>Terry Gray says that the "Adam & Eve" gene evidence, alternative to the
>multi-generational hypothesis, does not "present any problems for
>evolutionists."
>
>I wonder.
>
>If the major hominid lines once supposed ancestral to man are NOT, how is this
>not a problem? Will the evolutionits now "tut tut" and say, well, we shall
>find other lines by and by?
I really don't know what you are trying to say here. One of the major
hominid lines is ancestral to modern man. Nobody is denying this. That
speciation event which gave rise to modern man (which, by the way, in my
view may have involved a special creative act of God) probably arose as a
small branch (involving a genetic bottleneck as described by Glenn) from an
African Homo erectus population. By the "Eve" hypothesis and contra the
multi-regional hypothesis this modern human population spread throughout
Africa (where the most genetic diversity appears to be found) and then
throughout the rest of the world where there were already pre-modern
hominids. These apparently have gone extinct, perhaps due in part to the
migration of more successful modern humans.
In the "Adam and Eve" hypothesis the bottleneck is not two individuals as
the Biblical account suggests (which, by the way, I accept) but a small
population; some data suggesting a population size in the 500-10,000 range.
>Also, the sudden appearance of a distinct line of vastly more complex
>creatures than have ever appeared before seems to me a great problem indeed,
>especially for those insisting on animal ancestry for man.
While I do hold to a special divine intervention in the origin of man, I do
so primarily on the basis of the Biblical text rather than any argument
that evolution of "vastly more complex creatures" is impossible. The
genetic/phylogenetic data based on sequence comparison (as always, together
with the knows mechanisms of transmission of genetic information and
mutation) convince me that "common ancestry is a fact". The problem of
coming up with a mechanism of how "vastly more complex creatures" arose is
no more unique for human capacities than it is for any other evolutionary
novelty, but it does not undo the conclusion of common ancestry. I agree
with all the critics that explanation for the origin of evolutionary
novelty is not in hand in any detailed sense. I guess I disagree in their
conclusion that this undermines the whole notion of common ancestry
(evolution) or that a solution can be reasonably envisioned.
>
>One does not get rid of a problem merely by wishing it away, or saying it is
>not so.
I, nor evolutionists in general, have done this; I think you have
misunderstood what I said.
Terry G.
______________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Phone: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
mailto:grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt/