Re: Special Creation

*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.*

But in the "genetic dust" scenario, they *are* related. Really really. Not
just an appearance of relatedness. Why would it be "crazy" for God to
create this way? Why is this any more "crazy" than any other way?

On 3/3/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> ***
>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 3 21:10:11 2006