book is on Kindle now for only 3.99.
DeleteMark, I was looking at your comment today for the first time. I just found it. I am glad that people are attempting to harmonize the Bible and science. This way the young people can feel free to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. I am wondering if you checked out my article listed to the right that is entitled "Genesis 2:4 Must Refer to Genesis 1 Rather than Genesis 2." This will show what is really going on. The "Bible Commentary" recognizes that the Jew's had a way of using the conjunction to tell whether the word such as "these" refers forward or backward, but they thought it was the reverse to the way it actually works. This is discussed in this article. The 2015 edition of my book adds more to this and shows that the conjunction that begins Genesis 2:5 shows that the next material follows chronologically Genesis 1, thus separating the Genesis 2 account from the Genesis 1 account. At least it looks that way to me. My book is on Kindle now for only 3.99.
ReplyDelete