Retrieving Our Lost Heritage (4D)



4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic) Structures

Like blueprints for a building, the substance of DNA acts as a code that maps out how our bodily structures will develop as we grow from a tiny cell into a full grown human being. The complex blueprints used in building construction are carefully planned and designed by intelligent architectural designers and draftsmen; they don’t just come together by themselves or by accident. Likewise, the DNA in our bodily cells and genes were the result of the planning and craftsmanship of a Master Builder, our Creator.


Chimpanzee Genome Unraveled!

The 1st September 2005 edition of Nature magazine published the results of research done by a group of 67 scientists in the “Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium”. This group of scientists was able to piece together the entire genome (complete set of chromosomes) of the chimpanzee.

The results of this research have revolutionized the scientific understanding of our biological “construction” – with serious implications for evolution theory:     

  •        When the scientific world started learning about deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), it was intrigued by the fact that our human DNA was very close to that of apes: only a 1.2 % difference in the gene structure, or 4% difference, depending on how you interpret the scientific findings.
  •        But one important difference does exist: man is a sapient (wise) creature, and apes are non-sapient (non-wise).
  •        Is it possible to close that small 1.2% gap between man and apes by some gradual process? Could a random process of change by genetic mutation cause such a transformation?
  •        Mutations, however, are mostly harmful; only one out of a thousand can be considered beneficial. (Happens sometimes when genetic information gets lost; but it is never gained.)

  •        Each and every cell in your body has some 3,000,000,000 “base pairs” in its DNA structure, and each “base pair” has 4 molecules.
  •        Humans and apes have similar features, but the difference in their genomes still would involve re-vamping a staggering              120,000,000 4-character digital codes, those having to do mainly with features of intelligence.
  •        So, to transform from ape to man means that 120,000,000 changes must occur in the gene structure, and these changes all have to take place in the correct order.
  •        Considering that mutations happen, not in a planned way, but randomly (usually in the egg cell before you start growing) and that most of them are harmful, not beneficial, the probability of apes turning into humans is a hopeless impossibility, no matter how many millions of generations of apes we suppose might have come and gone over millions of years of time.
  •        To say that a random, accidental process (like mutational change) could bring about such a transformation in the complex genetic machinery would be about the same as saying that tossing a grenade into a printing factory would succeed in producing the unabridged dictionary.

 See VIDEO CLIP: “Evidence of Biological Information”

  •        As brought out in the  video clip mentioned above (“The Evidence of Biological Information”), any manmade creation that transmits information – whether it be Egyptian hieroglyphics, the words on a printed page, or a software program – when you trace it back to the source, you will always find it was intelligence that created it. One would not try to understand how a written document came into being merely by studying the chemistry of ink composition, or what materials paper is made of, or the mathematical probability of splattering ink forming into letters. We would acknowledge that there had to be an intelligent being who created the document, who put it together; it can’t do so by itself. Anything that transmits information, of course, requires the material medium but, most important, there must be an intelligence that exists beyond the material medium in order to bring it into being.
  •        The same is true  for DNA structures which transfer information to our body cells: there had to be an Intelligent Designer behind them; they cannot be understood merely as a collection of molecules that by chance happened to get together by themselves.
  •        Over time a species would actually “devolve” and eventually become extinct because of the harmful effect of mutations. It won’t work the other way round

Now that doesn’t sound very hopeful, does it? That given enough time, we’re going to become extinct. But there is a bright side to this: in a future time, God’s plans call for a regeneration of the natural world to restore the kind of ideal conditions that existed in the world at the beginning of Creation. That, of course, is a matter of faith and can’t be proved by any scientific means. Nevertheless, it does make sense that, if God has love and concern for His creation, which He surely does, then that should be part of His long-term plan: to bring about a grand re-creation or regeneration of the natural world.

And there are a number of references in the Sacred Book that promise this very thing.

“The creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption [or “decay”]…” (Romans 8:21)
“For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality… then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1Corinthians 15:53-54)

  •        According to the scientific laws of chemistry, biology, physics, and even math, it is impossible to cross the bridge that separates man from monkeys by chance mutational processes no matter how many millions of years we may allow for it to happen.
  •        If mutations could explain anything, it might account for a certain amount of  devolving or degeneration of the human race from stronger, larger, and smarter ancestors, but mutations cannot explain any kind of monkey-to-man process of evolutionary advancement.
  •        The similarity that we observe in the DNA of humans and apes is based, not on common evolutionary ancestry, but on the fact that we and the apes have a common Designer.

(See Appendix 1 below: The amazing story of a lifelong atheist philosopher converted to belief in God after learning about the incredible intricacies of DNA structures.)


To learn more about the Creation-Evolution question viewed at from the angle of the most recent scientific discoveries, check out the rest of Lee Stroebel’s The Case for a Creator videos at the following URL:


Continue to 4-E: Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links


Appendix 1

World Pays Tribute on Death of Atheist Turned Believer
Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese, 20 Apr 2010

Leading academics, philosophers and members of the Christian faith across the world continue to pay tribute to Antony Flew, the famed British atheist and thinker who discovered God at the end of his life.

The renowned rationalist philosopher died earlier this month at age 87 and continues to be remembered in obituaries and tributes worldwide.

The son of a Methodist minister, Antony Flew spent most of his life denying the existence of God until just six years before his death when he dramatically changed his mind after studying research into genetics and DNA.

“The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, show that intelligence must have been involved,” he announced in 2004 and went on to make a video of his conversion called: “Has Science Discovered God.”

Ironically, although modern day atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens claim in the rational world of science there is no proof of God exists, it is from the world of science that Antony Flew in his final years discovered “empirical evidence” that God exists, which overturned beliefs he had held for more than 60 years.

Like Einstein before him, Flew found that God was the only possible answer when it came to increasingly complex discoveries from sub atomic particles to the human genome to the very origins of the Cosmos.

“How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self replication capabilities and ‘coded chemistry’?” he asked, giving this as the main reason for his discovery of God in his final decade.

Flew’s conclusion that there was in fact a God in his 81st year came as a shock to his fellow atheists, particularly Dawkins and Hitchens, two of the world’s most outspoken proponents of atheism.


Flew’s late life change of mind about God’s existence was remarkable because of the huge volume of his writings which until then had embraced the atheist cause. Throughout most of his academic life he was adamant that one should presuppose atheism until there was empirical evidence to the contrary. Then in his final decade as DNA and the human genome began to be understood along with the complexities of life, Flew found evidence which proved to him God exists and is the Creator of life. And from being a rationalist philosopher and non-believer for most of his life, one of the world’s leading thinkers suddenly became a staunch believer.

“The most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries,” he said.

In his final years, Flew supported the idea of a God along the lines of the philosophy espoused by Greek philosopher, Aristotle who believed God had characteristics of both power and intelligence.

In 2007, Antony Flew published the manifesto of his conversion, stating unequivocally in the title: “There is a God.”

However until his death while convinced God did exist, he remained skeptical about an afterlife.

With an academic career spanning 60 years with stints at universities across Britain and the US, Antony Flew will be remembered not only as one of the outstanding philosophers of his time, but as the man who preached atheism but died a believer.



Leave a Reply