[_ Old Earth _] Why did God make us look SO much like other primates?

[Cirbryn]

OK. I’m confused. How exactly did this rare event effect all human and primate DNA? Please explain if the virus event occurred in a single primate and it just happened that all primates living from this time on were descended from this particular primate or did the virus effect all primates living at the time and how did this rare event occur?

Supposing that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primates, but in no other animals, we would conclude that the virus infected the sperm or egg of a very early primate, which then went on to form an adult that became the ancestor of all primates living today. This is the only reasonable conclusion. Consider some other possibilities:

1) The ERV was inserted into all living primate species separately by independent viral infections.

Problem: There are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, and presumably about that many in the genomes of other primates. If only two separate viral infections were involved, the chances of the ERV getting inserted into the same place each time are about 3 billion to 1. Multiply that by however many other primate species you find the ERV in.

2) The sequence of base pairs that’s being interpreted as an ERV actually came about (either in all the species or in all but one) as a result of random changes to the genome, and not due to viral infection.

Problem: The chances of this are many orders of magnitude lower than for alternative 1 above. ERV sequences are fairly long (several hundred base pairs, I think), and code for recognizable viral proteins (although those codes slowly degrade over time). Such sequences don’t come about randomly, much less in specific places in the genome.

So are there any problems with the accepted interpretation? For instance, is it reasonable to assume that the early primate that originally got infected with the ERV “just happened†to be an ancestor of all living primates. Sure it’s reasonable. No one’s saying that ancestor was the only one in his population to be infected, nor is anyone saying that that ancestor was the only common ancestor of all living primates. Assumedly others that got infected either didn’t have any descendants that made it to the present, or else they did and the ERVs they were infected with are also with us.

The thing about ERVs is that, assuming we understand them correctly, they should show patterns of relatedness. The groups that share an ERV (in a specific place in the genome) should be more closely related to each other than they are to groups that don’t share that ERV. As it happens they do show these patterns (as shown graphically by Quath’s post of July 8), and the patterns of relatedness shown by ERVs are generally consistent with each other and with what we know about relatedness from other sources. For instance, we’ve found several ERVs shared by all primates, and several shared only by Humans and Chimps, but we’ve never found any shared only by (say) Humans and macaques.

So this brings me to another possible alternative explanation:

3) God inserted the ERV into the same place in the genome of the various species being tested.

Problem: OK, but why? Why insert such sequences? They don’t do anything for the organisms in which they’re found. They instead match sequences used by viruses that parasitize those organisms. And why insert such sequences into the same places in the genomes of numerous species? And why do so in a manner to consistently indicate the same pattern of relatedness? Assuming God exists, He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on your own interpretation of God’s nature, which you think it is.

 

[unred typo]

Supposing that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primates, but in no other animals, we would conclude that the virus infected the sperm or egg of a very early primate, which then went on to form an adult that became the ancestor of all primates living today. This is the only reasonable conclusion. Consider some other possibilities:

1) The ERV was inserted into all living primate species separately by independent viral infections.

Problem: There are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, and presumably about that many in the genomes of other primates. If only two separate viral infections were involved, the chances of the ERV getting inserted into the same place each time are about 3 billion to 1. Multiply that by however many other primate species you find the ERV in.

2) The sequence of base pairs that’s being interpreted as an ERV actually came about (either in all the species or in all but one) as a result of random changes to the genome, and not due to viral infection.

Problem: The chances of this are many orders of magnitude lower than for alternative 1 above. ERV sequences are fairly long (several hundred base pairs, I think), and code for recognizable viral proteins (although those codes slowly degrade over time). Such sequences don’t come about randomly, much less in specific places in the genome.

So are there any problems with the accepted interpretation? For instance, is it reasonable to assume that the early primate that originally got infected with the ERV “just happened†to be an ancestor of all living primates. Sure it’s reasonable. No one’s saying that ancestor was the only one in his population to be infected, nor is anyone saying that that ancestor was the only common ancestor of all living primates. Assumedly others that got infected either didn’t have any descendants that made it to the present, or else they did and the ERVs they were infected with are also with us.

The thing about ERVs is that, assuming we understand them correctly, they should show patterns of relatedness. The groups that share an ERV (in a specific place in the genome) should be more closely related to each other than they are to groups that don’t share that ERV. As it happens they do show these patterns (as shown graphically by Quath’s post of July 8), and the patterns of relatedness shown by ERVs are generally consistent with each other and with what we know about relatedness from other sources. For instance, we’ve found several ERVs shared by all primates, and several shared only by Humans and Chimps, but we’ve never found any shared only by (say) Humans and macaques.

So this brings me to another possible alternative explanation:

3) God inserted the ERV into the same place in the genome of the various species being tested.

Problem: OK, but why? Why insert such sequences? They don’t do anything for the organisms in which they’re found. They instead match sequences used by viruses that parasitize those organisms. And why insert such sequences into the same places in the genomes of numerous species? And why do so in a manner to consistently indicate the same pattern of relatedness? Assuming God exists, He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on your own interpretation of God’s nature, which you think it is.

The reason I only occasionally torture myself in this forum is because I don’t know enough of the actual facts of the topics discussed. In the past I have found myself fighting shadows of the truth where someone who doesn’t have first hand knowledge of the actual field or lab studies has made some supposition or another on some speculative news article about the finding. Should I point out some obvious chinks in the armor, someone else will rush to the rescue with another report that invalidates the previous 5 pages of discussion.

While you have been very helpful in narrowing down the possibilities, I notice that you begin by saying, “Supposing that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primates†and not “[bSince[/b] that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primatesâ€Â. Is this an actual fact, or is it a speculation in theory?

 

[Cirbryn]

The reason I only occasionally torture myself in this forum is because I don’t know enough of the actual facts of the topics discussed. In the past I have found myself fighting shadows of the truth where someone who doesn’t have first hand knowledge of the actual field or lab studies has made some supposition or another on some speculative news article about the finding. Should I point out some obvious chinks in the armor, someone else will rush to the rescue with another report that invalidates the previous 5 pages of discussion.

While you have been very helpful in narrowing down the possibilities, I notice that you begin by saying, “Supposing that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primates†and not “Since that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primatesâ€Â. Is this an actual fact, or is it a speculation in theory?

Sorry, yes we do in fact find ERVs that appear in the same place in the genome of all living primates. Also in the same place in the genome of all old-world primates. Also in the genome of chimps and humans but not gorillas. Etc. For supporting evidence, see here and the papers to which they link (this was also linked by Quath earlier). There’s also this. I said “supposing†because I was trying to take just one hypothetical ERV and explain why scientists interpret it as showing relatedness. The strength of that evidence comes, of course, not just from one such ERV, but from the fact that the relatedness implications of many ERVs are consistent with each other, and with the relatedness implications of other types of evidence such as fossils, non-ERV genetic similarities, protein similarities, morphological similarities, etc.

I should also clarify that we also see similar ERVs in different species that aren’t in the same place in the genome. Because they aren’t in the same place, the two species couldn’t have inherited the ERV from a common ancestor. They must have been infected separately. We may therefore see cases in which, for instance, chimps and gorillas, but not humans, have a particular ERV (see e.g. this). That wouldn’t mean chimps are more closely related to gorillas than they are to humans, because the ERV they share with gorillas isn’t found in the same place.

Regarding your comments about fighting shadows, I do see how that would be annoying, and I wouldn’t take anyone’s word you read here, including mine. This is a good place to go to find where to look for more trustworthy sources though, such as journal articles. It’s also a good place to go to get explanations of what those articles are actually saying. For what it’s worth, I’ve got a BA in Ecology Behavior and Evolution, an MA in Natural Resources, and I currently work as a listing biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So I’ve got a pretty good background understanding, but no first-hand lab knowledge. Part of why I post in these types of forums is to better understand this stuff myself.

 

[Barbarian]

He's got something here. Primates are pretty generalized mammals, except for large brains and opposable thumbs.

Seems like a perfect starting place, if you want to evolve an intelligent generalist.

But don't you suppose He knew that from the start?

 

[unred typo]

Cirbryn wrote: So this brings me to another possible alternative explanation:

3) God inserted the ERV into the same place in the genome of the various species being tested.

Problem: OK, but why? Why insert such sequences? They don’t do anything for the organisms in which they’re found. They instead match sequences used by viruses that parasitize those organisms. And why insert such sequences into the same places in the genomes of numerous species? And why do so in a manner to consistently indicate the same pattern of relatedness? Assuming God exists, He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on your own interpretation of God’s nature, which you think it is.

I have thought of another possibility. God may have nothing to gain by making our DNA glitches look like it matches that of primates in some sort of progression, but Satan would have to see it as another nail in his coffin for God in his ‘God is dead’ scenario. Since he is described as the deceiver and father of lies, isn’t he the most likely suspect in a case where someone with such 'know how' would –be deliberately trying to fool usâ€Â?

 

[Barbarian]

I have thought of another possibility. God may have nothing to gain by making our DNA glitches look like it matches that of primates in some sort of progression, but Satan would have to see it as another nail in his coffin for God in his ‘God is dead’ scenario. Since he is described as the deceiver and father of lies, isn’t he the most likely suspect in a case where someone with such 'know how' would “be deliberately trying to fool us�

I guess that depends on whether you think God made us, or Satan made us.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian on Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:36 am wrote:
I guess that depends on whether you think God made us, or Satan made us.

I thought the sequences were caused by viruses. Viruses and infirmities are sometimes caused by Satanic forces, as shown by these verses:

Acts 10:38
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.


Luke 13:11-13 & 16

11And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
12And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity.
13And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
16And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?

So according to the Bible, I don’t see why Satan couldn’t infect our DNA with parasitic viral glitches that match those of primates. He is noted for his counterfeits, after all. Such deception would fit with his overall scheme to cause some to distrust the things they have learned in the Bible and believe the false evidence he has planted in the genomes of numerous species:

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[Barbarian]

You are granting too much to Satan. Even when God told Satan he could do as he wished with Job, he could only use what God created; he could not create his own afflictions.

The devil is not a god. He is a creature, like us, unable to create anything.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian on Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:29 pm
You are granting too much to Satan. Even when God told Satan he could do as he wished with Job, he could only use what God created; he could not create his own afflictions.

The devil is not a god. He is a creature, like us, unable to create anything.

He isn’t like us. He has ‘lying powers’ and he wouldn’t be creating. He would be destroying and using viruses that already were in existence. Demons can use microbes to cause diseases and boils and Satan is a master of deception. What we’re speaking of would be right down his alley.

Here’s another angle at this idea. I’m sure you have had these verses thrown at you before, although not in this context perhaps:

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now restrains will restrain, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked One be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Maybe you have discovered the source and reason of this very delusion, after all.

 

[unred typo]

Buried/Bumped

 

[Barbarian]

(on Satan)

He isn’t like us.

Like us, he's a mere creature. He's not a God.

He has ‘lying powers’

Two words: George Bush.

[quote[and he wouldn’t be creating. He would be destroying and using viruses that already were in existence. Demons can use microbes to cause diseases and boils and Satan is a master of deception. What we’re speaking of would be right down his alley. [/quote]

Doesn't seem to fit the God we know and love. He is truth, and it seems unlikely that He would lie, even by proxy.

Moreover, everytime we find the origin of a virus, it's by natural causes. And God uses nature, not Satan.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian on Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:30 pm
(on Satan)

Like us, he's a mere creature. He's not a God.

“He has ‘lying powers’â€Â


Two words: George Bush.

[quote:e0298]unred said before: and he wouldn’t be creating. He would be destroying and using viruses that already were in existence. Demons can use microbes to cause diseases and boils and Satan is a master of deception. What we’re speaking of would be right down his alley.

Doesn't seem to fit the God we know and love. He is truth, and it seems unlikely that He would lie, even by proxy.

Moreover, everytime we find the origin of a virus, it's by natural causes. And God uses nature, not Satan.[/quote:e0298]

Satan is the prince and power of the air, where we find the very viruses and microbes that cause diseases and messed up DNA sequences. He is not a mere physical creature like us. He is a spiritual being with powers beyond our human abilities. Nothing equal to God, but enough power to go to his head in believing himself equal to God.

God doesn’t lie but he does allow us to be deceived.
Read this portion of 2 Thessalonians 2 again:

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

God allows, even sends this strong delusion because they would rather believe a lie. I believe God is intent on man having free will to decide his own fate by his own actions and the choices he makes. You will not be convinced against your own will. Have you heard the old saying, ‘a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still’ ?

 

[Orion]

I think the whole, "God sent them strong delusions . . . " is one of those "purely man influenced" parts of the biblical texts. If God loves everyone, including the low down dirty sinner, it would be completely incongruent of God to do anything other than whatever is possible to get the person to turn around their life. "Sending strong delusions" is a VERY unloving thing to do, and is a characteristic you would expect to see from a writer who is mad at some enemy, or someone who isn't seeing things his way and now wishes calamity upon them! :roll:

 

[unred typo]

Orion wrote on Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:07 am
I think the whole, "God sent them strong delusions . . . " is one of those "purely man influenced" parts of the biblical texts. If God loves everyone, including the low down dirty sinner, it would be completely incongruent of God to do anything other than whatever is possible to get the person to turn around their life. "Sending strong delusions" is a VERY unloving thing to do, and is a characteristic you would expect to see from a writer who is mad at some enemy, or someone who isn't seeing things his way and now wishes calamity upon them!

That’s what comes of picking and choosing what verses you want to use to make a god you can live with. I personally believe that God wants us to make our own choices and he will not bend our will to artificially cause us to believe or feel toward him anything that we don’t want to. If you want the real truth, he will lead you to it. If you would rather believe what you want to believe, he can allow or send you false evidence that will allow you to do that. Otherwise, he might as well open the sky and stand there six hundred feet tall and shout the truth at you in streams of smoke and fire.

 

[wingnut]

The really neat thing about making primates look a bit like us, is that it gives folks like Charles Darwin room to hang themselves.

Actually, I am a bit of a believer in evolution myself. I think that Lucifer was placed on earth to prepare it for mankind. At first the earth only could support little plants (which made oxygen) and as oxygen levels increased, so did the size of the plants and animals which the atmosphere could support. So animals got bigger, and God used a flood to eventually cover the Cretacious plants and animals so that they could become coal for man. I think that the Creatacious animals (dinosaurs) reflect the increasingly violent nature of Lucifer, who had by now become Satan. I think Lucifer experimented with a line of primates which looked a bit like modern man, which give us the ape-men fossils.

Then God stepped in and himself created the animals of the Tertiary period, including Adam and Eve. I personally don't think that the apes around today look SO much like us. If you think about it, all animals look somewhat alike (eg. all the cat family). So why should we look so different from other creatures which God creates.

I think that its our similarity with humanoids which predate Adams creation which is remarkable. Possibly God just was better than Lucifer at creating a being in Gods image, viz mankind.

 

[unred typo]

Interesting theories. Do you have any evidence to back them up, either scriptural or physical? I guess it doesn’t really matter what you believe as far as all that goes, as long as you believe God, or at least believe you are believing him.

 

[wingnut]

Interesting theories. Do you have any evidence to back them up, either scriptural or physical? I guess it doesn’t really matter what you believe as far as all that goes, as long as you believe God, or at least believe you are believing him.

Hi Unred typo

I really commend your attitude of tolerance towards truth-seekers. When it comes to reconciling the Bible and science, one is really just doing one's best with what one considers absolute scientific evidence, and absolute Biblical truth. The really important thing is to have an intimate relationship with God.

I do believe science which says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old according to the oldest light reaching us from the furthest corners of the universe.
I do believe geology which indicates earth only became cool enough for life 4 billion years ago.
I do believe the fossil evidence seems to show a progression from small to bigger animals.
I do believe Lucifer was placed on earth - to prepare it for man.
I do know that Lucifer went wrong and became Satan.
I believe that Lucifer "sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." (Ezek 28:12).
I believe that God gave him more "hands-on" ability to manipulate physical objects.
If he was that wise, why not use him to make life forms (even if the Father gave the original life). Even today man can manipulate genes, so why not Lucifer. We can place plant of bacterial genes into animals. Insulin-production today relies on this. So why should Lucifer not be able to make new species? And if he made new species, the fossil record should record a progression to more violent animals, as Satan became more hostile to God.
I even see Satan making a Neanderthal to mock God. (a foolish looking version of God).
This is all just speculation - I will happily accept a better theory if it comes along.

Here is a theory I have on the Nepheilim

The Hebrew word "Nephilim" (Strongs 5303) is only used three times in the Bible in Gen 6:4 and twice in Num 13:33. It seems that the only time the Nephilim were present on earth was before the flood (Gen 6:4). I think that we can discount the lying account of the ten spies, when they exagerate the size of the Cananites, likening them to Nephilim (Num 13:33).

Consider the possibility that the Nephilim were primitive races of "men" - of which there are many fossils around. These are commonly called missing links (Cro-magnon, etc.). Lucifer may have been the maker of these primitive men, just as he may have been the author of the dinosaurs (which seem to reflect his fallen nature). Clearly Lucifer had been on earth long before Adam (Ezek 28:13), and he was there to tempt Adam. Lucifer probably had been sent to earth by God to terraform it and prepare it for mankind. There Lucifer developed a bad attitude, tried to attack heaven, but was cast back down to earth (Is 14:14).

Around this time, a cosmic event (or the spirit war itself) decimated the earth wiping out the dinosaurs and leaving only a few smaller mammals and Nephilim, who survived underground and in caves. The earth became "tohu and bohu" or "without form and void" which is the correct translation of Gen 1:2. Then God steps in and, around 6000 years ago, renews the earth in 7 days. He creates a new line of mankind, beginning with Adam. But on earth some nephilim or "sons of the gods" (angels) persist. There is nothing supernatural or demi-god-like about these "men". These archaic men or nephilim see the "daughters of man", meaning "daughters of Adam" and want them. Genesis 6:4 "There were giants (nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." The "after that" refers to after that the nephilim raped the daughters of Adam, they produced more, nephilim-like men.

Thus there was interbreeding between Adams line (daughters of Adam) and the angelic line (sons of the gods). This displeased God. He chose Noah, who was "perfect in his generations" (Gen 6:9) to repopulate the earth. "Perfect in his generations" means genetically without any nephilim genes in his ancestory. God wiped out all the nephilim and their half-breeds in a worldwide flood. God also filled the ark with animals of his choosing, which He had created on those 7 days.

None of the Nephilim survived the Flood, and all generations of mankind on earth today are descendent from the 8 soul, who in turn are pure-bred, sons and daughters of Adam.

Again - its not a salvation issue what one believes regarding this.

Do you have any theories of your own?

 

[Orion]

Orion wrote on Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:07 am
I think the whole, "God sent them strong delusions . . . " is one of those "purely man influenced" parts of the biblical texts. If God loves everyone, including the low down dirty sinner, it would be completely incongruent of God to do anything other than whatever is possible to get the person to turn around their life. "Sending strong delusions" is a VERY unloving thing to do, and is a characteristic you would expect to see from a writer who is mad at some enemy, or someone who isn't seeing things his way and now wishes calamity upon them!

That’s what comes of picking and choosing what verses you want to use to make a god you can live with. I personally believe that God wants us to make our own choices and he will not bend our will to artificially cause us to believe or feel toward him anything that we don’t want to. If you want the real truth, he will lead you to it. If you would rather believe what you want to believe, he can allow or send you false evidence that will allow you to do that. Otherwise, he might as well open the sky and stand there six hundred feet tall and shout the truth at you in streams of smoke and fire.

It's one thing to allow people to believe what they will, but it is unloving to SEND people false information if it is going to confuse them to believe IT over what the Bible may say, especially if it proves to be more "true" or "reasonable" than that which was written millenias ago!! :-?

 

[unred typo]

Orion wrote:
It's one thing to allow people to believe what they will, but it is unloving to SEND people false information if it is going to confuse them to believe IT over what the Bible may say, especially if it proves to be more "true" or "reasonable" than that which was written millenias ago!!

I think you missed my point. If you don’t want to believe the truth, then God will let you to make up your own theories and even send strong delusion to allow you believe them. The condemnation is in the fact that these people received not the love of the truth that was given to them. It’s one thing to not believe something, and quite another to not want to believe something. I know with your very analytical mind you will probably take that around to another angle, but bottom line is we have been created in God’s image and have the free will to choose truth over a lie or to filter out what we suspect is the truth if it is not to our liking.

For instance, I could ask myself if I believed in my heart that man came from apelike creatures and the chronology of the Bible was incorrect, would I accept it as true? Absolutely, not a problem. It doesn’t matter to me as long as it is true, or could be proven to truly fit with scripture or somehow shown me that scripture was misinterpreted in those areas. So far, the plain reading of it suits me just fine, although it would be easier to believe something more popular. It’s not easy being a ‘new earth’ creationist in this day and age but I won’t pretend to accept evolutionary claims that don’t jive with the Bible when I honestly don’t believe them. To thine own self be true. If you lie to yourself, how will you even recognize truth when you see it?

 

[Orion]

Those are good questions. What I'm saying is that people choose not to believe, not out of rebellion or "choosing to believe a lie", but because they see results from tests that show the same thing over and over again. That the universe is extremely old, and our planet is quite old too. Are these things that which "God sends to them as delusions for them to believe"? I mean, what exactly are they supposed to believe when Christianity has given a time line from Genesis 1 to now as ~ 6,000 - 10,000 years, yet they test and test and test and etc. and continually get the same ball park of billions of years?

I'm not saying I agree with Evolution. I think it is something "middle of the road", too complicated for primative Hebrews to fully understand, so it comes out in a child like story, and perhaps even too complicated for modern man, hence believing it to start with a "Big Bang".

Regardless of all that, many people see these facts and gain their perspective from them, and those perspectives don't line up with some of what the Bible says. Are these facts placed there by God as a "hardening agent"? How would that be fair? Because these people would not disbelieve if they tested and tested and tested and etc. only to discover an early, young earth and universe!!