Jones begins by pointing out that one-egg twins are clones, having the same genes and DNA. However, the very first clone was Eve, created from one of Adam's ribs, and therefore, it is assumed, having the same DNA. However, we are told, because of mutations, the DNA of new sperms and eggs already differ in some 30 ways from even that of their donor.
Incidentally, although Jones does not comment on the fact, it is interesting that, according to an article penned by top surgeon, the ribs are the only bones in the human body that will grow back if cut off. How did the writer of Genesis know that, or the fact that God first put Adam into an hypnotic trance, a rarely publicised technique still used in modern medicine, in the British National Health Service, for example.
What Does a Soul Weigh?
One of the questions Jones then raises, but cannot answer, is when does the ‘soul' enter the human body, if, of course it has one. He tells the story of an American surgeon, back in 1901, who was able to weight some elderly people just before and after the moment of death – reaching the conclusion that their bodies lost weight at death, and that the soul therefore had weight. We are told also that the same procedure carried out with dogs showed no loss in weight. His aim was to prove that something as sophisticated as the human soul was physical entity.
Of course, due to evaporation, the body loses weight moment by moment. However, Jones declines to pass judgement on the surgeon's claim, preferring to move on to the question of when does the soul enter the body of a new child? According to the Roman Catholic Church, it enters at conception. If that is correct, then what happens with identical twins, which result from the splitting of an egg some time after fertilization. Where does the extra soul come from? Nobody knows, and neither does he. To add to the confusion, the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas thought the entry of the soul was a gradual process, and taking twice as long for boys as girls
Biology is not able to answer these questions, nor why or how the fertilized eggs of fraternal twins can sometimes fuse together to form a ‘chimera'. Add to that why men and women exist in almost equal numbers, and why they look different. And so sex continues to raise questions that biology, i.e. evolution, just cannot answer, despite the ‘serpent's promise' of wisdom.
Jones does claim to have ‘partial' answers to ‘some' of the questions. But the biggest issue, he admits, is ‘how the business got off the ground in the first place'. ‘At least twenty theories are in circulation' he informs us. Oh dear!
Sex and the Song of Songs
Having sorted that lot out, Jones moves on to the Song of Songs, the overt sexuality of which led Mormon founder Joseph Smith to exclude it from his version of the Bible. Smith, like scholars over the centuries was evidently unaware that Solomon's enigmatic masterpiece is in reality a master class in the principles of creativity and genius, thereby complementing Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to complete a practical wisdom trilogy – a simple fact made known by an author not too far from here! Nevertheless, a recent book described the Song as ‘an embarrassment' to the Church.
Jones points out that celibacy for Catholic priests did not begin until the fourth century. He than tells us that because the birth of Jesus did not involve sex, then there was no sin involved. For some reason, he keeps equating sex to sin, and implying that Christianity is against sex. Although sex can be perverted, it is and should be an expression of love, not evil.
The remainder of the chapter is devoted to evolutionary mythology – such as attempting, using studies of body lice, to work out how long ago truly modern clothes-wearing man supposedly 'emerged'. The key is that like chimps, people have lice. Assuming that the very first ‘humans', who did not wear clothes, split away from chimps about eight million years ago and counting the DNA differences between modern-day chimp lice and human lice, science arrives at a figure for the rate at which lice mutations must have occurred. Then, by comparing the genes of the two kinds of lice humans now have, one adapted to live on the skin and the other on clothing, they then calculate how long it must be since man started wearing clothes, arriving at the figure of a hundred and twenty thousand years. Clever stuff, but please don't bet your pension on it, Prof.
He continues. Why are there only two sexes? The answer apparently goes back to the first days of the cell when the intrusion of ‘alien' invader bacteria led to the development of mitochondria, thereby introducing a female factor.
And so the vague verbosity continues – informing us that both sexes were ‘under pressure' to make as many reproductive cells as possible. Unfortunately, the poor female had to allow space in her cells for special structures and even a limited food supply, so they could not be too small. Meanwhile, the man was also ‘under pressure' to make his sperm as compact as possible, but also as numerous as possible to increase their chances of one of them meeting a female cell.
Yes, top professors actually believe this stuff, all magically accomplished by the sorting out of randomly generated DNA copying errors. Then then turn round and tell us the Bible is fiction.
As the evolutionary verbiage flows on, Jones tells us that many creatures physically hang on to their partners for some time after copulating in order ‘to ensure that their own sperm have a head start'. All this cunningly orchestrated, of course, by the master design ‘architect', Natural Selection – so that, due to those handy DNA copying errors, some primitive creatures supposedly started to hang on a bit longer than others, and therefore were ‘fitter', generated more offspring and so came to dominate.
Now apply that same reasoning to the shaping and design of every detail of every tiny part of the bodies of any and all organisms on earth, and ask yourself if it makes any kind of sense. Even devout atheistic evolutionists such as Derek Hough cannot swallow such nonsense, and are busily hunting for a credible new explanation for evolution.
Jones' many examples serve to show the unfathomable complexity of God's creation, much of it, I believe, designed to demonstrate both good and bad aspects of human nature and the way of life chosen by Adam and Eve in Eden. Speaking of complexity, Jones does confirm that the human genome project ‘did nothing more than make a list of parts'. When ‘what really matters', and what science cannot understand, are ‘the rules of assembly and the machinery of control', adding ‘And they are intricate indeed'. Amen, brother!
Indeed such is the complexity of the creation, that although evolutionist critics of the Bible once scoffed at the Genesis account of how Jacob sought to breed certain colours and patterns into his cattle by exposing them to patterned twigs – Jones comments that ‘attitudes have changed.' No doubt they also scoffed at the concept of ‘square bacteria', until such were actually discovered.
The Bdelloid Rotifer
Jones moves on to talk about ‘bdelloid rotifers' – tiny freshwater organisms which can dry out and go into suspended animation for years, ready to wake up again when water is added. Apparently, no female forms have ever been found. One key to their survival, Jones explains is that to scape their enemies they ‘dry up and blow way'.
Even more astonishing, we are told: that the bdelloid ‘has a message for biology as a whole', in that it has the ability of take in bits and pieces of DNA from dead creatures and use that scrap material ‘to patch up their double helix'.
As more and more astonishing complexity is revealed, Darwin's theory of evolution looks ever more simplistic, infantile and untenable. As Jones' comment about the human genome project makes clear, Darwinism has hit the proverbial buffers. It is wrong, broken, stupid, defective and kaput. It don't work.