Advanced Life is Very Rare

Given Occam’s Razor, I believe it can be shown logically that highly-intelligent life most likely is rare in the universe. The reasons have nothing to do with how many planets can sustain life. All we need to do is look at Earth and the history of life on this planet to see that life is rare in this universe—or, in fact, any conceivable universe(s). I shall only summarize the arguments, since the full reasoning is incredibly tedious. I will be starting with the faulty assumption that life evolved apart from God’s design, since if God designed life we can have no idea how common advanced life is elsewhere. (From now on in this post, I shall be using “advanced life” to refer only to beings with human-like intelligence.)

The basis for the argument is two simple facts: (1) human life evolved on Earth almost as soon as is conceivable, and the evolutionary path was replete with fortuitous circumstances and advancements, as many evolutionists will candidly admit^[1]; and (2) Darwinian evolution by definition is not optimal and life evolves without purpose or desire for increases in complexity.

Because advanced life (humans) evolved so rapidly on Earth, relative to the full spectrum of conceivable time frames, Occam’s Razor suggests that advanced life had to evolve quickly or it would never have evolved at all. (One possible reason would be that the conditions for life may rarely last more than about 5 billion years before all life is destroyed by some extinction event.) We see, then, that the simplest answer is that almost wherever advanced life exists it will have evolved quickly. Lower forms of life may be abundant in the universe, but the vast majority of these planets would undergo complete extinction before advanced life could evolve.

Now, even if you allow for an infinite number of universes, Occam’s Razor would also strongly suggest that advanced life is not common in any of these alternate universes—or else the odds tell us that we should have been living in such a universe.

Under the faulty assumption of us being a cosmic accident, this means that one way or another it looks like we won the cosmic lottery where the odds were majorly stacked against us. Either (1) against the odds, we randomly ended up in a universe where advanced life is very rare, even though there are other universes where advanced life is common; or, (2) somehow the fundamental properties of the universe/multiverse allowed for the unlikely existence of advanced life forms—but just barely. Likely, if the fundamental properties of reality were altered even slightly then advanced life could not exist in any universe.

Bottom line: taking God out of the picture invariably makes the odds of our existence to be highly unlikely. It leads to the conclusion that life is probably rare in the universe(s). Finally, it leads to the conclusion that there probably is a God who designed life on Earth.

[1] E.g. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28148553/#.US-5D6LW6zk

NEWS: Living Fossil Fish Has Genes for Wrists, Ankles, Fingers and Toes

A fish, called a coelacanth, thought to be extinct was found living and well in the seas (or at least a fish very similar to the extinct species). The fish is found in the fossil record as far back as 300 Ma, which places it at a point in Earth’s history when land creatures had just begun to form. So, scientists got curious and decided to investigate the genome of this living fossil to see if it could help explain the evolutionary process of bygone ages. What they found can—in my opinion—only support the idea of a designed evolutionary process. Darwinian evolution fails to explain the findings, as does young-earth creationism.

The scientists made an educated guess: the living-fossil fish should have some adaptations that are related to walking on land, since it existed around the time that land creatures were first evolving. Most fish do not have genetic code for hands and feet and toes and fingers. I’m not surprised. They don’t have those. However, this ancient fish species did indeed have some genetic code related to limbs:

“The authors located a fragment of DNA within the coelacanth's genome that is also found in land vertebrates but not in fish without lobed fins, such as tuna, tilapia, and sharks. Because researchers cannot study live coelacanths in the laboratory, they inserted the fragment into a mouse embryo in order to learn what it does. The fragment activated a network of genes that forms bones in wrists, ankles, fingers and toes. … [I]t's not yet clear what the DNA fragment's function is within [living] coelacanths …”
--http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/04/living-fossil-gets-its-genome-se.html?rss=1

This is rather shocking! The genes in this fish are “upstream” genetic switches that would typically activate an array of genes that would result in the production of hands and feet, etc. In other words, the fish has genes that appear to be useless without additional genetic information. These genes found in this fish do not appear to be an evolutionary experiment leading to limbs, but rather fully “modern” genes that today serve to activate limb production in limbed creatures. This leads to the reoccurring problem of preexisting information before evolutionary utilization. It appears more than ever that animals had all the genetic toolkits needed to produce the varied and complex organisms that exist today. The evolutionary process does not appear to have tinkered with failed experiments, but rather it used efficient and existing information to quickly adapt to new environments and survival challenges. That contradicts the tenants of Darwinism.

(This follows a number of similar findings of organism genomes containing information that is only known to be used by other vastly different organisms, such as sponges with genes for nervous systems and immune systems and ancient fish with complex segmented backbones designed for walking.)

Young-earth creationists (YECs) should be perplexed by these findings as well. Did God create animals with junk information? Obviously, YECs can (and will) assume that God reused the same genetic codes for various purposes, and we haven’t yet discovered the true purpose of these genes in the living-fossil fish. But, considering that other similar fish do not have this information and that it was predicted by evolutionists that this one fish would have some walking-related genes, it seems too big of a coincidence to swallow.

Neither Darwinians nor YECs seem to be able to easily explain the evidence. Only created evolution accurately predicts this kind of evidence.

The Origins of Life: Did Life Get Started by Asteroids?

(Disclaimer: Origins of life research is a new area of study for me. I’m not an expert on this topic and writing this post may be somewhat premature on my part. Please feel free to correct me if you see something that is incorrect, since I am going on limited research.)

For decades scientists have been searching for answers about the origins of life. How did life get started on Earth? How did the first cell form? Today, many scientists are convinced they are closer than ever to an answer—an answer that does not include God. Life, they say, was jumpstarted by asteroids bearing organic compounds; furthermore, they believe they have found such asteroids dating to the early years of our solar system. The organic material in these asteroids is compelling evidence, they believe, that primitive life got started by a natural process. However, they fail to recognize that there is a perfectly good alternative answer to why organic compounds have been found on asteroids which has everything to do with design.

The Discoveries

First, let’s take a quick look at the types of organic molecules that have been found in asteroids since the 1960s. These include: two of the four building blocks of DNA (guanine and adenine), a few of the amino acids that are used to build proteins, and amphiphilic compounds which are used in building cell membranes. Notably, two of the four building blocks have not been reported to have been found, as best I can tell. These molecules are all built of common organic elements: carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and nitrogen (N).

Chirality

I should also discuss chirality. To save time let me boil it down to the best of my limited knowledge. Amino acids and various other molecules can be in two forms—what are called left-handed and right-handed forms. Most of life uses left-handed forms of amino acids and proteins. All proteins need to be constructed of 100% left- or right-handed amino acids^[5]. Also, life’s DNA and RNA chains use exclusively right-handed sugars in the backbones. Asteroids and comets have contained 60% or less of left-handed forms of amino acids. Even the 18% excess of left-handed acids in one meteorite^[2] is thought to be statistically insufficient to accidentally produce a useful protein (with 50+ amino acids) or enough right-handed sugars to directly form and facilitate the perpetuation of a self-replicating strand of typical RNA.

Even one molecule of the wrong type of handedness in a protein or an RNA strand would destroy its biological activity, it appears. Thus, even a small percentage of either left-handed or right-handed molecules mixed with the other would present problems for life’s eventual formation. No known natural means exists to produce nearly 100% of one handedness in such a way as to allow an ongoing random mixing of organic compounds—a condition that would seem to be necessary for the emergence of life.

An Abundance of Organic Elements

Now, the primary point of this blog post is to point out that there is a perfectly good reason why one kind of asteroid has amino acids and, more significantly, nucleic acids. If an alien race that reproduced asexually were to come to earth and see two brothers who are identical twins they might jump to the conclusion that one brother came from the other brother. But they certainly would be wrong. Though the aliens’ assumption might seem logical, there is another perfectly sound answer: the identical humans had a common origin. The materials of asteroids and the planet Earth have had a common origin, which is the sun. Moreover, the Earth’s atmosphere may have been formed partly from asteroid and comet bombardment. Because of the common origin for these things, it would stand to reason that their chemical compositions might have some similarities.

God wanted to form life from certain elements, and these elements (e.g. carbon [C], Hydrogen [H], Oxygen [O], & Nitrogen [N]) needed then to be common in the universe and more importantly on earth. If you look at the relative abundance of elements in the universe you will see that these are the top seven: H, He, O, C, Ne, Fe, and N, with the abundance of Ne, Fe, and N being nearly the same. Notice that the “organic elements” C, H, O, & N are all highly abundant in the entire universe. If you look at the earth, you will see that in the atmosphere these are the top five elements by number of atoms: H, He, O, C, & N. Again, the organic elements are the most common (excluding the inert noble gas He which does not bond with other atoms). The sun was used to produce these organic elements in the early solar system. Is it any surprise that some asteroids contain high levels of the organic elements? 75% of asteroids are C-type, which contain significant levels of carbon. These carbonaceous asteroids are rich in H, O, C, & N^[1]—not to say that they have no other elements. What might seem more surprising is that roughly 20% of asteroids do not contain high levels of carbon, considering that C is a common element in the universe. The earth’s crust also contains high levels of C, H, & O, though N is much rarer there, probably because it mostly formed N₂ gas early in the Earth’s formation making it get expelled into the atmosphere. (Nitrogen is also very stable in the atmosphere and has built up over the eons.)

Organic life requires organic elements. Our environment needed to be filled with these elements to allow for life to thrive. The sun that formed the Earth also formed asteroids, and asteroids were likely used to help form the Earth and its atmosphere^[3]. So, the four most common organic elements needed to be abundantly generated by the sun. Again, it would be likely that most asteroids would be rich in these organic elements, considering the design purposes of God. (Aside: this argument only really works for an old earth.)

The Reason Some Organic Molecules Are Common

Now, just because it makes sense that there would be asteroids abundant in organic elements does not mean that you would necessarily expect to see organic compounds, like the four DNA nucleobases (viz. the molecules generally represented as G, A, T, C). But here’s the deal: C-type asteroids contain a wide range of molecules composed of C, H, O, & N, including acids not typically found in life on earth. The nucleobases are relatively un-complex molecules composed of anywhere from 12 to 16 atoms. Because God undoubtedly wanted to form living creatures using simple, stable compounds (which is the only thing that makes sense), that implies these building blocks of DNA should be chemically stable compared with many other similar molecules. This leads us to the conclusion that it would be fairly likely that asteroids containing the organic elements would contain the stable and relatively un-complex organic building blocks of life.

Summary

So, in case I have made the logic hard to follow here, the summary is that a wise and intelligent Creator who wanted to make C, H, O, & N based organisms would probably make those elements abundant in the universe and would make the organic components stable and thus more likely to be found in Nature in places unrelated to life’s formation. This means we should expect to find organic compounds to be quite common elsewhere in the universe, even in other solar systems, and there still be no life in any of those other places.

(Aside: this also is the same type of logic I would use to explain why Earth-sized planets may be abundant in the universe.)

Closing Arguments

There are two other things to address, though. One is an argument in favor of life forming through natural means, and the other argument is against it. The argument in favor relates to the 18% excess of left-handed amino acids found in an asteroid. Why would there just happen to be this left-handed excess in asteroids and also in living organisms, if life did not get jumpstarted by these meteorites? There are several possible answers. One, it could be coincidence and nothing more. Remember, 18% excess does almost nothing to solve the origin of life problem; we need very close to 100% of one form. Two, it could be from contamination, as some scientists have acknowledged^[4]. Three, it could be that those left-handed acids are even more stable such that Nature sometimes generates those forms in greater abundance, and God designed and used the most stable form of the molecules for life. (It is important to note here that news reports seemed not to mention anything about finding an excess of right-handed sugars used to form the backbone of DNA/RNA, which might have been more interesting.)

The second important argument is that two of the four DNA/RNA building blocks, the T (or U for RNA) and C, appear to have not been found naturally occurring in meteorites—not to mention most of the other bioactive amino acids. This may be highly problematic to those trying to find the origins of life. How did the other organic compounds form? They are either relatively rare in the solar system or they are nonexistent apart from life. Either way, it is not especially good news for those looking for a naturalistic answer to the origins of life. Will these other two nucleic acids turn up sometime? I imagine they will, but that may be the least of the problems facing the origins of life researchers.

How life got started is still very much a mystery for Darwinian evolutionists. There are a number of hypotheses, but none of them are validated by observational evidence. None of them have been shown to be probable paths to how life began. Purely theoretically, could God have used “natural means” to form life? Even if there are countless Earth-like worlds, the probability of it happening naturally still seem slim, but perhaps so. Nevertheless, the evidence is lacking. Finding organic material in asteroids may well mean nothing more than that the whole universe was designed with Earth’s organic life in mind.

EDIT: After posting this, it was reported in the news that organic compounds were found in a galactic cloud here in our galaxy.^[6] This new discovery actually helps validate what I've been saying in this post: organic elements and compounds are likely to be common in the whole universe.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHON
[2] http://www.cbc.ca/technology/technology-blog/2009/03/did_lifes_bias_come_from_space.html
[3] http://www.universetoday.com/47331/earths-atmosphere-came-from-outer-space/
[4] http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/03/16-02.html
[5] http://www.reasons.org/articles/homochirality-and-the-origin-of-life
[6] http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/icy-clues-for-lifes-origins-130307.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1

The Truthfulness of God

One of the most disturbing things initially about the thought of an old earth was that the Bible could be so unclear and my views wrong for so many years. This brings up the important theological question of the truthfulness of God. Is the Bible frank and truthful in its presentation of the creation of the world? Or, was God being deceptive in presenting what at first blush appears to be a young earth in the Bible? How could serious and godly students of the Bible be wrong for millennia about this topic? The following points help explain how believers could be wrong for so long and yet God not be dishonest.

1. The original Hebrew language of Moses' time is not always easily understood.

The Bible was written roughly 3,500 years ago. Though God preserves His Word faithfully, determining the original meaning that Moses intended should not be assumed to be easy. Languages often change significantly over hundreds of years, not to mention thousands. My guess—and it is only a guess—is that the Hebrew readers of Moses’ day would have had no difficulty in discerning that the Days of Genesis 1 were unspecified periods of time—maybe 24-hours but maybe much longer periods.

The Bible has been preserved, and we can determine its original meaning, but we should not assume that the Bible is always obvious in its meaning. We should not assume that what appears obvious in an English translation was just as obvious in the ancient Hebrew. Anyone who might argue for the perspicuity of the Scriptures in regard to non-essential doctrines has a very difficult case to make. Traditionally, it has been believed that the Bible is clear in matters of salvation and other essential doctrines, but not concerning peripheral doctrines. The age of the universe is not—or definitely should not be—a core doctrine.

2. A right understanding of the “two books” of God answers the truthfulness of God.

It has been believed by many through the ages that there are two revelations of God: the revelation of Nature and the special revelation of Scripture ^[1]. This is the correct view, as indicated in Romans 1-2 and Psalms 8 and 19. Both are sent to us from God’s fingers. The revelation of Nature needs to be treated as God’s honest message about Himself and the history of the whole cosmos and earth. We should not marginalize this revelation when interpreting the special revelation of Scripture. In regard to matters that Nature speaks to, such as the history of the universe, the Bible needs to be interpreted in light of weighty evidence of Nature. Such has been done in relation to heliocentricity.

Some have tried to argue that to do such a thing puts the Bible at risk of being twisted to mean anything we want it to mean. Some have argued that this belittles the supreme revelation of the Bible. However, the Bible speaks more clearly to spiritual issues, the history of Man, godly living, God’s divine nature, and prophecy, whereas Nature is relatively unhelpful in those areas. As a result, the Bible is supreme in its revelation pertaining to such truth, and Nature cannot be legitimately used to twist the essential doctrines of the Bible. Yet, Nature speaks loudly about itself. We should not think that the Bible is the only information that we have about the world and its history. The starlight from distant galaxies, for instance, lets us directly observe the history of the universe.

If God expects us to investigate Nature’s revelation to uncover secrets of the past, and to compare that revelation with the Bible, then He is not dishonest to give only a simplified and unclear account of history of the universe in the Bible. The Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook. It was never intended to tell us everything about Nature when Nature is readily able to speak for itself. The Bible, then, should not be expected to be obvious, precise, or detailed in its teaching about the workings and history of the universe—especially since the Bible’s focus is on God and man’s relationship with Him.

3. The precise history of the universe and animal life is a minor issue.

Though some groups (e.g., ICR and AiG) have attempted to artificially exult the importance of the Genesis 1 Creation account, the Bible teaches that the world’s history is relatively unimportant. Time is relative to God, and man did not exist while the world was being created, making the precise length of the days in Genesis 1 trivial by comparison to the doctrine of Redemption. If God wanted to call long ages of time “days” (as translated into English), we should not be disturbed by that or concerned about His honesty. Those who persistently stress the importance of the “days” being literal 24-hour days ultimately distract from the greater importance of the Gospel of Jesus.

The age of the world is not directly related to the issue of man’s sin and death, as some would like to suggest. One can believe in the literal Fall of Man and the entrance of human death from sin without believing in a young earth. If those teachings are upheld, then the doctrines of sin and salvation are preserved and untouched. Whether one believes in a young or old earth makes no difference, theologically.

4. Proper interpretation of Scripture answers the truthfulness of God.

The most surprising thing for me was that Genesis 1 is, at best, only half of the Creation story of the Bible. Most people are unaware that there are a good number of other verses outside of Genesis that speak about the history of the heavens and earth. When these verses are interpreted together, the fact that Genesis 1 is a simplification of the Creation history becomes clear, and the possibility of “days” longer than 24-hours becomes more evident. Those who argue for a young earth do violence, in my opinion, to these other passages pertaining to Creation and passages that inform us about how words were used by ancient Hebrews.

When all the passages are viewed together the Genesis account of Creation is shown to be an abbreviated account where much more is taking place than specified. Where Genesis 1 might be viewed as one quick supernatural creation after another, other passages reveal that God created through the use of other processes that typically would require more time than six 24-hour days. Unless God greatly accelerated the processes to fit 24-hour periods, these “days” of Genesis must have been longer periods. As a result many young earth creationists insist that these passages are referring to sometime other than the Creation Week.

It is generally believed that you interpret the less clear passages of the Bible in light of the clearer passages. However, I disagree with that idea. The Bible needs to be viewed as a whole, as much as possible. The clearer passages should be interpreted together with the less clear passages, where each passage informs the other passages. It’s true that the clearer passages help us understand the less clear passages better than the other way around, but the goal of interpretation should be harmonization of teaching. The interpretation that most fully and beautifully unifies all the related passages should be accepted, not the interpretation that is merely simplest. The Bible—since it is true—is self-consistent and harmonious and logical.

The book of Genesis needs to be viewed as the beginning or foundation of the Mosaic Law. It was the first book of Moses written to the Israelites, specifically. It is quite reasonable that Moses (or perhaps earlier godly men) under the guidance of God may have structured the Creation Account to help reinforce the keeping of the Sabbath as applied in Exodus 20.

5. God never promised it would be easy to find the Truth.

No, in fact, the Bible teaches us that God sometimes hides the truth from the lazy. He loves us to be seekers of the truth (e.g., Mt 7:7). To not reward laziness, apathy, and dependence upon tradition, He sometimes makes the truth obscure. Consider that the doctrine of God’s Redemption is infinitely more important than the doctrine of Six-Day Creation, yet God in the Old Testament gave little clear revelation about how He would accomplish Redemption. So unobvious was the truth of Substitution that the disciples had little to no understanding of it (e.g., Mk 8:31-32) and thought Jesus was going to reign on earth immediately.

Other examples of obscurity of God’s truth would be various prophecies and Jesus’ parables that were spoken specifically to conceal truth from apathetic listeners (Mk 4:11-12). The teachings in Daniel, for instance, were to be “sealed up” until the time of the end (Dan 12:4,9), indicating the purpose of God to prevent a clear understanding of it until the time was right.

God may have had various good reasons why He obscured the details of the history of the universe and earth and life. God certainly is not in the business of proving His Word to be true, since He delights in faith (Heb 11:6). If clearer details of Creation had been given then modern science would have proven the Bible to be true. But God never wanted to prove Himself to all humanity.

6. Genesis contains a small measure of poetic language.

Lastly, and least importantly, poetic flare exists in Genesis, such as the reference to the “windows of heaven” (Gen 7:11), Lamech’s speech (Gen 4:23), the structure of the Flood Account as a chiasm ^[2], the rhyming Hebrew words of “tohu” and “bohu” (Gen 1:2b) and the repetition in Genesis 1. A clear example of repetition being used poetically is Psalm 136. Genesis 1 uses the phrase, “Evening came and morning came,” over and over again, which could be a small poetic element. The only clear time indicators in Genesis 1 are these repeated phrases, along with the word “day,” which could show us that these phrases are poetic in nature and not to be taken literally.

By no means should Genesis 1 be considered primarily poetic! As in Lamech’s speech, poetic elements of a passage do not imply that the whole passage should be interpreted allegorically, spiritually, metaphorically, or otherwise non-literally. The argument is that Genesis 1 contains a small amount of poetic flare, but most of it should be taken literally.

Conclusion

The Bible indicates that Nature is a revelation from God not to be twisted to fit the Bible. Neither needs to be twisted. The Bible can be comfortably interpreted to fit well with the compelling evidence of Nature. They are in harmony.

God’s account of Creation is truthful since the Bible itself shows it to be a partial, summarized passage containing minor poetic elements, which allows the days to be viewed as long periods. Since God never said that His Truth in the Bible or Nature would be easy to discern, and the language of Moses’ day is not easily recovered, we can begin to understand how the Creation Account has been misinterpreted for thousands of years. Though we might like to believe the account is simple and easily understood, we see from the rest of the Bible that the events of creation are complex and not spoke in absolute language that belongs in a science textbook. The account is mostly literal but needs to be handled with care. When all these points are considered, we see that God never intended for Genesis 1 to be taken so absolutely without proper regard for Nature’s own testimony about itself. We see that God was not dishonest, but rather we (who strongly believed in a young earth) were presumptuous of His Word.

[1] http://biologos.org/blog/the-church-fathers-and-two-books-theology-introduction
[2] http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Lamoureux_Scholarly_Essay.pdf (p.8)

Genesis One Commentary

I've created my first book. A small portion of the content on this blog (such as charts) and detailed personal study notes on Genesis 1, compiled over months and many hours of work, have been compiled into a book (and e-book). The book is 157 pages long.

Sadly, this book is in black-and-white, even though it was intended to be in color. The cost of printing a color book, however, is too great at this point.

NEWS: Supersymmetry May Be Doomed

BACKGROUND

As noted in a past blog post, I do not believe that the Big Bang theory is entirely correct. One of the major problems with Big Bang cosmology is the predominance of matter as opposed to antimatter. The Bible indicates that God created the universe in a supernatural way—though it could be argued that that is simply referring to the creation of the fundamental properties of the universe, such as the physical laws of nature. However, there are enough problems with Big Bang cosmology predictions that I believe it is flawed. The main problem with it is that it excludes God from the picture of the formation of the universe.

My theory has been that God created a very small universe at the start, but not an infinitesimal universe as the Big Bang theory assumes. This small universe may have contained some physical particles already, which would answer the problem of matter being much more prevalent than antimatter. It might explain why there appears to be so much less matter in the universe than predicted by Big Bang cosmology. It would also allow for God to handcraft the universe and significant subsequent events in the universe simply by choosing the exact initial state of all the energy. God “stretched out” the universe, and eventually stars and galaxies and planets formed. (Now, obviously God may have been supernaturally interacting with the universe during this early stage of the universe, further molding the universe to His preferred end results.)

Those assuming a purely naturalistic answer to the formation of the universe have noted problems in the Standard Model accurately predicting the observed state(s) of the universe through time. As a result, they have searched for alternatives or extensions to the Standard Model, such as the “elegant” theory of supersymmetry. It turns out that the elegance of this theory may be all in the heads of physicists rather than real—which is a real bummer for those who worship the Creation rather than God. Also, to resolve problems with the predictions of the Standard Model, physicists have creatively invented “dark matter,” which has not been observed to exist like as predicted. “Dark matter” was invented to account for the missing matter of the universe.

THE NEWS

“HOPES of using the Higgs boson and the elegant theory of supersymmetry as shortcuts to discovering the mysteries of the universe are evaporating fast. …

[N]ew physics is urgently needed because the standard model contains no mention of dark matter, makes incorrect predictions about the universe's antimatter and requires awkward [sic.] ‘fine-tuning’ to incorporate the Higgs mass reported in July. …

But on 14 November, armed with twice as much data, CMS and ATLAS researchers told the Hadron Collider Physics Symposium in Kyoto, Japan, that the number of taus has crept up, removing the hint of deviant physics [from the standard model]. …

If [the one anomaly left] disappears too, the probable Higgs boson will look very standard indeed, which is strange because of all the known possible extensions to the standard model, none predicts a completely standard Higg. …

As if the boson's good behaviour wasn't frustrating enough, the LHC's searches for particles predicted by supersymmetry (SUSY) have turned up nothing. As SUSY - which proposes a heavier superpartner for each known particle - extends the standard model to include dark matter and other omissions, this failure deals a further blow to possible sources of new physics at the LHC. ...”^[1]  --November 23, 2012

All this means that those looking for purely naturalistic answers to the formation of the universe and its current state have been slapped in the face by the evidence. Their invention of “dark matter” is again rebuked as more a figment of their imagination than anything else. I will be happy to eat my words if they should find the missing dark matter, but I doubt they ever will. (Some matter has been found hiding in various places, which has been assumed to be dark matter, but still the majority of the predicted dark matter has not been observed.)

Notice also, the Standard Model does not explain the great excess of matter over “antimatter.” New physics is “urgently needed” by these cosmologists because the Standard Model is inadequate to explain how our universe formed, and they “urgently need” an answer that does not include God. That is, they assume that God does not exist, and they are unwilling to entertain the possibility that God was involved with the universe’s creation.

I think we are living in exciting times. New discoveries about the universe will only reinforce the Bible and the truth that God supernaturally created this universe.

REFERENCE(S)

[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628923.800-higgs-boson-is-too-saintly-and-supersymmetry-too-shy.html

NEWS: Assortment of News Items Related to Evolution-by-Design Theories

1. Dinosaurs May Have ‘Sprouted’ Wings Earlier than Previously Thought^[1]

Well, apparently more dinosaurs had feathers than previously thought. Also, the origination of feathers goes back further in time than previously known. This relates to my theories in that I believe that dinosaurs were a stepping stone to the formation of birds, and birds originated much earlier than currently known (c. 180-160 Ma). The Bible makes it clear that birds originated before modern land animals. This discovery of early types of dinosaurs having feathers helps further this point of view.

Prediction: We will find more evidence that early dinosaurs had feathers typically. We will find smaller dinos that look a lot like birds that lived before 160 Ma.

2. Evolution is ‘Far from Random’ and Follows Predictable Genetic Patterns^[2]

This is critical to my theories about designed evolution. Darwinian evolution says that evolution is based on random mutations and other changes that are perpetuated based on greater fitness—i.e. survival of the fittest. However, now there is direct evidence that evolution is “far from random,” which strongly supports my theories proposed on this site. Evolution is a designed and efficient process. Evidence is showing this to be true, I believe.

Prediction: We will find more evidence that evolution is nonrandom and that it is efficient. We will find that evolution is mostly driven by chemical changes in the environment that affect the epigenome.

3. [OLD NEWS] Early Jawless ‘Fish’ Had Genes Specific to Jawed Fish^[3]

As we have noted in a past post, a complex vertebrae structure specific to walking land animals existed in limbless fish before land animals were common. Here we have another similar case of a specific design existing before it became used as it is used today. Fish without jaws formed skeletal structures necessary for jaws to form. Magically? This (and the other example) was a highly fortuitous adaptation. This is odd for un-designed evolution, but for our proposed theory of designed evolution it is consistent and expected and reasonable.

Similarly, studies have shown that the brain and sense organs of jawless animals living 400 Ma were reorganized to allow for jaws.^[7] Then, once jaws formed, teeth apparently formed immediately or shortly thereafter, which is more evidence for body plans and genetic designs preexisting within genomes before they became rapidly expressed.^[8]

Prediction: More examples like this will be found. Complex designs will be found existing for no clear reason ‘shortly’ before the final evolutionary step was made that made the designs highly useful. These are missing links that indicate purposeful changes rather than random changes.

4. The Human Mutation Molecular Clock Found To Be Way Off^[6]

So, as I have been noting for some time on this blog, molecular clocks are not accurate and cannot be trusted. This recent study just confirms that. It is somewhat irrelevant what new molecular clocks they have devised. The point I wish to make is that molecular clocks are rough estimates that are based on bad assumptions about the way that evolution and mutations progress. It is a poor assumption that mutations have always proceeded at a constant rate. Given my theories on this site, I’m sure that you can imagine why I think this to be true. Previously, I showed how that the molecular clock for penguins was drastically adjusted as well. Now the clock for humans has been drastically adjusted. This does not bode well for the accuracy or trustworthiness of molecular clocks.

Prediction: More evidence will come to light eventually that ‘mutations’ do not always happen at the same rate but speed up or slow down based on environmental pressures. More evidence will be found that various molecular clocks are disturbingly incorrect and too difficult to calibrate. Eventually these ‘clocks’ will be considered unreliable.

EXTRA: Cells of Dinosaurs Apparently Confirmed to be Preserved After 67 Million Years^[4]

Now, how funny it was that an earlier study by about two weeks indicated that DNA degrades quickly and cannot last more than about 6.9 million years^[5]. There was no indication, however, that DNA existed in these dinosaur bones. So, perhaps this is not a contradiction. In any case, it is astonishing that proteins from cells could last 67 million years. I really don’t have much to say about this point, but it is interesting.

[1] http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/dinosaurs-sprouted-wings-earlier.html
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121025130922.htm
[3] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100924095840.htm
[4] http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bone/
[5] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22359-dnas-halflife-identified-using-fossil-bones.html
[6] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/189.summary
[7] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817135351.htm   
[8] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121017131834.htm

NEWS: Cambrian Explosion Just Got Bigger

According to new research, during the Early Cambrian—a time when many of the animal phyla were first appearing over a relatively short geological timescale—complex brains had already evolved. Instead of increasing in complexity, the brain structure of insects and their ancestors were apparently devolving a tad from more complex to less complex:

“Have spiders gotten dumber over time? That's one possible conclusion from 50 well-preserved fossils excavated from 520-million-year-old rocks in southwestern China. The fossils belong to a 6-centimeter-long early arthropod—a group that includes insects; spiders; scorpions; and crustaceans such as shrimp, crabs, and lobsters—which had a surprisingly modern brain.  . . . [E]ye stalks were preserved in many different positions—a sign that they were flexible and that the creatures could control their movement, the researchers report online today in Nature. Furthermore, they say, the appearance of such a complex brain early in arthropod evolution suggests that the nervous systems of modern-day arthropods with simpler brains—such as spiders, scorpions, and the crustaceans known as water fleas—were at some point downsized by evolution [sic.], a contrast with previous notions that the brains of arthropods in those lineages had remained simple since arthropods first arose.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/scienceshot-spider-ancestor-had-.html (Emphasis added)

Now, let’s get a reminder of the complexity that arose during the Cambrian:

• Compound eye structures with 1000’s of lenses (~515 Ma) ^[1]
• Nervous systems with complex brains (little changed since that time, over 520 million years)
• 11 to 23+ animal phyla of 32 (phyla are basic body types), and perhaps many more extinct phyla
• Diverse complex cell-types

How many eons would it take for accidental changes in DNA to stumble upon all the complexity? Certainly, it would take longer than a meager 20 to 100 million years. Consider also that the compound eyes and complex brain structures have changed little after 500 million years. How does that make sense in terms of random, mindless evolution? Complexity arose in under 100 million years, and then there were 500 million years of relative stasis—preservation of complexity but little or no improvement. This does not sound like the work of chance to me.

It is worth mentioning that we are no closer to finding the necessary intermediate forms that would be expected and required of undesigned evolution. With undesigned evolution there must be many small steps of improvement that lead to complex designs, like the brain structure mentioned above. So far the fossil record keeps disputing Darwinian evolution. It is not enough that there are species of animals with varying degrees of complexity of eyes or brains. Darwinian evolution demands that complex structures evolved slowly from preexisting simple structures. The fossil record does not show this predicted gradual increase in complexity. This should make typical evolutionists nervous—very nervous. (That intricate brains would quickly evolve fits my model and predictions, as mentioned in a previous blog post ^[2], under points (4) and (16).)

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132908.htm; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110629132546.htm; http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/dec/07/predator-compound-eyes-stalks-cambrian
[2] http://createdevolution.blogspot.com/2011/07/accurate-predictions-of-designed.html

What About Viruses and Bacteria?

Would a loving God create bacteria and viruses? The fossil record says that these have been around since before the beginning of animal life. Where did these come from and why do they exist?
Bacteria. A healthy human body contains a few pounds of bacteria. There are many good strains of bacteria, and we would be in deep trouble without any bacteria—especially in regard to our digestion. Bacteria are not inherently bad. However, we all know and fear the bad ones. Some of them are deadly. Were these accidents or intentionally created? 

There is increasing evidence that bacteria are related to the mitochondria of cells. Whether the bacteria devolved from mitochondria or whether mitochondria evolved from bacteria is unclear from the evidence. Most evolutionists, trusting in the all-powerful creativity of undesigned evolution, believe that it only makes sense that simplicity leads to complexity through eons of time and chance. So, the prevailing ‘wisdom’ is that bacteria gave rise to mitochondria. In my theories, it makes perfect sense that the opposite happened: mitochondria (which are complex) devolved into bacteria (less complex in structure). Some dissenting scientists agree that this is a possibility. Somehow mitochondria in some ancient cells became increasingly independent from the rest of the cells, as more genetic code got transferred from the nuclei to the mitochondria. Eventually, one or more of these mitochondria broke free from the main cell and became the first bacteria, I believe.

Was this an accident? Nothing is ultimately an unforeseen and unplanned for accident from God’s perspective. But it may have been the natural result of decay, disorder, and randomness. In that sense, it may have been an accident. No one can say for sure. What I love about it, though, is that even if bacteria were born of decay, God used many of them for good in the design of animals and humans.

Viruses. Most viruses are harmful to humans. The exception is bacteriophages that infect bacteria. These may indirectly help humans in the case where they attack harmful bacteria. Indeed, some bacteriophages have been intentionally utilized to help fight off bacterial infections.

Recently, it has been found that giant viruses—which are nearly as large as bacteria and are more complex than typical viruses—appear to be related to cells. This means that viruses may be the result of devolving cells, in much the same way as bacteria, in my view. Perhaps another part of the cell became independent, or bacteria devolved further into viruses. Who knows for sure?

The Purpose. So, why would God allow these sometimes harmful things in the environment? First, before the Fall of Adam and Eve it is most certain that God would have supernaturally protected them from harm of any kind. There is the indication that where the glorious knowledge of God abounds, things are peaceful and no harm will come (Is. 11:9). The Garden of Eden was one of those places. Bad bacteria and viruses were not welcome. Neither were harmful insects and animals, like lions, allowed to harm man, as in the case of Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 6:22). Just because dangerous things exist does not mean that they are not under God’s control. All things are under God’s control. Nothing can harm anyone unless God allows it. Why did God allow fallen angels to enter into the world? It is the same question.

God has allowed harmful things in the environment because He knew that Man would fall and, as punishment, be subjected to a life of futility and decay. God prepared an imperfect world of suffering and decay for the unfolding plan of redemption of mankind. For a brief moment of time—a few short days—God upheld Adam and Eve such that they experienced no physical pain, suffering, or harm; then, they fell and God’s protecting hand was removed, as part of their curse. God wisely made the world from the very beginning to be firmly established (Jer. 10:12). Part of that wisdom and establishing involved preparing the world for a sinful human race. God wasn’t about to redesign the whole huge universe just because they sinned.

I actually agree with young-earth creationists who say that pain, suffering, diseases, and animal death are to remind us of the consequences of sin. There is no reason why these problems with the world could not have existed before Adam’s sin, being prepared for the Fall of mankind. When God’s hand of protection was removed from Adam and Eve, from their limited prospective it would have been just as if the world had been marred and changed for the worse. Harmful bacteria and viruses, then, originated likely from the decaying nature of the universe, but humans only became afflicted with them because of the Fall. 

Update

05/21/2013: Viruses have been found to be more helpful to animals than previously known. In humans and animals, apparently phages (a type of virus mentioned briefly above) are continually fighting off bacteria^[1], protecting creatures from harm. From this we see an example of how God made something we generally think of as harmful to be helpful to creatures.

[1] http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/friendly-viruses-protect-us-agai.html?rss=1

A Mechanism for Macroevolution

The recently discovered epigenome is the key to how all evolution has happened, I hypothesize. According to all that we now know, and my proposed theory that the first life on earth contained all the genetic codes for all the kinds of living things today, major evolution would naturally happen without invoking other unknown mysterious mechanisms.

How? Well, first let’s talk briefly about the epigenome. The epigenome is apparently the surrounding chemical environment in which the genome rests. The epigenome influences which genes get activated and which lie dormant. That is, simple chemical changes can influence gene expression. Furthermore, the epigenome gets passed from parent to child, resulting in customized changes to the expression of genes based on the actions and environment of the parent(s). This means that environmental changes influence gene expression for multiple generations. If there is a persistent environmental change, or if there is a persistent behavioral change, there would be a persistent change in the active genetic instructions (genes) for an organism. In other words, there would be some adaptation or evolution based on environment or behavior. We see this adaption all the time today. For example, the beaks of birds on the Galapagos Islands change rapidly in response to the environment. This is an adaption via the epigenome, I believe.

There’s one more important piece of the puzzle. If unexpressed genes remain unexpressed for many generations they can be permanently removed from the genome. Thus, purely environmental changes, causing changes to gene expression as explained above, can result in loss of information to an organism’s genome. An example of this is cave fish that have lost their eyes due to the darkness that renders them useless. The dark environment affected the epigenome which caused the genes for eyes to become unexpressed, and in some cases eventually resulted in the genes being discarded as unneeded.

Now, back to the question of how major evolution would happen naturally through the influence of the epigenome. If the original life on earth had huge amounts of information for all kinds of designs, where something like only 1% was being actively used initially, then the epigenome would result in new gene expression with new designs springing up. A single cell could spontaneously become a multicellular organism because of chemical changes that resulted in new genes becoming activated. If that new multicellular organism remained multicellular for many generations, then it could lose genetic information and its ability to evolve back to a single-celled organism. The change would be a permanent genetic change. The evolutionary leap from single-celled to multi-celled organism then could be explained by the influence of the epigenome—by purely environmental changes. Similarly, if the environment became sufficiently cold, chemical changes in the epigenome might cause a dinosaur to start producing feathers (a previously unexpressed genetic code) for warmth. If the new feathered dinosaur started using those feathers to fly, the behavioral change might result in the feathers becoming a relatively permanent feature. So, the affects of the epigenome could be responsible for the development of the wings of birds.

In fact, genes activated by the epigenome could be self-perpetuating if the genes caused behavioral changes. Those behavioral changes might result in chemical changes that caused the epigenome to remain changed. The persistent change to the epigenome would result in a permanent genetic change if the genome ditched the unexpressed genes.

Finally, it is important to note that these mechanisms for major evolutionary change require sophisticated preexisting information in the genome. It also is important to note that this would be a one-way street: major evolution could only happen for so long before the new genetic information would be exhausted and unused genes would be discarded by organisms. All species would become genetically unique and unable to evolve significant new designs requiring new information. That is why we do not often (if ever) observe macroevolution today. We are only talking about evolution by the loss, reorganization, and selection of already existing information. Complex designs simply should not arise by randomness so frequently as we see in Nature. Some organisms, by the way, would reach this point of genetic exhaustion before others. That is why we see some “living fossils” that haven’t changed significantly in many millions of years. Such organisms have long ago discarded their unused genes and have become relatively unable to evolve.

(That leaves us with several interesting questions. What caused some organisms to ditch their unused genes quicker than others? One possibility is that a more stable environment might cause this to happen quicker. How could the totality of genetic information be preserved for a few billion years before complex life arose? One simple answer to that is that the code for discarding unused genes was not activated until sometime before the Cambrian Explosion.)

NEWS: Ancient Fish Had Human-Like Spine

Once again, the fossil record is showing us that complexity arose quickly and in animals that didn't even need it. Some of the predictions of the theory of evolution espoused on this blog have been convergent evolution, rapid emergence of complex features, and complexity in some of the earliest animals. This is now being proven by science, piece by piece. This latest example is great evidence that the genetic codes for complex features were already existing in animals before they became needed and expressed. Here is the latest finding:

For decades, scientists believed that a spine with multiple segments was an exclusive feature of land-dwelling animals. But the discovery of the same anatomical feature in a 345-million-year-old eel suggests that this complex anatomy arose separately from -- and perhaps before -- the first species to walk on land.

But in a new description of Tarrasius published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Lauren Sallan describes a five-segment column much more similar to the spinal anatomy of land-dwelling animals called tetrapods, including humans.

... By contrast, fish vertebrae are typically categorized anatomically into two segments: caudal and pre-caudal. But the spinal column of Tarrasius shows a complexity more like that seen in tetrapods, with five segments separated by abrupt transitions.

... And while Tarrasius lived several million years after the first tetrapods with hands and feet, the discovery of these spinal features in a fish species confirms that this anatomy can evolve separate from the evolution of walking behavior.

Instead, the commonalities suggest that similar environments or other selective pressures may produce convergent evolution of this complex spinal organization.[1]
(Emphasis mine.)

This is a great example of convergent evolution. The problem is that this eel did not need such a complex spine. Furthermore, it did not need a complex spine that was ideal for walking on land. The odds of this convergent evolution happening by chance because of "selective pressures" and mutation and survival of the fittest is basically zero. You would be better off suggesting that there was lateral gene transfer because of bacteria. Instead, scientists are struggling to explain why this eel needed such a complex spine for wiggling back and forth in the water. This complex design should have conferred some great fitness edge to the eel, but that is hard to imagine even for the best scientists.

The very best answer, of course, is that the genetic information for a five-segment spinal column existed in the genome of the ancestors of both these eels and land animals; over time, the genetic information became expressed in both these eels and the land animals. (It's true that "selective pressure" may have been behind the expression of this information, but it may have been subtle pressure.)


Reptile with Feathers Before Birds and Archaeopteryx?

Did you know that there was a reptile that lived probably more than 200 million years ago that had (arguably) feathers coming out its back? It's called Longisquama. Now, understandably, evolutionists are highly hesitant to say these were feathers, since feathered dinosaurs didn't come about until roughly 50 million years later. Birds are supposed to have come from dinosaurs not reptiles. This is awkward for typical evolutionists. In fact, some have tried to argue that the fossil is of a reptile that fell down on some kind of ferns, and it only looks like feathers! Well, more modern research has confirmed that these are not ferns, but an actual part of the reptile. Here is the latest:

(March 23, 2012)  "...Buchwitz says the appendages are clearly similar to the real deal [feathers]. Like feathers, they have a central filament running along their lengths, for example. He thinks this means that they were constructed using the same developmental genes that later produced feathers.  ...Longisquama shows that evolution was experimenting with the genes that gave rise to feathers long before any of these animals appeared on the scene." [2]

"Living during the Triassic [200+ million years ago], Longisquama was a small, lizard like creature that appears to have had a series of long feathers on its back. This implies that birds might have not evolved from theropods, but lizard-like reptiles instead." [3]
(Emphasis mine.)

Now, was it theropods or reptiles that gave rise to birds? Most would say theropod dinosaurs. But, as can be seen from the quote above, this fossil adds some confusion to bird origins. This is another case of convergent evolution, I would argue. But the hard question here is really why would a reptile have feather-like structures protruding out its back for no apparent functional purpose? It appears that complexity was expressing itself before a good functional purpose. That is not plausible, consistent, or indicative of random evolution.

The very best answer is that the design for feathers (which are perfect for flying, by the way) was already contained in the genome of the ancestor of both theropod dinosaurs and this reptile, Longisquama. The genetic information was just waiting -- no, itching -- to burst out and become expressed. That's what the evidence seems to indicate, here.


Squid Ink Remains Practically Unchanged Over 160 Million Years

Scientists have amazingly managed to analyze 160-million-year-old melanin (used in squid ink) from a fossilized cuttlefish. Their results show that the melanin has remained virtually unchanged over these eons of time -- and there is no telling how far back the original melanin design goes.

(May 22, 2012)  "'It's close enough that I would argue that the pigmentation in this class of animals has not evolved in 160 million years,' said John Simon, chemistry professor at University of Virginia. ...Simon says, 'the whole machinery apparently has been locked in time and passed down through succeeding generations of cuttlefish. It's a very optimised system for this animal and has been optimised for a long time.'" [4]
(Emphasis mine.)

Efficiency achievement was not a gradual process, I believe. Evolution has done absolutely nothing to improve the design of this cuttlefish ink over 160 million years. Why? Because it was a "perfect" design to begin with! The best answer is that the genetic code for the melanin was pre-optimized and simply waiting to become expressed in the cuttlefish. The cuttlefish got the best design for its ink without waiting for it to evolve for millions of years.


Information for Land Plants Existed Before Land Plants

Lignin is a critical chemical component of wood that land plants use to help them grow without needing support. It acts a bit like glue by helping fortify a plant's cell walls. Until a few years ago, scientists had believed that this chemical was unique to land plants, since it was assumed that only they would need it for support. This turned out to be a faulty assumption. Red algae also contains the instructions for making lignin. (Land plants came from green algae.)

(January 27, 2009)  "Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land." [5]
(Emphasis mine)

Thus, once again, the basic instructions for a critical chemical needed for land plants preexisted the land plants. Furthermore, like with the feathers and spinal column mentioned above, there is not a good reason for why red algae would have evolved this chemical since it didn't need it. The best answer, I think you can see, is that the genetic information for wood (including lignin) was stored within the genome of algae more than a billion years ago.

This information, along with all the information for all complex chemicals and designs, was contained in the genome of the very first cell(s) that existed on the earth.


Concluding Remarks

There are plenty of other similar examples of complex designs seemingly appearing without rhyme or reason. (Another good example is sodium channels related to nervous systems oddly found within single-celled organisms^[6].) These examples have to do with complexity appearing rapidly (or instantly) in animals, and sometimes in animals that don't need the complexity and sometimes in multiple animals evolutionarily distantly related. Darwinian evolution has a lot of explaining to do! Random mutations and survival of the fittest doesn't cut it, here. In my personal opinion, Darwinian evolution offers absolutely no answers in these cases and should be discarded for a better theory. A designed evolution where all the genetic information was contained in simple cells billions of years ago fits all the evidence the best, and it can make accurate predictions like a good theory should be able to do.

---
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522200829.htm
[2] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574.400-reptile-grew-featherlike-structures-before-dinosaurs.html 
[3] http://listverse.com/2009/10/05/15-unusual-prehistoric-creatures/ 
[4] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/22/cephalopod-ink
[5] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127090723.htm   
[6] http://www.utexas.edu/news/2011/05/17/sodium_nervous_systems

Link: Should Christians Believe in Evolution?

This was a decent read about whether or not Christians should believe in the theory of evolution:

http://theresurgence.com/2012/05/17/should-christians-believe-in-evolution

Six Reasons Why God May Have Allowed There to Be ‘Pre-Humans’

One day I was contemplating the ‘problem’ of pre-humans existing before true humans. It seemed strange to me that God would have had Homo sapiens exist from about 200 – 70 kya without being spiritual creatures having eternal souls. So, I thought about it for a while, trying to discern what God’s purpose in that would have been. The following is the result of my contemplations. I believe there are six good reasons why God might not have immediately made Adam and Eve as soon as Homo sapiens came into existence.

This, of course, is all predicated upon my theory of created evolution and how Adam was born of purely animal Homo sapiens that had no eternal souls (what I call pre-humans). At some point, my theory goes, Adam was given an immortal spirit that was made in God’s image, at which point he became the first true human. The second human, Eve, was supernaturally formed from Adam’s rib as the Bible clearly teaches.

1) There are limitations to the rate of evolution, and God was allowing Homo sapiens to evolve to 'perfection' before giving a spirit.

It is quite possible that even though Homo sapiens existed since around 200 – 120 kya, their physical makeup was not yet fully evolved at first for God to place a human spirit within them. God would have wanted all the human genes to become activated before Adam was made. This would have included genes related to brain development and longevity and other non-external changes, likely. It is quite likely that evolution, as it was designed, can only operate so fast and environmental factors are needed to trigger certain dormant genes to become active.

Thus, though Homo sapiens may have looked very human-like some 150 kya, they were probably far different in behavior and mental capacity.

2) God wanted the other animals to adapt to the presence of the human figure and to generally become afraid of them.

It is likely that had Adam and Eve been drastically different in appearance from all other creatures, the animals would have had no time to adapt to the existence of humans. Thus, for some 100,000 years the animals were given time to adjust to the human form and to learn to begin to fear Homo sapiens. Given that Homo sapiens were hunter-gatherers for this time period, it makes sense that the animals would have learned to be wary of them. Perhaps there were also other ways in which the other animals needed to learn to adapt to them, as well.

3) God wanted human life-spans to decrease later when humans intermarried with the spiritless Homo sapiens that still lived in Africa and probably elsewhere.

Adam and his descendants were able to live long periods of time. This is likely because of a dormant genetic program that got activated in Adam. All previous pre-human Homo sapiens, it appears from the evidence, were unable to live such long lives. However, as we have written about in a previous post, the genetic code of the human race became corrupted and humans began to live shorter and shorter lives. It is my belief that the answer as to why this happened is that humans and pre-humans interbred/intermarried as the Bible alludes to in Genesis 6.

Thus, the pre-humans were a means by which God could judge humans and shorten their lifespans. It is reasonable that this was an intentional plan of God’s.

4) God wanted to provide a way for the "sons of God" (fallen angels) to try to corrupt humanity, such that the glory of God would be exulted through it.

This is an extension of the previous point. Genesis 6 indicates that fallen angels came down and somehow married women. This happened likely through the pre-humans and possibly Neanderthals to a lesser degree. The fallen angels probably possessed (took control of) these pre-humans and caused interbreeding to happen with humans. This was partly to try to corrupt humanity, undoubtedly.

God seems to allow demons to try to threaten His plans and eternal purposes. Demons are around for a purpose, and one of those purposes is to glorify God by showing that God’s councils are unassailable. God gets glory in showing that He can always out-smart His enemies. Like with Job in the Bible, God allowed the devil to attack Job in order to show that His servant was unfailingly spiritually sustained and upheld by Him. This brought glory to God.

So, it is reasonable that God intentionally provided a means by which the devil could try to corrupt humanity—both spiritually and physically—and prevent the Messiah from coming. Before the Flood, much corrupting of humanity did happen, and even after the Flood humanity did seem to suffer serious genetic corruption. However, I suspect that much of the corruption that happened after the Tower of Babel was from genetic mutations rather than interbreeding with pre-human creatures; and, most of the interbreeding with pre-humans was likely not because of fallen angels any longer, since the New Testament indicates that the fallen angels before Noah’s Flood were severely judged, causing the demons to fear trying it again. Even if humans were genetically polluted by the pre-humans after the Flood, then, they were not ruined by the introduction of a serious demonic taint, as before the Flood. (I suspect that God even disallowed demonic possession of pre-humans after the Flood.)

5) The presence of spiritless Homo sapiens has provided a strong demonstration that we are gifted to be uniquely spiritual and self-aware to a new level.

Perhaps the great contrast between us humans and these ‘pre-humans’ that existed as early as 200 kya provides a striking lesson of how important our spirituality, heightened self-awareness, and increased sociality are in making us unique from the animals. Homo sapiens of these early prehistoric times were hard to distinguish from modern humans, but behaviorally they were likely little different from upright-walking apes—though perhaps a bit more intelligent. The big, critical difference we discern is that these early pre-humans were spiritless creatures who could not know God. They did not understand the concept of God, nor did they care to know Him. There is no evidence they prayed, built temples, made alters, or considered the possibility that God exists. We should feel overwhelmingly blessed to know God, for that is the greatest gift of all and what sets us apart most from the animals!

6) God wanted human diseases and pests to evolve as punishments for after Man became sinful and deserved those punishments.

This certainly will be a more controversial answer to the question. However, it is apparent to me that God had prepared the world for the Fall of Adam and Eve by making the world a place that would have disasters, death of animals, diseases, and many unpleasant conditions. It is no stretch, then, to say that God might have intended on allowing human viruses and pests (e.g. lice) to evolve before Adam and Eve were formed. To do this, He could have allowed such diseases and pests to adapt first to pre-human Homo sapiens. This would have set the stage for the Fall of Man that God knew was going to happen rather quickly after making Adam and Eve.

Does this seem cruel? It isn’t. God judged Adam and Eve by sending them out of the Garden of Eden and keeping them from living forever. This resulted in their deaths. He also prepared a groaning world (Rom 8:22) for them, partly as judgment, complete with thorns and thistles and diseases and disasters. These were deserved punishments for their sin. God knows the future and He prepares perfectly for it.

The Rare Earth Hypothesis Works Best with an Old Earth

As someone who believes in an old earth and the idea that God made the earth using billions of years of natural processes, I believe that the earth is rare in the universe and that scientific research will show that to be true, not just by checking for earth-like planets but more importantly by using models of planet formation and determining the requirements for a very long existence of life on the planet. God chose the right planet that could support life for some 3-1/2 billion years. This planet we live on is the most suitable for intelligent life, and science is beginning to point towards that truth. It’s been called the Rare Earth hypothesis.

Strangely, young-earth creationists have jumped on this Rare Earth bandwagon. I say strangely because they seem to end up using some arguments that only work for an old earth. My contention is that much of the evidence that earth is rare strongly indicates that the earth is truly old. Young-earth creationists are actually undermining their own beliefs by trying to use these arguments.

Here’s one example: the Galactic Habitable Zone. The idea is that there is a relatively small range of distances from the center of the galaxy that are good places for life to exist. If you go too close to the center of the galaxy, the neighborhood of surrounding stars is denser and the probability of a nova destroying life over a long period of time (say a billion years) becomes quite high. For that reason and other reasons, the earth’s solar system is considered to be situated at a good distance from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. But, notice that this Galactic Habitable Zone is determined based upon the probability of novas over long periods of time. For a young earth, this Galactic Habitable Zone would become much, much wider. In fact, there is a good chance that the earth could have been almost in the center of the galaxy if it only needed to support life for 7000 years. Thus, using the Galactic Habitable Zone to support the idea that the earth is rare is to imply that the earth is really old.

Much of the evidence that says the earth is rare in the universe is based upon the belief that the earth needed to support life for billions of years. Yet somehow young-earth creationists think that they can steal these evidences for themselves. Not so fast. What some of them fail to understand is that if the earth is really so young, then scientists should be finding so many reasons why the earth itself could not support life for billions of years. Instead, scientists are finding (not at all by choice or bias, by the way) just the opposite: the earth was and is uniquely qualified to protect life from extinction for billions of years based upon numerous situational factors. This confounds scientists that don’t believe in the Bible, since they think that earth should be a relatively common planet in a common solar system.

Now, let me preemptively answer the rebuttal that young-earth creationists would probably make. They may say, “But God made the earth originally to be habitable for billions of years, just as if the Fall of Adam would never happen.” In other words, why should we think that God wouldn’t have made the earth to be uniquely protected and well-situated in the universe, given that He made it perfect to begin with?

The problem with this rebuttal is that it is clear that our solar system has significant problems and earth is subject to many kinds of catastrophes over long periods of time. However, those catastrophes are much less severe or likely in our well-designed galactic neighborhood and solar system. If God were intending to make a perfect system to support human life for billions of years, then it looks like He did a poor job of that, since there are asteroids that routinely strike earth, novas of surrounding stars that will likely jeopardize life on earth in the next few million years, and many other potential threats. Either God made our solar system better than other places but still not perfect—which is what the evidence is showing—or else He made it a perfect place. You can’t have it both ways.

Or can you? Maybe He made it a perfect place at first but then let it start to “fall apart” and decay after the Fall of Adam? This would be a nice attempt at trying to explain the evidence, but it misses the critical point. Even with things decaying, our place in the universe and the specific setup of the earth is so good that it should be able to support life for hundreds of millions of years, still. Why would God set everything up so precisely in a fallen world such as to make a place for life to exist safely for hundreds of millions of years, when it would only need to exist for about 7000 years? For instance, there is no good reason why God would not have made a star nearby that was ready to go supernova and destroy life on earth in the next 10,000 years, since He will make a new heaven and earth long before that time. (If there was no decay before the Fall, then it wouldn’t matter if such a star existed, because it would never go supernova in such a hypothesized world.) Clearly, even in our fallen world, even with decay and disasters, God precisely designed the earth and the solar system and galaxy to be able support life for much longer than 7000 year—barring an unlikely extinction event. Why would He make it so good even after the Fall? It would be a very unnecessary fine-tuning of everything.

But there’s another reason why the evidence supports an old earth. According to geologists, astrophysicists, and so on, over the last 4.5 billion years the earth has been carefully shaped to support life. There were many fortuitous events that allowed for life to flourish. If the earth is actually only 6000 years old, then all these ideas about how the solar system, the earth, and the moon formed are wrong. There then should be no reason why the models of formation would indicate a rare earth—but they do, or at least the evidence is mounting in that direction. The evidence that earth is rare does not just apply to its current state, but also its long history of existence over 4.5 billion years.

Plate tectonics is a good topic to investigate to show this point. If the plates of the earth did not move around, because of convection within the mantle, then our continents would not exist. Without larger landmasses the food chain would not function properly. For plate tectonics to work for billions of years, the earth had to have the right internal attributes. Most planets are not likely to have these necessary attributes, making earth rare. Young-earth creationists cannot condone such arguments, since they require an old-earth perspective. Also, young-earth proponents cannot attribute earth’s well-designed plate tectonics to God making the earth able to support life for millions of years, since plate tectonics has little or nothing to do with the future survival of life; it would seem to only be necessary in the past. Also, volcanism has been used to form land. Without volcanism it is probable that earth would have no continental land. The conditions necessary to form land has been perfect on earth, but other planets are not likely to have these same perfect conditions. This makes for a good rare earth argument. However, this argument presumes an old earth, once again. A young-earth creationist cannot embrace this rare-earth argument, either, since volcanism is considered harmful and the result of the Curse, and they do not believe the earth formed in the way most scientists do. Volcanism has no benefit for the future survival of life—at least not considered by itself.

From what I can tell, there are countless other examples that would support the idea that—given an old universe—the earth, the solar system, and the Milky Way Galaxy must be truly special in the universe. Many of these examples only work if you embrace Big Bang cosmology, planet formation models, and an old earth with all the supporting theories of how it formed. Young-earth creationists are trying vainly to utilize these kinds of claims that earth is rare, much to the undermining of their own beliefs of how the universe and earth were created in six twenty-four hour days. Unless they want to switch to old-earth creationism, they need to choose their arguments carefully.

In conclusion, the evidence is showing that the earth was formed through a very long process that was carefully designed to support life for billions of years. An old earth and universe actually lead directly to the conclusion that earth has been especially suitable for life for long ages, and that the likelihood of finding another “earth” in the universe is remote. Only if you embrace mainstream science can you rightly claim all the evidence for the rarity of earth, however. Young-earth creationists are inconsistent and illogical to adopt most of these rare-earth arguments. Given a universe that is about 13.7 billion years old and an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that earth has been one of the best places (and probably the best place) in the universe for life to thrive for over 3 billion years. Old-earth creationists make best sense of all this data.