Re: [asa] How big a deal is homology?

*For this reason, though I once thought that software-module re-use was a
good explanation (and several creationists I've tried to argue with have
made such arguments as Jim presents below), I no longer do so.
*
This is one thing that bothered me about Collins' book. He certainly
establishes beyond doubt the genetic relationships that tie all of life
together and that fact that the human genome has changed over time. But I
still think there's a big leap between those facts and a complete
evolutionary story that necessarily elides any acts of progressive creation.

Collins criticizes progressive creation / ID / OEC arguments for suggesting
that God is like the tinkering programmer whose code becomes sloppy over
time as its modified and extended in new versions (sort of like all of us is
running the genetic equivalent of Windows). But the same argument holds
against theistic evolution, unless we adopt some kind of process theology.
So long as God is fully sovereign over evolution, he is constantly
"tinkering" -- it's just that his tinkering is hidden within secondary
causes rather than popping out of the background as ID'ers would have it.
And, whatever methods God used -- ordinary evolution, progressive creation,
or some mix thereof -- the code is what it is. You might even suggest that
ordinary evolution is a much less efficient way to create than progressive
creation -- lots more transitional creatures have to represent evolutionary
dead-ends.

And also, computer code is only one metaphor for creation. We could also
think of God as an artist working on a canvas, striving for sweep, grandeur,
and pure expression, rather than a computer engineer striving for the
most parsimonious code. If we were to examine a master painting carefully
with x-rays and such, we'd be able to see early sketches, foundational color
layers, and the like, which were part of the creative process, but which
aren't all directly functional in the finished work. We might even find
bits of whimsy -- "easter eggs" and graffiti -- that have no functional
relationship to the finished work at all. Whether we view these things as
wasteful mistakes, or as flashes of creative spirit, depends on how we
approach the artist and his work.

So, it seems to me that, if there is a strong reason to favor TE from
start-to-finish over any sort of progressive creation, that reason must be a
theological one, relating to the doctrine of creation and how we ordinarily
expect God to act in nature.

On 3/27/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think Francis Collins deals with it very clearly in his book, and also
> his talk "Faith and the Human Genome", presenting, it seems to me pretty
> well overwhelming evidence for evolution. As David has indicated below,
> even the pseudo-genes and mistakes (to do with something called "Ancient
> Repetitive Elements") seem to get replicated.
>
> One particularly telling example concerns the order of three genes that is
> preserved between (I think) human and dog genomes. Except that in the human
> one the middle one has a mutation that switched it off and turned it into a
> pseudo-gene. If one wants to liken God to a tinkering software developer,
> then He'd be rather a messy programmer, like me , in commenting out
> bits of code that might not be necessary (turning the gene into a
> pseudo-gene), and not bothering to tidy up the mess afterwards. My normal
> reason for commenting out a bit of code in a program is because it might
> come in handy later & I don't know if I'll need it or not. Presumably an
> omnipotent programmer wouldn't be subject to the same limitations as me,
> however.
>
> For this reason, though I once thought that software-module re-use was a
> good explanation (and several creationists I've tried to argue with have
> made such arguments as Jim presents below), I no longer do so. I try
> hitting the creationists with Francis Collins but they either go silent, or
> refer to him as an "evolutionist" , or just "Collins" & they go all hostile
> and sniffy.
>
> Iain
>
> On 3/27/07, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> > The problem, as I see it, is that there is a very plausible
> > non-technical retort. "If God had a successful recipe, it makes perfect
> > sense to use and reuse the same formula with slight variations in all
> > living creations. There's no need for an evolutionary explanation for
> > such commonalities."
> > It's very difficult to respond to that in kind. If anyone has a good
> > response, requiring only a comparably slight understanding of the
> > science, I for one would sure welcome it. JimA
> >
> > Brent Foster wrote:
> >
> > >This is a question for those on the list who know more molecular
> > genetics than I do (almost everyone!). Now that the human genome has been
> > sequenced, as well as that of several other organisms, sequences can be
> > compared and checked for similarity. Much has been made of the 95 odd
> > percent similarity between the genomes of humans and chimps. And of course
> > the 80 odd percent similarity between mice and humans. Anti-evolutiuonists
> > point out that the similarity is only 95 or so percent, not the 98% once
> > claimed. Ha! And of course mice are even less similar. But isn't the problem
> > that there is any similarity at all? Aren't family relationships
> > demonstrated by matching identical sequences of DNA that are long enough to
> > rule out coincidence? And aren't these same types of similarities found
> > linking different species, genera, families etc, such as humans, chimps and
> > mice? Maybe I'm demonstrating my ignorance of molecular genetics. Does 95%
> > similarity between human and chimp DNA mean!
> > !
> > > that 95% of the sequences are similar? I ask because I am involved in
> > discussion with someone who is skeptical of DNA comparisons.
> > >
> > >Brent
> > >
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > >"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 27 16:27:10 2007