Allen,
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:53:27 -0700 "Allen Roy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
writes:
> Dr. Collins, why should the relatedness of living things point more
> to
> evolution than to a common Designer with distinct creational
> categories?
>
> Musical notes, for example, do not evolve one from another. They
> have
> relatedness, but they come from a Composer.
>
> An author may write many books, and there may be relatedness between
> them,
> but one book did not evolve from the other. The connection was in
> the mind
> of the author, etc.
>
> Why could this not be true for living organisms? Horses may have
> many
> similarities with catfish.
> Could not the Designer make both using similar ideas without having
> one
> evolve from the other?
>
This is hardly a question for a geneticist, so I'll respond as a logician
with a question growing out of an earlier interchange. What could be the
purpose of the Creator's introducing a retroviral sequence into the
genomes of some of the great apes and man? Were they functional, of
course. But they have no function in gorillas, chimpanzees or humans. Of
course, God can do anything he pleases. But what could be the purpose
from God's side? to mislead us? That at least is more likely than that he
is incompetent and simply messed up, except that would make him
deceitful. What's your choice: incompetent inclusion? intentional
deception? using evolution to accomplish his purpose?
If all the genetic sequences were functional, coding for proteins,
controlling coding, providing connections for the filaments that pull
chromosomes apart in mitosis and meiosis, etc., you'd have a point, for
it would all fit a clear design concept. But the amount of non-coding DNA
eliminates the notion of intelligent design of much of the genome, even
if we find that some of it is not junk.
As I see it, the situation in the genome is similar to that of a
demonstration by a mechanized British artillery unit. During the
demonstration, one soldier stood at attention off to one side. Nobody
could explain why. But investigation finally revealed that his earlier
counterpart had held the horses while the rest of the crew fired the
field piece. His position was left over, not designed in.
>
> Is the total number of genes in humans still around 30,000?
>
> Allen Roy
>
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 23:35:28 EST