RE: Special Creation

I agree it would be irrational for an Atheist to talk about God, but not
for Christians.
 
Cheers
 
John
>>>

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.

***

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of glennmorton@entouch.net
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:32 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Special Creation

This is for David Opderbeck, Moorad, and John Wally

David Opderbeck writes:

>>>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.
 
inferred.ancestor(2n=42)-----slow.change-->monkeys.2n=42-72
|
fission.to.2n=44----rapid.change----->gibbons.2n-38-52
|
two.fissions.to.2n=48
|
multiplication.of.NORS--Inversions.of.III,.IV,.X,.XII->Orangutan
|........................................................(2n=48).
Loss.of.NORs.from.2,9
|
Q.brilliance--------------------------
|....................................|.
Loss.of.NOR.from.18.......Loss.of.NOR.from.XV...
|....................................|
inversions.of.4,9,17.......Inversion.on.XII
|....................................|
C.bands.on.1,.9,.16,.Y.....Terminal.C.bands--------------
|....................................|..................|
Fusion.of.2.Interstitial.C.bands.on.VII..Translocation.of.V,.XVII
|....................................|..................|........
..Humans.2n=46...Inversions.of.IV,.IX,.XVII....C.bands.on.XIV,XVI
.....................................|..................|
...........................Chimpanzees.(2n=48)....Loss.of.NORS
..................................................from.XIII,.....
......................................................XIV,XVIII..
............................................................|
........................................Inversions.of.VIII,X,XVII.
.........................................................|
.................................................Gorilla.(2n=48).
.....~.J..Marks,."Chromosomal.Evolution.in.Primates,".in.Steve.
Jones..et.al,.editors,.The.Cambridge.Encyclopedia.of.Human.
Evolution,.(Cambridge:.Cambridge.University.Press,.1992),.p..301
**
 
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.

***

*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." 118
Received on Fri Mar 3 20:55:12 2006