I happened to read an article on a Christian news web site. It was about some Korean professors gathering together to discuss gay problems. One professor objected the government's decision to illegalize discriminations to gays. His logic is, if the government “forces” people not to discriminate gays, it will “force” people to think that gays are “normal”.
I am not gay, but that made me angry, so I searched Google for his name. It turned out that he was a Christian, but also a biology professor in a fairly well-known university. His bio is at http://biology.khu.ac.kr/contents/bbs/bbs_content.html?bbs_cls_cd=001004001&cid=08050711231456&no=6&bbs_type=G. According to the site, he got a doctorate in the University of Oxford, department of zoology. Maybe he actually met Dr. Dawkins.
Google also gave me one of his articles. (http://solarcosmos.tistory.com/158 ) In that article, he criticized Dr. Richard Dawkins and those who say human are evolved from primitive animals. Well, if it was a stupid Christian like Ray Comfort, I would have no problem to dismiss his argument, but this is a biology doctor from Oxford University. He should know everything I know about biology and a whole lot more. How come a person like his knowledge can deny evolution? I thought only suckers deny human evolution.
Most of his criticism was like the usual one I can find Christian web sites, so I could easily dismiss them, but one thing I did not know how to respond was the following paragraph.
“Evolutionists believe that species evolve by showing the following as an example: when a polyploidy is formed in a plant by mutation, it cannot make offspring with the original species, and thus diverges into a new species. Mutated individuals that have an even chromosome set (e.g., 4n, 6n) meet the original forms who have 2n, 3n respectively and can be fertile. However, if a mutated plant has 3n, it cannot find a mate and thus cannot make offspring. Many seedless fruits are produced by such 3n plants. They are always sterile because they lack seeds, but we can reproduce them by grafting. However, in higher animals polyploidy is lethal or the extra chromosome makes the animals sterile. This may not seem to be a big problem because this matter belongs to scientific field. The problem is that whether human can be evolved from a protozoic cell by many steps.”
(I translated it from Korean, so there may be some grammatical errors and wrong terminology.)
His last -1 sentence, “This may not seem to be a big problem” is there (I do not know why), but the fact that it was the only scientific argument against evolution in his article, he must be thinking this is a big problem. I heard that humans have one less chromosome when compared to chimpanzees, because two chromosomes were merged. If that was a mutation, how the first individual when one less chromosome could be fertile? Does the number of chromosomes and fertileness make any difficulties in the evolution theory? Is the professor making a valid argument agains evolution, or is he just making a wordplay with an already-dismissed argument?