MikeBGene@aol.com writes
in message <69.2ec7d0e.2613683b@aol.com>:
> Me:
>
> > Evidence of gene duplication is simply sequence similarity.
> > How is this evidence against ID and for RM&NS? Where in
> > ID is the requirement for the intelligent designer to employ
> > nothing more than completely different sequences?
> > Where is the evidence that those sequence similarities were
> > indeed generated by random gene duplications?
>
> Tedd:
>
> >Where is the evidence that a fossil found in the ground actually
> >was a living creature? An ID could have merely created the
> >bones and planted them in the ground. Why do you accept
> >the implication of fossils but reject the implication of
> >gene sequences?
>
> If a designer created artifacts that we call fossils to make it
> look like life forms existed when they did not, I can think
> of only one reason for doing this - the designer intended
> to deceive someone.
Actually I can think of another reason. The designer
is the God of the Bible and he wants to see who will
believe his own Word over the words of fallen man.
Is this possibility easily ruled out? (I've heard
this seriously argued, by the way.)
> In the case of sequence similarity,
> intended deception is not the only reason to design them
> as such. A better reason (IMO) is that similar sequences
> often make good design sense.
Does the designer duplicate an existing gene and modify it
or create a new gene and modify its sequences according to an
external blueprint? I.e. how does its actions differ from
processes already proposed for gene duplication?
> For example, see my posting on Muscle Machines a few
> months back. In the case of fast- and slow-twitch muscles,
> all the machinery in muscles exist in slightly different
> forms due to slightly different gene products from slightly
> different genes. By tweaking the basic machinery of muscle,
> one can thus design two different types from the same
> basic prototype. Now, we can indeed interpret these
> different gene forms as the result of gene duplication
> driven by RM&NS and that is the only good explanation
> if we exclude, a priori, intelligent design. But the
> system also makes good design sense and I see no
> reason for thinking that an intelligent designer would
> have used completely different components to design
> fast- and slow-twitch muscles.
That depends on your designer. Remember that "good design sense"
is an entirely human concept. The idea of reusing design is
not good in any transcending way, it's what humans are forced
to do because we're so fallible. If this designer is capable
of designing any one of life's trillions of genes, then it seems
to be sheer laziness for it to reuse existing parts. This
makes much less sense to me than proposing all-natural processes;
A designer can, I'd think, be expected to be consistent.
> Thus, that similar genes often make good design sense
> does not require us to embrace the notion that similar
> genes imply an intelligent deceiver.
I am aware of a mosquito species that has many copies of a gene
that allows it produce an enzyme that breaks down a certain
poison. Should I include design rather than natural processes
as an explanation?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 29 2000 - 12:55:55 EST