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.

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).

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]. 

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.

 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

When my wife and I were in marriage counseling she made a comment in reference to one of the books our counselor assigned to us to read, and the gist of her comment was, “He [the book’s author] keeps using the word covenant but he never defines it. I’m so confused.” My wife was absolutely correct. And the deficit she noticed in that author is widespread; I’ve read mounds of books about the covenant but do so with the vaguest verbiage imaginable.

Yesterday I met with a friend from church and he asked me to define the covenant. I gave a somewhat long-winded answer: I started with the Creator-creation distinction and then moved on to describe the Covenant of Works with Adam and the Covenant of Grace with Jesus Christ. I was consciously trying to summarize the Westminster Confession of Faith’s teaching on the covenant. We probably discussed that for 5-10 minutes, and at the conclusion my friend said, “So, how would you summarize that in two sentences?” That was my assignment for the day. So, I took a stab at it and this is what I’ve formulated, leaning heavily upon what I’ve picked up from WCF and in John Frame’s writings.

First, God is the Creator, He is the Divine Head, the Lord of all of creation, and as Lord he self-discloses himself to man “by way [mode] of covenant” (Westminster Confession of Faith). 

Second, The two essential elements of a covenant are 1) conditions and 2) promises; God’s relation as Creator to created man is by the way of conditions and promises, which means, on the one hand, that for obedience man is promised life and salvation, but, on the other hand, for disobedience man is promised death and damnation.

What do you think? Clear as mud? Is that a helpful summary, or am I missing something?

An official blog update. As you can see (literally speaking), the plate tectonics at CCS | Tree & The Seed Blogger have been rattling around like loose change in a junk drawer. Some red hot magma from my to-do-list finally made it to the surface of this blog, e.g. blog title change, new background, added Links, layout tweaking, and now that I’ve checked this off my list it is my hope that something obsidian-like. Please be shiny and pleasant to the eye balls.

There is a saying, “In war, the spoils go to the victor,” and generally that is the case. However, sometimes spoils go to Lepers who by good fortune wander in to a deserted Syrian camp (2 Kings 7:3-8); and those guys sure made out well–eating, drinking, carrying off silver and gold! I feel a bit like that today. Yesterday I obtained a free copy of Black & Tan, generously provided for free (for a short time) in response to recent controversies. And sure, I know “it isn’t a perfect analogy” . . . I am not a Leper, no silver, no gold, but surely you get the gist.

[I]f there is a young Christian to-day in a typical evangelical church who is thinking about joining the Marines and going to Iraq, he does not have to get a Ph.D. in American foreign policy studies first. He can make an honorable decision without that. Now this has ramifications for the study of history, but I am in no way commending it as a basic method of studying history. An infantryman doesn’t need to be a historian to help make history. But historians should be competent historians as they study it, and in their study, meticulous attention to the facts matters. At the same time, “competence” cannot be defined from some neutral place. There is no detached realm of “neutral facts” where believer and unbeliever alike can go and find the pristine data. This is not a historical claim; it is a theological claim about history. We are called to live our lives in a way that realizes there is a world outside the academy. Most of the people in the economy are not economists. Most people who have made history are not historians (Douglas Wilson, Black & Tan, 6).

Lady: What are you reading?
CCS: A biography on Cornelius Van Til.
Lady: Who is that?
CCS: He lived in Indiana for a while when he was young, he was a Reformed Apologist and taught at  Westminster Theological Seminary for several decades.
Lady: An anthropologist?
CCS: No. I said he was a Reformed Apologist.
Lady: What?
CCS: A Christian Apologist.
Lady: Like a philosopher?
CCS: Uhm, sort of.
Lady: Ah, okay. So, like Schopenhauer?

As promised, here is the online audio for the ClearNote Fellowship 2012 Conference I attended last week. Each plenary session was excellent, however, if you only have time to listen to one session, then I recommend you listen to David Bayly’s “The Father and the Son.”