Welcome to Science, Scripture, and Salvation, a radio ministry of the Institute for Creation Research. In this program, we want to encourage you in your Christian faith by showing how scientific evidence supports the Bible, particularly the Genesis account. The book of Genesis lays the foundation for all matters addressed in the rest of the Bible. The nature of God, His sovereignty in creation, man's purpose, sin, marriage, family, and why we need a Savior are all introduced and explained in Genesis. When we see that the first and most foundational book of the Bible can be trusted in all matters, including science, it builds confidence in the rest of the inspired word all the way to Revelation.
Today's show features Dr. Randy Gluza, medical doctor and national representative with the Institute for Creation Research. Here's Dr. Galusa. Without a doubt.
Humans and chimpanzees and other organisms share a lot of similar features. We all look at a chimpanzee, we look at ourselves, and we see a lot of similarities.
Well How do we explain those similarities? In fact, For evolutionists, Similarities are one of their strongest evidences for their theory. Because we look so similar to chimpanzees, it's easy to imagine that we might have evolved from some ape-like ancestor for both chimps and human beings. In fact, it's pretty persuasive for a lot of people. But not for everybody.
For most people, the design inference is what dominates. They see similarities of their arms and their legs and their hands as similar features that were designed for similar purposes. The design inference is really what dominates throughout most of the world because it is very intuitive and it's very natural. After all, when we see a heart pumping blood through vessels, it seems to correspond very well to a pump, a man made pump, pumping any other kind of fluid through piping systems. And so we see a purpose for both of those as pumping systems.
And so it is very normal for us to see a common purpose Therefore, a common design, and that's really the intuitive approach for that. But evolutionists, they would argue, no, that isn't really based on a purpose, it's based on the fact that we descended from the same ancestor.
So in this episode we'll be We're going to consider whether the intuitive explanation of common purpose leading to a common design better explains what we see in terms of similar features rather than the evidence for common descent.
Now, when we look at similar features, it's not just the large anatomical features which are similar. Actually, similarity extends all the way down to the genetic level. When we compare the DNA of chimps and human beings, there is a lot of similarity between those two. Evolutionists have claimed that it is about 98 to 99% similar.
However, recent research has shown that this is grossly in error. In fact, research done by the Institute for Creation Research ourselves indicates that the similarity is somewhere in the 80 percentile range, maybe even the low 80 percent area, not anywhere close to the ninety eight percent similarity.
However, the similarities can also be used as a test for each hypothesis. One of the tests for the strength of any hypothesis is its ability to make predictions and see whether those predictions came true.
So decades in advance of any human ability to actually sequence DNA very, very precisely, both creationists and evolutionists published their expectations of what we would find when the ability to sequence the DNA actually came about. And these were published long before the ability to sequence it actually was in vogue. In fact, In nineteen seventy five, the The founder of the Institute for Creation Research, doctor Henry Morris, He asserted that the common underlying design patterns would explain similar structures, and he said the creative process. would have designed similar structures for similar functions and different structures for different functions in the creation model the same similarities are predicted on the basis of a common purposes designer. And so he was able to tell in advance what he expected to find, that similar features would fulfill similar purposes and would be based on similar information.
and that the differences would be based on extreme multi-step variations of the details of how those genes were expressed. In contrast, but a little bit earlier, one of the leading evolutionists of the time, doctor Ernst Mayer of Harvard University, He predicted in 1963 that looking for similar DNA between very diverse organisms would be pointless. He claimed that random genetic changes over millions of years explain the differences in creatures' traits and obliterates any genetic similarities. In fact, he said much has been learned about the gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes those are genes which are similar due to common ancestry and he went on to say is quite futile. except in very close relatives.
If there is only one efficient solution for a certain functional demand, very different gene complexes will come up with the same solution, no matter how different the pathway by which it is achieved. The saying, many roads lead to Rome, is true in evolution as it is in daily affairs.
So we actually have two distinct predictions. one by Ernst Mayer, the evolutionist, who said it would be totally futile. to look for similarities between these organisms unless they were very, very close, because millions of years of evolution would have completely changed the genetics between these organisms. You didn't believe in similar design?
So therefore he's not going to predict that. On the other hand, Creationists, led by Dr. Henry Morris, said that he would expect to find in the future. When we're able to sequence that DNA, Similar sequences underlying similar information. to explain similar designs.
Well, fortunately, about 10 years later, we were able to make those sequence adjustments. Let's see what we were able to find. What happened to the dinosaurs? Are monkeys and people the same? Why do we live on Earth and not some other planet?
Kids have some great questions about God's creation, but do you have the answers for them? At the Institute for Creation Research, our scientists and Bible scholars have produced The Guide to Creation Basics. This book contains full-colored images and fascinating commentary from experts in biology, geology, astronomy, and biblical study. Guide to Creation Basics can help teach your children how the animals could fit on Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs and humans could live at the same time, and how God's power and wisdom can be seen in something as small as a single cell. Find basic answers to your child's biggest creation questions.
Order your copy of Guide to Creation Basics from the Institute for Creation Research by calling 800-628-7640 or visiting www.icr.org. Welcome back to Science, Scripture, and Salvation. Here's Dr. Galuza. Prior to the break, we were analyzing the really important question, how do you explain similar features?
In other words, why do human chimpanzees look so similar to each other? Is it because we descended? From a common ape-like ancestor? And that explains our similarities? Or could it be that we look similar because we have similar features?
Based on a similar design, because we actually have to do some very similar things, or we would call that similar purposes. Which takes us to the period of time between 1978 and 1984, where the ability to begin to sequence DNA very, very precisely. Started to take off. The technology was such that we could begin to replicate portions of DNA and actually see what those sequences were.
So we have an ability to test these two predictions. Evolutionists claim that if there were any similarities between widely diverse groups of creatures, it was due to convergent evolution.
So the fact that human beings have a very similar eye to a squid, even though we supposedly diverged very, very long time ago from an evolutionary standpoint, was due to the fact that similar pressures caused us to converge on that shape of our eye. They wouldn't even call it a design. They would call it a function. They also asserted that eyes had actually evolved at least forty times and as many as sixty five times. Unfortunately that finding wasn't actually supported.
In the early nineteen eighties research was actually showing that a lot of similarities were due to similar genes which controlled developmental aspects. And in fact, when you looked at the genetic sequence between organisms which are actually quite diverse, such as a a fruit fly, and a mouse, or a frog, they found exquisite similarities between them. One such evolutionary developmental biologist, Sean Carroll, described the implications of this finding, and he said it was quite stunning. He said, quote, When the sequences of these genes were examined in details, The similarities among species were astounding and Of the over 60 amino acids in this domain, some mice and frog proteins were identical to fly and up to 59 out of the 60 positions. Such sequence similarity was just stunning.
The evolutionary lines that led to flies and mice diverged more than five hundred million years ago. Far before the Cambrian explosion gave rise to most animal types. He said no biologist had even the foggiest notion that such similarities could exist between genes and such different animals. These genes were so important that their sequences have been preserved throughout this enormous span of animal evolution.
Now just think about what he just said. no evolutionist Had even predicted this, they didn't have the foggiest notion that you would find such similarities. He said that they were astounding, and that the finding was just stunning. But you notice he did not backtrack on evolution even though Ernst Mayer's prediction from nineteen sixty three was totally proved wrong. He simply did a quick bait and switched.
He went from convergent evolution to explain some similarities to something he would now call conservation. In other words, somehow these genes were able to stay unchanged over enormous periods of time while the rest of the genome mutated away to give us the differences between flies and frogs.
Well, their prediction was found to be stunningly wrong. But if you think about it more carefully, it's not just that one prediction was wrong, the other was found to be right. That prediction of doctor Henry Morris, which said you would expect to find similar information to prescribe similar anatomical features for similar functions, was totally validated. Here we see that when we begin, With true science, based on biblical thinking, it is able to lead us to correct thinking and even make the right predictions.
So when you see similar features, you can be very confident they are based on similar design. And the Word of God is validated once again, and it leads us to see science through the right perspective and leads us into truth. Thank you for joining us on Science, Scripture, and Salvation, a radio ministry of the Institute for Creation Research. That's all the time we have for our program today, but we would love to connect with you through our website at icr.org. For over 45 years, ICR has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority by showing how science supports the Genesis creation account.
Our scientists research the evidence for creation and communicate their findings through books, articles, DVD series, and conferences. Please visit our website at icr.org for more information about the latest scientific discoveries, to subscribe to our free magazine and devotional, and to locate our next creation conference at a venue near you. all of this and more at icr.org. If you've enjoyed this podcast, subscribe to Science, Scripture, and Salvation on iTunes. Also, do us a favor and rate and review the show so that more listeners can find us.
Thanks for listening and God bless.
