Jim Hoffman found Edward Max's updated (March 19, 2002) article,
"Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics."
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This article contains an excellent explanation of DNA. For those whose
body of knowledge may be "genetically challenged," this is about as easy to
understand as it gets. Plus, the argument is compeling that copying errors
in our DNA provide genetic markers by which we can be assured we are
connected to the phyletic tree of life. Dr. Max does give sort of a
disclaimer which I found interesting:
"Clearly the "shared errors" argument provides strong evidence for
macroevolutionary changes in the evolution of mammals, and therefore
refutes a commonly held creationist position. But to be fair we should be
clear that this argument does not buy the whole evolutionist ballgame.
Although the evidence of shared errors implies common descent of diverse
mammalian species, it does not address whether these species evolved from
their last common ancestors through the Darwinian mechanisms of mutation
and natural selection or through other alternative mechanisms. Another
limitation is that there are no examples of "shared errors" that link
mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. For
example, although species as diverse as worms, yeast and plants have LINE
elements in their genomes, no examples of specific LINE insertions at
homologous positions between any mammal and non-mammal have been reported
to my knowledge (though I welcome input on this point from readers). Such
examples might be expected to be hard to find, since the last common
ancestors of mammals and reptiles are thought to have lived more than 200
million years ago, long enough that sequence similarities that once existed
in functionless DNA like pseudogenes and retroposons may have been largely
obliterated by the accumulation of numerous mutations. Therefore, the
evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary
genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides "shared errors." (Such
evidence might include other "rare genomic changes" (RGCs) besides
retroposon insertion, such as intron insertion or deletion, chromosomal
translocations and inversions revealed by comparative cytogenetics, and
variants in the genetic code, all summarized in Rokas and Holland, Trends
Ecol & Evol 15:454, 2000); species relatedness can also be inferred from
traditional sequence similarity trees based comparisons of the
corresponding genes from different species. As a final and rather obvious
limitation of the "shared errors" argument, it should be clear that this
argument does not bear on origin-of-life issues, which creationists
commonly lump with evolution."
If we accept that humans are related by common ancestry to higher primates,
and indeed lower primates, old-world monkeys, etc., as we journey back in
geological time, this effectively rules out two of the methods of apology
that have proliferated in the Christian community - young-earth creationism
and old-earth creationism - also called "progressive creation." The sooner
we move beyond these stumbling stones, and rule out these fatally flawed
methods of apology, the better in my estimation.
The group of Christians who recognize mutual shared common ancestry, can be
further divided into two groups. The big group (liberals) regard the first
eleven chapters of Genesis as allegory, poetry, tradition, mythology,
fiction, or some category that will allow the narrative to be "true" (or at
least relevant) theologically, but discounted as having historical value.
The smaller group (tiny is a better word), is stuck with having to make
sense of it all. That is: recognizing the connectedness of biological life
including humans, and recognizing a historical Genesis. This group must
acknowledge the historicity of Adam, Noah and the intervening patriarchs,
and place them in a historical setting. To the best of my knowledge, there
are only two possibilities. Adam either started the human race some 4 - 6
million years ago, and thus is our ultimate ancestor, or Adam was inserted
into the human race much later, about 7,000 years ago, for example.
If Adam was actually created, however, out of the dust of the earth, and
had no biological parents, then a late date for Adam is the only
possibility. We cannot all be connected on the biological tree of life,
and also be descended from someone who was specially created. It is either
one or the other. But even if Adam had natural parents, he had to live
sometime, somewhere. For those of you who remember, that was the thrust of
the articles published in PSCF about eight years ago titled, "In Search of
the Historical Adam."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html#Part%201
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html#Part%202
In short, if Darwin and Moses both got their facts right (Well, Darwin made
at least a couple of mistakes.), then the method of apology I have
advocated the last six years on this forum should at least vie for
consideration on the grand stage of Christian apologetics. And that is: a
historical Adam who was inserted into the human race to bring us into
accountability. (Okay, he failed.) A toehold could become a foothold, and
eventually, with a little publicity, this method of apology could become a
unifying force for liberals and conservatives. (What a Pollyanna I am!)
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 01 2002 - 11:52:40 EST