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.  <<<

 

 

GRM: I don't beleive that the human genome appeared 100kyr ago. Ross believes that.  I believe that the present genome arose over millions of years via evolution.  However, I do believe that Ross believes that 100kyr ago the exact genome which creates humanity arose, unconnected with the prior hominids. 

 

I don't think the dust of the ground issue has been addressed at all.  There are too many features which shouldn't be there unless there is really a genetic connection. The objection raised here recently by Jack (assuming drsyme is Jack) is an excellent objection and it is a wider objection than merely pseudogenes.   For God to create a new creatures which had the same features as the apes to which they are not supposed to be related yet include both microscopic and nannoscopic features in a nested hierachy is just crazy. Yet, even microscopic examination of the chromosomes shows this connection. This is an evolutionary descent lineage of the chromosomal features seen under the microscope via various staining techniques. Put this in Courier New format to see it formatted properly. You can see the nested hierarchy which is indicative of common descent.

 

 

To your question about modern humans appearing 150kyr ago or so. What we call anatomically modern humans do appear then. However, they are not exactly like us. Their bones are more robust. One of the features which they have is a flatter face than their ancestors, but for the life of me I can't see why a flatter face is so theologically important. And one of the criticisms by Wolpoff and Caspari is that there is NO morphological definition of anatomically modern human which can be made which includes all modern humans and excludes all those who came before.  Without a definition, the science of anthropology is playing ad hoc games.  The Klasies River Mouth people are called modern humans, yet:

 

 "The Klasies sample has archaic features found in no  modern
populations.  For instance cross-cutting the size differences,
both the largest and smallest mandibles completely lack chins. 
IN fact, of the four symphyses preserved, two (KRM 13400 and
14695) lack even a mental trigone and a third (KRM 21776) has
only a weakly developed trigone (similar Neandertals are called
'chinless').  These symphyses, the large zygomatic face and its
thick frontal process, and the marked innerorbital breadth of the
frontal, are very far from the modern condition.  This mixture of
archaic and modern features is exactly what one would expect in a
transitional sample, one in the process of evolving into moderns.
 We agree that these considerations make good sense,  but only in
the context of an evolutionary model, in which modernity appears
gradually, with its elements slowly increasing iin frequency." ~
Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, "The Modernity Mess," Journal
of Human Evolution, (1996), 30:167-171, p. 168

 

 "The main problem with modernity, we think, is reflected in
the fact that there is no worldwide definition of moderns that
simultaneously includes all modern humans and excludes all
archaics.  If modern humans share a recent unique origin,
definition of this group should be possible. However, it may not
be possible if the multiregional model is correct." ~ Milford
Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, "The Modernity Mess," Journal of
Human Evolution, (1996), 30:167-171, p. 169

 

"We feel that this quest for the beginnings of modernity is
doomed to failure; we are seeking something that doesn't exist. 
It is time, as P.V. Tobias recently said, to stop talking about
'anatomically modern humans' for the same reasons that we don't
talk about 'anatomically modern elephants'.  And we propose, it
is time to stop publishing papers about the evolution of
'anatomically modern humans' unless they include a defintion of
them." ~ Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, "The Modernity
Mess," Journal of Human Evolution, (1996), 30:167-171, p.  170

 

IN another note, DAvid, you said,

 

>>>I'm not sure it's illogical.  In fact, it would be exactly what we'd logically expect if God used something like a cloning process to genetically engineer Adam using gentic material from an earlier hominid. <<<

 

Why do we envision God so anthropomorphically with the technology and power of a mere human lab-coated scientist?  If God is really God, don't you suppose he could do it without cloning and a PCR machine? I wonder if God paid royalties for that PCR machine.

***

 

Morad wrote:

 

>>>Glenn, my post was addressed to the following post by David Opderbeck who wrote:

When I do physics, I do not bring God. However, if someone invokes imperfection in the creation, then God is being brought into the issue. Hence, the reason for my reply.<<<

I know. I was making a broader point with my sarcasm.  It always seems odd to me that we expect God to be able to raise us from the dead to the heights of heaven and beleive that God physically resurrected Jesus, but we think God is incapable of communicating the simplest truth in Genesis or much of anywhere else. thus we talk about accommodation etc which some here say is the only option but it isn't.

As to God in physics, I would beg to differ. I see the multiverse playing the same role for physics as God does for theology. It is an attempt to explain why we exist, it too is unobservable but it is all powerful creating universe after universe.  Thus, physics has their god, but they don't name him that.

***

John Wally wrote:

>>>

If God intended a perfect paradise and fellowship like you imply without evolutionary mistakes and temptation, it would have been altogether different. But as was pointed out, once you invoke your prejudiced views on how God should have done it, we leave the realm of rational thought and enter into speculation. <<<

Some of my atheist friends would say that once you start talking about God you have left the realm of rational thought and entered speculation. You might think twice about trying to play this card.

***