Chromosome fusion

[August]

As far as evidence for common descent goes, chromosome fusion presents by far the best argument I have seen so far.

See here: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/11/1651

I will admit that I have not seen a compelling direct counter-argument such as was seen with retroviruses. However, there are a couple of superficial counter-arguments. The first one is that this does not necessarily prove common descent, since it stems from the comparison between the chimpanzee and human genomes. It is therefore unclear when precisely this fusion would have happened subsequent to the split from a common ancestor. It may equally as well be explained by a fusion of human chromosomes somewhere in the genetic history of humans. That, however, misses the strongest point of the evidence, namely that it's not the fusion itself that proves common descent, but the type of similarity.

The second answer is found in the 1993 book The Biotic Message. The hypothesis is that organisms were designed with great similarity to convey a single designer. If the genome is indeed meant to convey a message from the Creator, then we should expect to see high degrees of similarity and repetition. It poses an alternative answer, but still not something that would definitively distinguish it from a naturalist explanation.

Wood (2006), speculates that the genome may be misunderstood and may just be a repository of genetic information, and it is quite possible that both humans and apes were created with the exact same genome, since it still does not account for the complex relationship between genotype and phenotype.

Theologically, do we then speculate that the image of God is what differentiates us from animals, and not genetics?
Ecc 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.
Ecc 3:19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.

I am interested in some comments from both sides of the aisle on this. I suspect that theistic evolutionists will have little problem reconciling this, but I don't want to run ahead of myself.

What do the YEC's say?

[godslanguage]

I haven't read the article (no time right now ), but in any case the point however is that the similarities in the genome between humans and other animals is the result of a common goal directed mechanism and essentially points to common design where God creates using similar functions, apart from the physical God adds another spiritual component and a far more superior intelligent component (compared with other animals) where the creation is able to acknowledge God as its creator and to intuitively feel the presence of God and vice versa.

Additionally, as much evidence that there are similarities between humans and other animals (ie: chimps) such as chromosome fusion pointed out in this article, this does not mean that a evolutionary scenario actual enabled this to happen. So while I can observe many similarities between a AMD CPU and a Intel CPU, this does not in any case automatically conclude that the Intel and AMD CPU were designed and created without a goal-intended process.

[August]

Ok, but to play devil's advocate here, if you read the article you will see that there is a marked similarity between two ape chromosomes, and one of the human chromosomes. Apes have 48 chromosomes, while humans have 46, or 24 and 23 base pairs respectively. Like I said above, the evidence is not in the fusion itself, but the similarities between the fused chromosomes and the ape chromosomes. There seems to be a clear detectable pattern here.

Common design is a tenuous explanation in this case. While similarity may indicate common design, the kind of similarity is also important. In case of felines, for example, such chromosomal fusion events are used as proof for design and all felines descending from the pair on the ark. Why would it in the case of human/chimp common ancestry count against the very same process? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I did mention that common design may be a possible explanation, but it does not fully satisfy.

[zoegirl]

I know I'm not a YEC'er, which is what you would ultimatley wnat in an answer, but I think even gentic similarity, not to mention the chromosome fusion, presents a challenge to the traditional idea of creation. I think this is where progressive creationism holds promise.

[August]

Zoegirl, I wouldn't be so quick to sing the praises all of genetic similarity as the death knell of creation. The problem with that in general is what I mention above, there seems to be conflation between genotype and phenotype. We know that there is genetic similarity, but it does not account for the vast differences in traits.

Also, genetic congruency in general seems to be unfalsifiable as far as evidence goes. At what level of incongruence do you consider it falsified?

In the case of chromosomal fusion, however, the type of congruence seems to be more compelling, and not subject to the criteria of genetic similarity in general.

I'm curious as to the exact meaning you ascribe to progressive creation vs theistic evolution.

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl, I wouldn't be so quick to sing the praises all of genetic similarity as the death knell of creation. The problem with that in general is what I mention above, there seems to be conflation between genotype and phenotype. We know that there is genetic similarity, but it does not account for the vast differences in traits.

Also, genetic congruency in general seems to be unfalsifiable as far as evidence goes. At what level of incongruence do you consider it falsified?

In the case of chromosomal fusion, however, the type of congruence seems to be more compelling, and not subject to the criteria of genetic similarity in general.

I'm curious as to the exact meaning you ascribe to progressive creation vs theistic evolution.

I knew my reply was too short the moment I clicked submit

If I could summarize and clarify

I don't think anything out there will sing a death knell of creation..."the heavens declare the glory of God" WE just don't understand it all...(is that sidestepping? I'm sorry)

1) I think at the forefront we (general we, Christian community) have somehow bought into the idea that genetic similarity or similar chromosomal design immediately proves that God does not exist and that evolution is true. We have for so long been pounded with this idea that we are afraid to hear that we are similar, immediately thinking that this supports naturalistic mean for origin of life, mankind, etc.

2) Unfortunately this means that much of the response of the Christian community is to define what we believe by rejecting what the "enemy" believes. Because the enemy includes so many atheist scientists, it means that a lot refuse to acknowledge the observations out there (please understand that I also agree that because of a lot of bias, much of the scientific community does not even bother to think about design). And more dangerously, we subtly give in to the atheists by acknowledging the force of this argument. I think we need to back up in our thinking and recapture the truth...By this I mean to stop defining what we believe based solely on what they are saying. We need to look at the observations and if they seem to support the idea that much of our genetic/physical make-up comes from "common" forms, then we shouldn't be scared of examining it.

3) But many view the idea that God could have used previous designs in sculpting His creation veering to close to evolution. Many people view the idea of God intervening (not crazy about this word choice right now) throughout creation as a compromise and us limiting God. In previous posts I have used the analogy of God being a composer using previous scores to develop new symphonies (not because He had to, mind you, or that He was limited, but because this was the method He chose to use). Anybody that hears Handel's symphonies and oratorios recognizes themes and motifs throughout all of his works. Obviously Handel is limited and finite, nor do I seek to stretch the analogy too far. But if we like to think of God as a painter or engineer, then why are we surprised if He employs similar "painting" techniques or similar engineering, or chooses to join together two chromosomes in such a way as to create a distinct species? I find Rich's description quite helpful here http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ssive.html .

4) For me, then, the observations out there shows a delghtful symphony of creative acts, with God being the sovereign creator. I know that Genesis clearly points to God being an active participant. He declared events would happen and they did. He caused them. I am NOT saying, as some theistic evolutionists do, that God simply placed the ingredients in and stirred them around the great mixing bowl of the earth, wondering what would happen. I think scripture blatantly expresses that God purposely, deliberately, intently, caused all of the events. I just think that events were much more complex. If Handel stated that he composed the messiah, it is certainly true, but it does not reveal his process of composing nor the intricacy of the process.

Help?

[August]

Hi Zoegirl,

Thank you for a thoughtful response. Yours are most definitely valid and interesting thoughts. As many here can attest to, I have been in this debate for a while now. As such, I am also not scared to hit the issues head-on, which is why I brought up what is in my mind the most compelling piece of evidence for common descent.

I will start with a caveat, I think that we humans are terribly arrogant. We are but a flash in the bigger scheme of things, and for us to think we have much understanding of either God or His creation is patronizing. We are grateful for the teeny bit of wisdom we are granted by God's good graces, but as for the rest, I think we terribly overestimate our ability to form any sort of comprehensive picture of how things fit together.

I would agree to an extent with your point 1. But in my mind, what is under dispute is not common descent or common design. These are useful hypothesis that describe some observations, and the two different positions are differentiated by presuppositions, either creation or natural causes. But the dispute is rather whether the modification and selection mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution can account for the complexity of the genome, and what we seem to observe as genetic similarity. Similarity per se is not terribly threatening to creation, but what does threaten creation is the naturalist assumptions and mechanisms.

As for your point 2, I see a lot of willingness to interact with the data. There are several Christian scientific organizations out there that try to address the same data that the secular scientific community sees. Again, I would agree with you that there is a scientific elite that tries to "own" the area of biology specifically, and that antagonizes a lot of Christians.

In point 3 we may part ways a bit, although I may not fully understand what you are saying. Here the question becomes a lot more involved for me, and quite frankly, I have not fully developed my thinking on the topic. But in my current thinking, I submit that one has to consider whether God's role in creation is necessary, sufficient or contingent. Again, I may be just misunderstanding you, but your conductor or composer analogy seems to fall in the "sufficient", or even the "contingent" category. The moment that one ascribes anything but direct creative fiat to God, it moves away from necessity. The composer does create the music, but he does not play the music, and he assumes the existence of instruments, musicians etc for his music to play. In creation, there was nothing. And as far humans go, that seems to hold true. One may read it as created from dust, or from a pulverized gray material (literal translation), either way, it was not from any pre-existing life-form.

That puts God firmly in the "necessary" category.

I don't quite know how you reconcile your points 3 and 4. Our thinking is much more closely aligned in 4. than in 3. but I will still ask you whether you think we are presumptuous in saying that God did not expressly state how He created, and now we think we know how He should have done it. I think He clearly states that He created by His Word, like me and you give expression verbally to an idea. That does not align with how we think it should or could have happened, but that expectation is tempered by methodological naturalism.

Back then to common descent...the fact is that there seems to be some genetic similarities, but then we also have to face the falsifiability issues, the huge genetic discrepancies in lower life forms, the possibility of chromosome split instead of fusion, the obvious limits of evolutionary mechanisms to account for the development of human traits, specifically the brain, since the time of the supposed last common ancestor.

I would still like to hear from a YEC on this issue too.

[zoegirl]

Hi Zoegirl,

Thank you for a thoughtful response. Yours are most definitely valid and interesting thoughts. As many here can attest to, I have been in this debate for a while now. As such, I am also not scared to hit the issues head-on, which is why I brought up what is in my mind the most compelling piece of evidence for common descent.

I will start with a caveat, I think that we humans are terribly arrogant. We are but a flash in the bigger scheme of things, and for us to think we have much understanding of either God or His creation is patronizing. We are grateful for the teeny bit of wisdom we are granted by God's good graces, but as for the rest, I think we terribly overestimate our ability to form any sort of comprehensive picture of how things fit together.

ABSOLUTELY!! "I place my hand over my mouth" I think Job has the best response

I would agree to an extent with your point 1. But in my mind, what is under dispute is not common descent or common design. These are useful hypothesis that describe some observations, and the two different positions are differentiated by presuppositions, either creation or natural causes. But the dispute is rather whether the modification and selection mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution can account for the complexity of the genome, and what we seem to observe as genetic similarity. Similarity per se is not terribly threatening to creation, but what does threaten creation is the naturalist assumptions and mechanisms.

I agree as well. I think micrevolution has limits (or certainly the data out there now supports the idea of limits.) I think in our puny limitations we observe the historical evidence of creations and, like a 5 year old examining a crime scene, draw dreadful conclusions. Our sin, our desire to reject God, our ignorance, our arrogance, leads us to draw conclusions. My point would be more in *our* response in the debate circles. Many still worry and fret over this idea of common elements.

As for your point 2, I see a lot of willingness to interact with the data. There are several Christian scientific organizations out there that try to address the same data that the secular scientific community sees. Again, I would agree with you that there is a scientific elite that tries to "own" the area of biology specifically, and that antagonizes a lot of Christians.

Yeah, I wasn't clear. I am very pleased with the extent of the organizations out there. Speaking as a Christian science teacher, my experience of the "typical" Christian reflects my bias. Many parents, students still have the reflex reaction when they hear anything concerning evolution, rejecting many tenets of genetics and microevolution simply because of the language. ("oh, that's stupid") Most of this is fear based and much ignorance still exists (and the fear keeps many from learning fully)

In point 3 we may part ways a bit, although I may not fully understand what you are saying. Here the question becomes a lot more involved for me, and quite frankly, I have not fully developed my thinking on the topic. But in my current thinking, I submit that one has to consider whether God's role in creation is necessary, sufficient or contingent. Again, I may be just misunderstanding you, but your conductor or composer analogy seems to fall in the "sufficient", or even the "contingent" category. The moment that one ascribes anything but direct creative fiat to God, it moves away from necessity. The composer does create the music, but he does not play the music, and he assumes the existence of instruments, musicians etc for his music to play. In creation, there was nothing. And as far humans go, that seems to hold true. One may read it as created from dust, or from a pulverized gray material (literal translation), either way, it was not from any pre-existing life-form.

See, I don't understand why the idea of God choosing to use previous life forms as limiting Him or meaning that He isn't sufficient. If God interacting with the creation means that He is the one directing the changes, causing the changes, and effecting the changes, then how does this mean He isn't sufficient or contigent int he process? In my analogy, God wouldn't simply be the composer, He would play the music, play the instruments (molecules, cells) (lest my analogy gets away from me!). The more I learn about the creation the more stunning it is to me to realize that God did this!! I agree that there was nothing in creation in the beginning, but once matter was created, it has to be directed, formed, etc.

That puts God firmly in the "necessary" category.

Again, don't see how eleaborating on the process of creation limits God's necessity. I can say that Handel poofed his composistion in place or I can say he wrote it out. Either way Handel is necessary to the result. Whether God sculpted his creation or poofed things into place, He was still necessary to the process.

I don't quite know how you reconcile your points 3 and 4. Our thinking is much more closely aligned in 4. than in 3. but I will still ask you whether you think we are presumptuous in saying that God did not expressly state how He created, and now we think we know how He should have done it. I think He clearly states that He created by His Word, like me and you give expression verbally to an idea. That does not align with how we think it should or could have happened, but that expectation is tempered by methodological naturalism.

I guess it comes down to why you think "By His word" eliminates a process. God said He did it. He doesn't reveal everything about His creation and yet we don't take this absence as a reason to reject the fact that He was necessary to the creation. For example, He doesn't reveal making atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, molecules, forces, the lipid bilayer, DNA, proteins, algae, bacteria, cell respiration, photosynthesis, fermentation, mitosis, meiosis, protein synthesis, and on and on. There are so many parts of the creation that are not revealed to us and yet we have no problem accepting that He was intimatley involved. God directing and assembling all of the elements, electron orbitals, the Calvin cycle (which, as my students love to point out, seems to be sufficiently difficult to point to a creator ), seems to be a beautiful concept, and not at all naturalistic. To me it bespeaks a care, a loving attention, a God who loves beauty and complexity and developing well, His creation.

An interesting side note...all throughout scripture we see God using processes...culture, families, relationships, sanctification, even relating to His people, we see Him developing people, families, societies not instantly but through a process. And yet we would never presume to doubt His necessity, His sufficiency in our lives. Yet somehow we are worried if this applies to creation? The entire Bible is a beautiful depection of God directing event, choosing a people, revealing prophecies, fulfilling these prophecies in His son.

Back then to common descent...the fact is that there seems to be some genetic similarities, but then we also have to face the falsifiability issues, the huge genetic discrepancies in lower life forms, the possibility of chromosome split instead of fusion, the obvious limits of evolutionary mechanisms to account for the development of human traits, specifically the brain, since the time of the supposed last common ancestor.

Yes, here we encounter curious evidence and the bias in investigation (c'some fusion would align more with an evolutionary historical perspective that c'some split, wouldn't it).

Thanks for the comments. I have to say that I am so impressed with so many here as well as so many out there blogging. I read your blog as well as PL's and Christian Skepticism and Judah's Journal as well. Very nice. It gladdens my heart to see so many Christians out here on the Internet. YOu guys are on my fav's

[godslanguage]

"By His word"

A word can mean many things, since God spoke the universe into existence along with everything else, God definitely must have used an incredibly complex meaning or a complex defining process to describe that process which he created through the use of that word. I would imagine this would not add or deduct a process, simply that its a process. Any process involves time, and in terms of life forms, the process would also limit that subset in terms of the physical environment such as the laws of physics. It makes logical sense to create a base structure before you add the components to that structure. God created the heavens and the earth (the base structure), afterwards created all the life forms, but knowingly created them with the limitations that those life forms would be subject too, and inevitably that would NOT limit Gods power in any way as to God's creative power, but it would limit US in the process as being limited to the base structure. God knew this before time began and before we begun.

August and Zoegirl is correct in that we have to step up to the plate and as Christians we should face the facts the naturalists put forth, and in many cases we may have to accept undeniable evidence, but in many cases this evidence proves to be a biased misrepresentation of the evidence put forth by naturalists to promote ideologies. I imagine many Christians (at one time) were intimidated by the claims of Junk DNA to name one example, Junk DNA has in many cases been proven to be useful code for important traits and many other undiscovered uses, a rather essential codec for genes and not mere junk. The point is, that the arguments will pile up, and they have piled up for 150 years since Darwin, in terms of the study and studies that relate implicitly or explicitly to TOE. As Christians, and as humans we may have to look at the evidence first through the eyes of the naturalist (or atheist...) before we make an conclusions as to how this or that particular fact affects our faith in "x" or "y" way, as the evidence in science changes dynamically, Christians should not be intimidated, since they are Christian and Christians should not change dynamically upon they're faith as put forth.

[zoegirl]

nicely said!

[August]

I have not forgotten about this discussion. I am just a bit short on time right now.

Maybe Zoegirl, can you answer whether you believe in common descent as compatible with creation, and if yes, how does invoking God in that differ from directed panspermia or deistic creation as alternative explanations.

[zoegirl]

I have not forgotten about this discussion. I am just a bit short on time right now.

Maybe Zoegirl, can you answer whether you believe in common descent as compatible with creation, and if yes, how does invoking God in that differ from directed panspermia or deistic creation as alternative explanations.

I think much of the controversy stems from "after their own kind", which , for many, seem to exlcude the idea that God could have used previous genetic material (genes, chromosomes), previous forms. It suggests that each were created separately. I have yet to settle on how or by what mechanism, however, I don't think that God using previous forms that He made 1) excludes the necessity of Him to do so or 2) takes away from His glory. I think scripture is quite clear is His majesty, power, omnipotence, glory, etc. I think this also satisfies the after their own kind, which would indicate, to me at least, the idea that they are their own kind/group/family, whatever min means.

As for directed panspermia, considering that this idea has no connection whatsoever to the Biblical God (the idea that life could have been seeded form space or from aliens or from meteorites) I don't see the connection (other than an implication that God could have chosen to use meteorites to seed the planet....eh...maybe, doubt it). Maybe you could elaborate on why there would be a connection. Maybe I have simply not investigated it fully, but most panspermia advocates are not Christian nor do they necessarily believe there is a God.

As for deistic creation, I am taking a stab, since I am not as familiar with the term. Are you referring to the idea that God "wound up the earth" and started it spinning and yet is not invovled in the development of life directly? I know Ken Miller holds something like this. But I do believe in scripture here (I know it might not seem like it ) But Genesis tells of a GOd that is intimitaly invovled in His creation. He planned it, He deliberatley did it and it happened. What He willed happened. He didn't just throw in the ingredints and then stood back and say "Gee, I wonder what will happen". Scripture is clear about that. I have never said otherwise and have always seen the Genesis acccount as simply an overview. It was never meant to be a how-to book on the creation, other than to address His majesty, His power, and His involvement in the creation.

Anyway, gotta go myself.

[August]

Zoegirl and Godslanguage, thanks for the reply. I think you may have misunderstood my question a bit. I think I understand where you are coming from in respect of creation, but my question really is that given your position, how do you distinguish between that and the other possibilities?

How is the creation position that you hold to any different than directed panspermia or deistic evolution in the sense of accomplishing a fullness of creation? Both of those contain the elements which you propose too. I can substitute alien life for God, or I can substitute the evolutionary mechanisms for God given a front-loaded UCA, in what you said, and still come up with the same result. For example, I can just as easily argue, as many non-Christian ID proponents do, that life was established here by any kind of intelligence, and subsequently directed by occasional visits. Or, I can say that it is not necessary to invoke God for special intervention in creation, since we have proven common ancestry and proposed mechanisms by which we may see the development of genetic diversity, and to invoke God behind that is superfluous.

Let me hasten to say that my own position on these questions is pretty different, and I always struggle to communicate it efficiently.

But I am interested to learn how we can explain common ancestry as supposedly proven by chromosome fusion within the parameters you give.

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl and Godslanguage, thanks for the reply. I think you may have misunderstood my question a bit. I think I understand where you are coming from in respect of creation, but my question really is that given your position, how do you distinguish between that and the other possibilities?

How is the creation position that you hold to any different than directed panspermia or deistic evolution in the sense of accomplishing a fullness of creation? Both of those contain the elements which you propose too. I can substitute alien life for God, or I can substitute the evolutionary mechanisms for God given a front-loaded UCA, in what you said, and still come up with the same result. For example, I can just as easily argue, as many non-Christian ID proponents do, that life was established here by any kind of intelligence, and subsequently directed by occasional visits. Or, I can say that it is not necessary to invoke God for special intervention in creation, since we have proven common ancestry and proposed mechanisms by which we may see the development of genetic diversity, and to invoke God behind that is superfluous.

Let me hasten to say that my own position on these questions is pretty different, and I always struggle to communicate it efficiently.

But I am interested to learn how we can explain common ancestry as supposedly proven by chromosome fusion within the parameters you give.

Well, this might not be a satisfactory answer, but here goes. I think the universe shows that there is a designer, but I don't think that any science can isolate what designer or intelligence was responsible. In other words, from a purely observational standpoint, we see that there is intelligence and an engineering invovled. You are right in that and IDer could say that it is merely aliens or meteorite or some vague "force". But wouldn't this be true disregarding science? Apologetics exists not only to show the existence of God but to indentify this God as the Judeo-Christian God. Here then we rely on historical, archaeological, theological, and philosophical arguements. Anybody examining creation must first realize that is was not an accident and understand the need or existence of a designer. I think most logically they then consider who this designer is. Consider Francis Collins (who I know might not be the best example since he is a theistic evolutionist.) But he went through this order.

Could you explain the last sentence? What parameters? Help me understand where we are disagreeing.

[August]

The question I am asking is how do we show God as a necessary cause of creation? Within the panspermia or theistic evolution scenarios, and even in your composer analogy, God is either superfluous or contingent. In other words, if we set the premises as 1. acknowledgment of design, 2. undetectable by empirical means, then the conclusion is either inconsistent, or one of the premises is flawed. If we acknowledge design, it can mean design without creation (as we saw in the panspermia example), which leads 1. to either regress or the composer analogy, but not to creation. If we accept 2. it becomes worse, If we say that design cannot be detected, it means that we deny any sort of design intelligence. There is one other way to state 2. which is the way that Dawkins does it: We cannot empirically detect design in nature, although it appears to be designed. In our premise 1. God is contingent, while in 2. He is superfluous.

I don't think you escape either of those two criticisms with your proposal, or else I am just missing it. What is there that you can argue instead of the premises above that necessarily leads to the conclusion of a Christian God Creator? Whenever the argument is brought up, the non-believer will always say that God is possible, but not necessary, and that since there is no empirical evidence, it is unnecessary to postulate that there is a Christian God involved anywhere.

The issue is, at least for me, a heck of a lot more complex, thanks to philosophers such as Dooyeweerd. My basic principle is aligned with reformed theology, that the whole Biblical foundation is sovereign creation, fall and redemption.

I don't want to confuse you (please no insult intended, this makes my head spin too), but one has to consider a few things.
1. Did God, in the initial creation, create a temporal or eternal creation? I know one always jumps to the conclusion that it must be temporal, but consider this: Was creation before the fall meant to last forever, or did the fall lead to the entry of death and the limitation of lifespans? More simply: Did man "fall" into time?
2. What then, is eternity? Is it complete timelessness, or is it simply an unending duration of time?
3. What is creation's relation to eternity? More specifically, what is man's relation to eternity? Does mankind have a specific starting point in time, with an eternal future?
4. What is God's relationship to creation, and vice versa?

This is how I see it. The initial creation was outside of the temporal. It was "in the beginning", meaning that it was starting principle or axiom (John 1). As such, to speculate about the length of creation days and the way it happened is to speculate about something that happened in the "eternal" sphere, prior to the fall. That pretty much makes a mockery of any empirical efforts, even if we invoke front-loading with occasional tinkering in the creation process, materialistic macro-evolution, or six-day creation. It also makes a mockery of trying to date things prior to the fall, which is why I reckon we see so many conflicting arguments about the age of things.

Here it gets a little more complicated. Because God essentially called into existence (Heb 11:3) all of humanity and all of creation, for that matter, in the eternal sphere, the fall causes it to be worked out in the temporal. Seen in Biblical terms, creation of mankind (Gen 1), is in the eternal, while in Gen 2, where man becomes man as we see him today, man is in the process of becoming supratemporal (the coexistence in the temporal and eternal). For man to become a living soul in Gen 2 assumes that man already had to be created before. In Gen 1 we read "created" (bara), while in Gen 2 we read "formed" (yatsar) for mankind, which means to mould, fashion or form. In that second act, that is where man "becomes". With the fall, man becomes bodily temporal, man "falls" into temporality.

To answer my own question then, it is impossible for us to determine whether everything evolved from a universal common ancestor, or popped into being as is. To argue for or against either is to falsify science, since science can only function in the temporal, it is methodologically inextricably linked to time.

Anyhow, this is a very basic description of where I am coming from, just in case you thought I was being difficult for the sake of being difficult and have no counter-ideas. There are many concepts inherent here that I cannot do justice to in such a limited space, but hopefully it shows a little of my approach.

God bless.