Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

[McCulloch]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.

This seems to indicate, whether you are a literalist or not, that god created humans distinctly and separately from the other animals. However, the fact remains that genetically we are little more than bald chimps - chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. If taxonomists could get around the political resistance,

there are not one but three species of genus Homo on Earth today: the common chimpanzee, Homo troglodytes; the pygmy chimpanzee, Homo paniscus; and the third chimpanzee or human chimpanzee, Homo sapiens." (p.21)

The biological evidence points to our common evolution (or creation, if you will) with the chimpanzees, separate from the gorillas, gabons and monkeys. Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

[juliod]

Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat.

Right! And such things would be possible if all living things were created individually by an intelligent super-being.

But such things are impossible by the theoretical underpinnings of modern biology. That such things don't happen is further proof that evolution is true and creation is false.

Aside from this, the rest of your post is nonsensical. It's a general principle of these forums that if you don't understand theormodynamics, but talk about it, you will appear to be a fool.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

As far as there being any biological evidence of special creation . . .

There is nothing BUT biological evidence of special creation.

I think that you misunderstood the question. By special creation , I meant that humans were created by god at a different time, in a different way and for a different purpose than the other animals. If this special creation is true, then you would expect to see some fundamental biological difference between humans and chimpanzees. But there are none.

Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat. The information is not present and cannot arise stochastically. It is not only improbable, it is impossible. The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'. Dogs beget dogs, birds beget birds and so forth.

This is an argument for the separate and special creation of every species not just for ours.

[QED]

Let me show you how Adam was in God's image;

God's throne is described twice in the scriptures. Once in Ezekiel and once in Revelation. There are four living creatures before the throne of God. These living creatures bear likeness of a man, an ox, an eagle and a lion. God is in the midst. The picture is that the power of God flows forth from this central place to all his dominion. The full implication of the imagery is quite beyond our discussion here...

Do you accept the fact that this is just imaginary? Because I'm seeing problems with the sequencing here; Eagles and Lions are fine examples of top-predators from our current epoch. But the skeletons of far more impressive looking forbears can be seen in rocks from earlier times. Of course the authors of the OT were blissfully unaware of the variety of animals that we now know once roamed the Earth. So it's no surprise that they would only choose to include creatures that they were familiar with in their stories. We wouldn't, however, expect such a restriction to apply to the almighty.

But Eagles and Lions have specializations for hunting and living in narrow environmental niches... so it's a little surprising to hear of them showing up before the throne of god (I see that he sometimes gets tired and likes to sit down now and then) especially so if they were thought to be there while god was putting together his creation. Then there is the domestication of the ox - a strictly human endeavor. But of course, I'm sure you'll agree, this is all coming from the imaginations of iron-age man so it needn't make too much sense after all.

[otseng]

If this special creation is true, then you would expect to see some fundamental biological difference between humans and chimpanzees. But there are none.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental" differences, but there certainly are differences between humans and other primates as stated by Ashley Montagu:

• Fully erect posture
• Bipedal locomotion
• Legs much longer than arms
• Comparatively vertical face
• Great reduction in projection of jaws
• Great reduction of canine teeth
• Absence of a bony diastema in upper jaw for the reception of the tip of the canine tooth
• Prominent nose with elongated tip (i.e., elongated beyond the nasal bone)
• Outward rolled mucous membrane of lips
• A well marked chin
• A forward lumbar convexity or curve
• Non-opposable great toe, set in line with other toes
• Foot arched transversely and from front to rear
• Relative hairlessness of body
• Absence of tactile hairs
• Brain more than twice as large as the largest non-human primate brain
• The occiput projecting backward
• Highly rolled margin of the ear
• Absence of premaxillary bone from the anterior aspect of the face
• Iliac fossae or blades of pelvis facing one another
• Longer growth period

There are also distinctions noted by Julian Huxley:

• Language and conceptual thought
• Transmission of knowledge by written record
• Tools and machinery
• Biological dominance over all other species
• Individual variability
• The use of the forelimb for manipulating purposes only
• All year round fertility
• Art, humor, science, and religion

Source: http://custance.org/old/animal/ch1a.html

[McCulloch]

If this special creation is true, then you would expect to see some fundamental biological difference between humans and chimpanzees. But there are none.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental" differences, but there certainly are differences between humans and other primates as stated by Ashley Montagu:

• Fully erect posture
• Bipedal locomotion
• Legs much longer than arms
• Comparatively vertical face
• Great reduction in projection of jaws
• Great reduction of canine teeth
• Absence of a bony diastema in upper jaw for the reception of the tip of the canine tooth
• Prominent nose with elongated tip (i.e., elongated beyond the nasal bone)
• Outward rolled mucous membrane of lips
• A well marked chin
• A forward lumbar convexity or curve
• Non-opposable great toe, set in line with other toes
• Foot arched transversely and from front to rear
• Relative hairlessness of body
• Absence of tactile hairs
• Brain more than twice as large as the largest non-human primate brain
• The occiput projecting backward
• Highly rolled margin of the ear
• Absence of premaxillary bone from the anterior aspect of the face
• Iliac fossae or blades of pelvis facing one another
• Longer growth period

These are biological differences. But not what I would count as fundamental. By that I mean that none of these differences are enough to say, "This species is special, singled out by the creator." With the notable exception of the brain, which leads to :

There are also distinctions noted by Julian Huxley:

• Language and conceptual thought
• Transmission of knowledge by written record
• Tools and machinery
• Biological dominance over all other species
• Individual variability
• The use of the forelimb for manipulating purposes only
• All year round fertility
• Art, humor, science, and religion

Source: http://custance.org/old/animal/ch1a.html

Which are not directly biological, except as being caused by our big brain. Excepting "Individual variability" which is not any greater than the individual variability within the species of domesticated dog.

[otseng]

These are biological differences. But not what I would count as fundamental. By that I mean that none of these differences are enough to say, "This species is special, singled out by the creator."

Then I would have to ask, what objective criteria would count as a "fundamental difference"? I have given a list of biological differences seen only in humans and not in any of the other primates. I could as well give even more attributes that only humans possess. But, what is to prevent an ad hoc interpretation of what does not constitute as a "fundamental" biological difference?

[juliod]

I have given a list of biological differences seen only in humans and not in any of the other primates.

No. You gave a list of things that differentiate humans from apes only by degree. Fully erect posture. Comparatively vertical face. Great reduction of canine teeth.

We don't stand out from the rest of the animal kingdom in any significant way. Our eyes are not the sharpest. Our muscles are not the strongest. We can't run the fastest. We can't fly. We don't even have the biggest brains. We claim to be the most intelligent, but sionce dolphins spend their lives playing in the ocean while we live in polluted cities and invent things like nuclear weapons and SUVs, I think our conceit is at best unproven.

In the past it was believed that we were very different from the other animals. Modern biology has dispelled these notions, one after another, and we are left with no evidence of the "specialness" of our own species.

DanZ

[israeltour]

If [Genesis 1] is a reference to the spiritual, then the physical (i.e., biological) doesn't matter.

If it is a reference to the spiritual then is has no scientific meaning. What are spiritual qualities? Can they be empirically detected? How can they be detected and measured? Do they exist only in humans and not in other primates, mammals, vertebrates or animals? How do you know? This should be a topic of another thread.

That's my point.

If Genesis 1 is an anywhere close to accurate description of the origin of our species, then one would expect (but not necessarily require) that humans would be more different from the animals than they are from each other.

One would expect... but what we expect isn't always the case.

If he chooses to make stars that appear to be so far away from us that the light from them would not have time to reach us from the beginning of creation up to now, then he certainly can.

Now you're just being sarcastic. For the record, I acknowledge the laws of physics. If the earth is young, then it would require that God created starlight in transit to earth. If He did not, then the universe is at least old enough for the stars to form and the light to get here. But, back to the biological evidence.

Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

Yes, the differences.

No. There are differences between Chimpanzees and humans. Otherwise we would be the same species.

Uh, that was my point.

So the differences do not provide any biological evidence of a special creation. That does not prove that there was not a special creation. It just says that there is no biological evidence of a special creation. That is , there is no biological evidence that the creation of our species was done in a different way, with a different process and for a different purpose, by the creator.

You appear to be using "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. It's like a glass filled half-way with water. You believe it started full, and half the water evaporated away. I believe the glass started empty, and that God filled it half-way with water. It turns out that before He did this, there were already millions of full glasses of water, boosting your theory that the half-glass started out full. The fact that it's half-full is "evidence" of both theories, and "proof" of neither.

You might find some spiritual evidence, if "spiritual evidence" is not an oxymoron.

It's not, but from where you sit, it would seem so.

The similarities are just mind candy.

I am not sure what this means.

"Mind Candy" is candy for the mind, where the conclusions reached won't change anyone's mind, everyone knows it, but the attempt is fun nonetheless. If this is not a fair description of your investigation here, then I apologize for minimizing your intentions, and I hope you find your answers.

[QED]

I think it's worth mentioning how much different we thought we were to other animals in the past. Without knowledge of the fact that we share large proportions of our DNA with a wide range of different animals (not to mention plants), Iron-age man would have had less reason to doubt that we were special than we do today, is this not a fair thing to say?

[israeltour]

The first law of thermodynamics requires that all things seek their own entropy holes and remain in stasis. Pure equilibrium. Having achieved equilibrium, no stochastic mechanisms exist to produce increased order. There is only the second law of thermodynamics that there can only exist a decrease in order; further degradation.

As a Christian Jed, my heart is with you. I know exactly which book you may have read to get your argument, but while intriguing, it's not sound. The laws of thermo-dynamics are not evidence against evolution.

The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics only applies to an entire system, in this case the universe. It is true that the universe as a whole is on a path toward less order, and will continue on that path until all energy is exhausted (if left alone), but that doesn't prohibit increases in order within the currently surviving energy... as long as the overall change in order is negative. What the law really says is that if DNA did form naturally, then the process would exhaust an amount of energy constituting a larger decrease in universal order than the relatively small increase represented by the natural occurance of DNA.

Consider a bag of potato chips. Shake it up and down for a long time, and eventually you will have nothing but potato chip crumbs. However, during this process, the smaller pieces of chips will constantly migrate toward the bottom of the bag, increasing the "order" found among the existing chips at a given moment... yet the degradation of the overall system will continue until it's completely exhausted and you have nothing left but equally sized crumbs, organized in no particular order.