Fw: It's the Bible or evolution

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cornelius Hunter" <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Preston Garrison" <garrisonp@uthscsa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: It's the Bible or evolution

> Preston:
>
>
>
>
>
>> >Preston:
>>>
>>>Actually we went over this in some detail a few weeks ago. Miller's
>>>pseudogene argument has several problems. Let me just focus on the main
>>>one: Special pleading.
>>>
>>>This comes from the fact that biology is full of examples of identical
>>>yet independent mutations. The term "mutational hotspot" is conveniently
>>>used, even if we don't quite understand the causal factors. In any case,
>>>independent mutations are a fact. Indeed, they are even observed in, of
>>>all things, pseudogenes (urate oxidase, GULO, etc). Evolutionists explain
>>>these as due to mutational hotspots. But if repeated, identical mutations
>>>can be explained as due to hotspots when common descent is ruled out,
>>>then this explanation is also possible even when CD is not ruled out.
>>>Miller's argument that these are compelling evidence commits the fallacy
>>>of special pleading.
>>>
>> --Cornelius
>>
>> This ignores quantitative considerations.
>
> Actually, that burden is on you, not me. You are the one who is making the
> claim that a duplicated mutation is conspicuous, and of low probability in
> a vast pool of repeated mutations that cannot be due to common descent
> (that is a non intuitive claim). I believe you will fail to make the point
> because there literally are many more of these mutations that cannot be
> due to common descent. Have you looked at them?
>
>>Given the rates at which point mutations occur and get fixed and the fact
>>that there only 4 possibilities at each position, it is obvious that an
>>equivalent mutation can reoccur, with or without a hotspot. Transpositions
>>are much rarer and each one has 3 billion bases of targets for possible
>>locations.
>
> Yes, agreed. This is why the repeated, yet independent mutations are
> striking. It seems to me that the correct inference is not that (i)
> identical mutations that theoretically can be ascribed to common descent,
> ought to be, but rather (ii) there is something we do not understand here.
>
>
>
> Everything that is known about LINE elements, endogenous
>> retroviruses, Alu elements indicates that they only have mild biases
>> about target locations. To suggest that this is analogous to mutational
>> hotspots is ludicrous. There is one example of an HERV which is present
>> in only one copy in human and several ape genomes. In all it is at the
>> same position.
>
> Yes, and there are also HERVs at the same positions that do not follow the
> common descent pattern. Again, this is special pleading.
>
>>
>> Let me ask you about about related evidence. Are you not at all struck by
>> the obvious assembly of human chr 2 (if I remember right) from 2 ape
>> chromosomes?
>
> Yes, 12 and 13 from the Ape.
>
> Why are there 2 sets of telomere repeats
>> fused head to head internally at the expected position?
>
> Probably because there was a fusion event in the human lineage.
>
> Why are there
>> remnants of a disused centromere at the expected place on one of the arms
>> of Hs chr 2?
>
> Same answer. Now my question to you: why is this evidence for common
> descent?
>
>
>
>>
>> I suspect that I am wasting my time here. Perhaps we can cut to the
>> chase. Is there any conceivable evidence that you would regard as even
>> favoring common descent, let alone make it the best hypothesis?
>
> Yes, of course. Perhaps you've not been following the discussion closely.
> I'll gladly admit to evidence for evolution (and I have), but as a
> scientist I cannot ignore problems either. I would gladly accept evolution
> if it was compelling.
>
>> I suspect that there isn't. That your decision on what to believe is
>> really made in advance and independent of evidence, on some other,
>> presumably theological, basis.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not the one who fits that description.
>
> --Cornelius
>
>
> If that is the case, of course, it is
>> a waste of time trying to discuss evidence.
>>
>> Preston
>
Received on Thu Oct 6 10:28:10 2005