Biblical faith does not involve denying the truth that comes from the reality of God’s creation. If there is an apparent conflict between the reality of creation and the reality of his word, then one or the other, or both, are being misinterpreted. The earth does not have four corners, even though the Bible says that it does.
It’s interesting that you are still being vague. If you are going to deny that DNA results in our mind, then why ask for DNA evidence? That’s the part that is confusing me.
It’s not a simple question. Knowing exactly which mutations cause which differences is not completely know, but it is understood that the genetic differences are responsible for the physiological differences. Would you agree with this?
This is not accurate.
Take a simple physiological feature such as hieght. To what extent is it dependent on genetics. What about nutrition.
Since it’s not known which mutations cause which differences, how can you say for sure that genetic differences account for all physiological differences.
What of the same genome can create different phenotypes in organisms? (This happens with butterflies for examples, it also has been observed with crayfish).
Below paper might be interesting to you:
https://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/4/510
To quote:
Batch-mates of this clonal crayfish, which were shown to be isogenic by analysis of nuclear microsatellite loci, exhibited surprisingly broad ranges of variation in coloration, growth, life-span, reproduction, behaviour and number of sense organs, even when reared under identical conditions. Maximal variation was observed for the marmorated coloration, the pattern of which was unique in each of the several hundred individuals examined.
Then there is the fact that identical mutations in the same gene can cause different disease symptoms.
https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/febs.14080
The genotype to phenotype connection is not as direct or simple as you are suggesting.
A good example is identical twins. They are genetic clones, and sure enough they look very, very similar to each other. If genetics was not heavily involved in determining morphology then genetic clones should look just as similar as non-clones, but they don’t.
Also, we don’t see humans giving birth to fish or chimps. They give birth to humans. This is due to the DNA they pass down.
Are you saying that a chimp could give birth to a human?
(Parenthetically 
…) Hey, Dan @Dan_Eastwood – A biostatistician who believes in providence (I noticed this last night but didn’t remark on it). @Rich_Hampton’s citation above leads you to this “About me” (I wonder what he believes about evolution).
Believe in Providence? Well of course - it’s the capital of Rhode Island! 
2 Likes
You’re so clever.
1 Like
Sorry but that is not the way i would treat that Scripture. The Bible included this statement in a context for making a different point all together. The author of the statement may have not ever been revealed the physical realities of our solar system. In fact, for him to know these and highlight them in writings could be a distraction from the point God wanted to make thru the prophet. I have mentioned this before, but it would be in the very same light as the weatherman giving the time of sunrise and sunset. So the man is not declaring that the sun revolves around the earth, but something else all together.
Then the Bible has other statements which are matter of fact and pointed directly towards those facts…like creation week. I cannot see a way to twist this to something else.
This is true. But it’s also true that we see the same genotype producing different phenotypes.
No. I am saying the same genotype of a chimp might have the capability to produce something that doesn’t look like a chimp at all in different circumstances.
It’s not clear how much influence development has on how an organism turns out.
If I remember correctly, I have read about whale limb development where similar genes to mammals creates very different limbs because of changes in the development cycle. I will have to search to share details.
That was exactly the point, about context. But you have decided to declare that your interpretation of “yom” in Genesis 1 is infallible. There is a little problem with that that I have mentioned before, too, no twisting involved:
There are multiple uses of the Biblical Hebrew word for an indeterminate period of time, ‘yom’, that period determined solely by context, and only traditionally translated “day” when associated with the six creation periods delineated in Genesis 1. The context in Genesis 1 is unique in all of scripture, the very creation of the universe, space and time itself, and it happened ONCE. A plea to a meaning in another later context is illegitimate.
Did it take God twenty-four hours to create light?
1 Like
Thanks Dale. I agree that yom is somewhat indeterminate…but God seems to have predicted our disagreement on which “yom” this is with the discription “there was morning and evening the (next)day.”
Not sure why the hang up on God creating light in a single day. We are told in Revelation that God’s glory will illuminate the new earth. And for God to create a star instantly, defying all the laws of physics is simpler to Him than me packing a peanut butter sandwich for lunch today. If your suggestion is that the time in which the sun was created may have caused a different type or length of day prior-well that is your opinion and well noted. That model makes God the maker of disease ridden, natural evil infected, survival of the fitest existence before the fall. That makes Gods description of creation as"VERY GOOD" to appear pretty bad. That makes God appear to be like former vp uncle Joe Biden telling long sappy stories with high degree of description that he says are “gods honest truth” when there is not one iota of truth in them. Even if early Genesis was poetry, the essence of it describes a God who created with purpose, distinction, decisiveness, intentionality towards design, and proficiency. Old age evolution to creation models display a God who is hands off, slow, haphazzard, dependent -many opposite traits.
God creating kinds with adaptation qualities shows common grace.
God creating via death ridden survival of the fitest naturalistic evolution and calling this “good” makes Him to look impotent, harsh, lacking of grace and not a very good God at all.
Good grief.
Earth’s morning has long since passed and its day nearly spent. Its evening will be over when the bright Morning Star returns.
@Greg – I posted this to @Ashwin_s in another thread, but it is fitting for you, as well:
If only you would.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.
Knowledge that can be seen by all and is not constrained to the misinterpretation of one word in Genesis 1, a word that means two different things within one verse and then again has a third meaning early in Genesis 2! And YECs think their understanding is infallible. Oh, Lord, when will they learn the damage they are doing. Your patience is amazing.
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity, and both speak to the vastness of our God.
Was God short of time that he had create the universe in only 144 hours?
1 Like
I like warm and fuzzy baby animals too, but God is not all about warm and fuzzy. Very good does not mean perfect. God had a two creation model in mind from before the first, or haven’t you read. The first was subjected to futility on purpose, from day one, no matter how long that day was.
1 Like
Is the difference in phenotype enough to explain the differences seen between species?
So why can’t one of those results be a human, or an ostrich? What are these circumstances, and where is the evidence?
That’s nonsensical since development is the name of the process leading to how organisms “turn out”.
Current understanding is that it is mutations that cause these differences in embryonic development.
You have to tell me. I am not the biologist here. The more I read biology, the more uncertain things are… Such as the concept of species.
As far as I can see, the concept of species is based on the inability to cross breed and produce viable offspring. Does phenotypic differences fully account for reproductive incompatibility?
No idea… except for the fact that the same genome can produce different phenotypes… For example wasps, bees, ants etc
It can also create huge differences in phenotypes between the larval stage and the adult stage like in butterflies.
And then there is the example of the crayfish.
As far as I can see, how many types of phenotypes a genotype can produce is an open question.
It could be possible for the genotype of the chimpanzee to have possible phenotypic expressions that are very different from a chimpanzee. (Emphasis on “could”)
I have shown you many references for how the same genotype produces different phenotypes.
Is there any reason a chimpanzees genome would be different from that of ants, wasps butterflies etc and be capable of producing only one phenotype?
What is the basis for current understanding? Has the relationship between genes and the development process of even one organism been completely mapped?
The answer is no. Phenotypic plasticity can’t explain the differences between humans and chimps.
I would suggest that you need to get an idea, and then tackle this problem anew.
Much has been learned about the relationship between genes and embryonic development. Homeobox genes are one of the big hitters when it comes to this relationship. I would probably start there:
I would hope so. I wasn’t claiming that it can. I was pointing out that the phenomenon exists and the relationship between genotype mad phenotype is not as direct as often assumed.
You didn’t answer my question… you could have just honestly said : no, we are yet to fully map the relationship between genes and the the development process for any organism.
Or better yet, you could have just pointed me to an organisms where this has been mapped (if its done).
We are aware of phenotypic plasticity. What I am talking about is the difference between species.
It hasn’t been fully mapped, but much of it has been mapped. Will you only accept an idea when we have absolute and complete knowledge?
Yes… and the difference would be difference in phenotypes.
I would look at it as a Venn diagram. Two genotypes covering a range of phenotypic possibilities.
And the gap and overlaps between the Venn diagrams would inform us about the differences and even possible similarities.
Not absolute… but sufficient.
Edit : That’s why I asked about one organism. Considering the biodiversity in the planet, what would be a good sample size? 1% of all extant organisms?