Walter is simply wrong in what he says that evolution should expect. I
know of no evolutionist that says that the higher animals are due to
polygenetic origin of life. Why do flies and humans have similar HOX
genes, the genes responsible for the embryonic development of morphological
form? This is due to common descent. Multiple origins of life and multiple
origins of the major groups by progressive creation would not necessarily
expect that the insects should use the same HOX complex as man, yet they do
use remarkably similar ones. Why would God necessarily use the same HOX
complex? God could have ended the evolutionary argument simply by giving
each major group, its own unique HOX complex. That situation would have
clearly marked life as having separate origins. But God didn't do that.
>GM> God is God and could conceivably have made
>>mankind as the only photosynthetic animals (us with green hair) if He had
>>wanted to. But He didn't. God followed a rather predictable pattern for PC
>>once the main groups were formed. To me, this is the big weakness in the PC
>>position. Could God have progressively created the animals. Sure. Did
>>He? The nested hierarchies of similarities argues against His action in
>>that regard.
>
>As I have pointed out many times (but you just ignore - as usual) this is
>just your stereotype of PC. There is no reason why God could not have
>progressively created by modifying existing designs.
No, but then again, there is no reason God could not have been more
creative than that and left an INDELIBLE mark upon living systems that
clearly ruled out evolution! He didn't. By the way, Steven, I didn't ignore
this, I responded. You fail to note my response to this every time.
>
>The strange thing is that you yourself believe that God made Adam by
>a chromosomal fusion:
>
>"Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in His
>image". During this time, there was among the physical ancestor of
>man a very rare mutation -- a chromosomal fusion. But this error was
>almost always fatal. God took one of these creatures, a still born,
>fixed him, and blew his breath into him. Why do I have God make
>Adam in this fashion? Because of what God said when Adam sinned.
>If you remember the verse Genesis 3:19 God said, "for dust you are
>and to dust you shall return." A dead body is "dust." Adam came
>from dust and to dust he now will return."(Morton G.R., "A Theory
>for Creationists," DMD Publishing Co., 1996.
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm)
>
>which makes you a trype of PC! If God could miraculously make man by
>modifying an ape, yet man still remain within the "nested hierarchies
>of similarities", then you have refuted your own argument.
In the case of mankind, I am a PC because I beleive that this is required
theologically. But the nested hierarchies also require explanation. Why
are we so similar to apes? Why do we use the same HOX complex as insects.
This seems to prove that there is a genetic connection between us and the
animals while there is also a specialness about man. The only way I could
honor both datapoints is by doing what I did.
>
>And if God did this for ape-man, why not for monkey-ape, and all
>the way down the line to the first self-replicating molecule?
>
>>JWB>4. What scientific differences would I expect to see between the two? I
>>>really don't know of any.
>
>GM>Philosophically, I would not necessarily expect the nested hierarchies of
>>similarities under PC. With evolution, they are a requirement. Without
>>them, evolution is false. But note that the nested hierarchies of
>>biological, biochemical etc similarities are observed.
>
>You are,as usual, using the word "evolution" in a vague way, without
>defining what exactly you mean by it. Really what you are saying that
>with *common descent* "nested hierarchies of similarities...are a
>requirement". But common descent is not confined only to "evolution".
>As Denton points out, "descent is...equally compatible with almost any
>philosophy of nature", including "creationist":
What I mean is that the nested hierarchies even extend to the higher groups
of animals that you and other antievolutionists would say were not from
common descent. An example is the HOX genes.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm