Re: Special Creation

Glenn: I think I do understand Templeton's work, and that the "dust of the
ground / pre-existing genome" solution answers the charge that Templeton
completely falsifies Ross. When you speak of the "human genome appearing in
the last ~100K years," you don't mean the exact genome that produces homo
sapiens sapiens, right? You're using "human" in a broader anthropological
sense to include other homo species? As far as I can tell, nothing in
Templeton's work contradicts the notion from the stones and bones, as well
as from mtDNA, that "modern" homo sapiens sapiens first appear about
~150KYA, does it?

The response to the dust of the ground / preexsting genome solution is a
theological objection -- *Why would God use pre-existing broken genes (the
pseudogenes) to design man --* which has been addressed.

On 3/3/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> For Jack and David Operbeck
>
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> >>>I dont see anything in there that suggests that Ross thinks that all
homo sapiens today are not human. I agree he claims that hominids, before
anatomically distinct modern homo sapiens appeared are less than human. And
I agree with you that one could argue that they are human, using Ross's own
criteria (religious artifacts, burials etc.)<<<
>
>
> I stand corrected. I misunderstood what you were writing and I was wrong.
He does believe that all living H. sapiens are fully human.
>
>
> >>>I expected them to say the same thing about h. floresiensis. They
consider them less than human. Which leads me to another line of evidence
against the RTB model. Does anyone know what the earliest date evidence for
h floresiensis is? According to the RTB model, God rested after he created
man, and no species should be created after Man, so according to RTB no new
species after 100k years ago or so. If H floresiensis appeared after this
date it would disprove their model.<<<
>
>
> 95 kyr is the oldest H. floresiensis. BTW, thousands of species only have
a record in the Holocene and are not found in the fossil record at all.
Indeed, only 3% of living animals are found as fossils at all. One could say
that the earliest evidence of their existence is after God rested.
>
> ****
>
>
> DAvid Operbeck wrote:
> >>>As I understand it, multiverse theory doesn't necessarily require an
infinte set of universes, just a possible set (though in some permutations
an infinite set is proposed); and other related theories, like M-theory,
could allow for additional dimensions not in an infinite set. So, I'm not
sure a wacky theory involving quantum physics would have to be so wacky that
every theory about Noah would have to be true. Or that it would have to
involve me hitting a grand slam for the Yankees in the seventh game of the
world series, bottom of the 9th, down three runs to the Red Sox -- fun as
that would be. <<<
>
>
> There are only 10^118 different ways that the number of protons in our
universe could be arranged. If one has the multiverse of Hugh Everett or of
Tegmark, one would have that many possible arrangements and somewhere in
that vast space there would be a universe for every possiblity. String
theory allows for 10^500 universes (Geoff Brumfiel, "Outrageous Fortune,"
Nature, 439(2006), p. 10-11)
> But most of them have different laws of physics. I would say you are not
correct in your assessment of these universes as only 'possible'. Modern
physics is considering them as real (I don't think they are any more real
than leprechauns because like leprechauns, we can't observe them.
>
>
> In another note David wrote:
>
> >>>>As I understand it, the problem for RTB's model arising from
Templeton's work would be that, although the genetic evidence still supports
the recent (~100,000 years) emergence of "humans" as RTB define them (home
sapiens sapiens) from a smal population migrating out of a Africa, it also
suggests those modern humans interbred with indigenous populations of
hominids that had migrated out of Africa in two earlier waves ~1.5MYA and
~750,000 years ago. Such interbreeding would suggest the indigenous
populations were "human" as well, and thus human-kind is too ancient to
trace back to a single Adam and Eve less than 150,000 years ago. <<<
>
>
> You then, don't understand Templeton's work. He is saying that the chances
of the human genome appearing in the last 100,000 years is 1 chance in
10^17. Now, 10^17 is the number of seconds the universe has existed and that
means that you have the same chance with having mankind appear in the last
100 kyr as you do of randomly selecting, from all the seconds the universe
has existed, the one special second at which the KT meteor impacted the
earth. I wouldn't bet on your being able to do that.
>
>
> DAvid further wrote:
> >>>But Ross/Rana seem to suggest, as I had earlier on the list, that God
may have used existing genetic material from earlier hominids when He formed
Adam out of the "dust of the Earth." If God did this, then our genome would
reflect the history of those earlier hominids, including those two earlier
waves of African migration. The "replacement" theory could then still
possibly be correct. Obviously, this wouldn't survive Occam's Razor, but
neither would just about any theory that seeks actual historical events in
Gen. 1 and 2. <<<<
>
>
> Why would God use pre-existing broken genes (the pseudogenes) to design
man?
>
Received on Fri Mar 3 09:53:28 2006