Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Yeah -- but I'm not totally convinced that it's exactly the same
"appearance" problem. Saying that God re-uses genetic code is not saying
there is an "appearance" of common descent. There is, in fact, under that
scenario, common descent. It is just common descent that involves at least
some direct causation by God. In contrast, the YEC "appearance of age"
position, as I understand it, is that none of the "apparent" history
actually happened at all. IMHO, that is a different kettle of fish.

On 11/4/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >And, the full TE position really says exactly the same thing, except
> that it holds that God's causal influence was secondary rather than direct.
>
> David,
>
>
>
> This is exactly the point. The difference between OEC and TE is not the
> messy code but how it got there, and whether it was a primary or secondary
> cause.
>
>
>
> This is the exact corollary to the "appearance of age" argument of the
> YEC's that OEC refutes. They will concede as they do in "Who Was Adam" that
> pseudogenes give the "appearance of common descent" but just likes the YEC's
> do with the appearance of age, instead of admitting it, resort to some
> theological cop-out. OEC is clinging to a wishful thinking level of
> concordism of the scriptures that is not supported by the science.
>
>
>
> An old earth is as far as you can take science in the evangelical church
> and even that is by the hardest. This is borne out by Dobson's Truth Project
> skirting this issue and not even taking a stand on it. Common descent is
> way beyond the pale.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:41 AM
> *To:* John Walley
> *Cc:* Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for
> evolution...?
>
>
>
> I think a typical OEC response is that God reused the genetic code as He
> progressively created. I don't think this is a terrible response. The
> counter-argument is, why would God re-use "messy" code? But why not? No
> one argues for "perfect" design, and any complex coding exercise involves
> pieces of code that may have had some functionality in earlier iterations
> but that aren't called upon in later ones. And, the full TE position really
> says exactly the same thing, except that it holds that God's causal
> influence was secondary rather than direct.
>
> On 11/4/07, *John Walley* <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Bernie,
>
>
>
> That section in "Who Was Adam" was written by Dr. Fuz Rana who is RTB's
> staff biochemist. His response to pseudogenes is like that for junk DNA,
> they question its junk status and instead suggest that it may have been part
> of God's design. YEC's have the same response as well.
>
>
>
> Fuz monitors this list and if he see this, he may have something else to
> add. I know that some in the RTB base have pressed them to modify their
> position on this. I think that after Collins and Behe have both come out on
> this point, they will eventually have to in order to maintain their
> credibility.
>
>
>
> The problem is that this is a real theological can of worms within the
> evangelical church which is where they get most of their support.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Dehler, Bernie
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:03 AM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for
> evolution...?
>
>
>
> Hi all-
>
>
>
> I'm new to this group (and ASA), so I hope I'm not bringing up
> something already discussed in great detail. If so, maybe you can direct me
> to the log.
>
>
>
> In my recent studies on the origins debate, it seems to me that there
> is "overwhelming evidence for evolution" via pseudogenes. These are genes
> present and functional in lower life forms, yet we have messed-up
> (nonfunctional) copies of them. There are supposed to be thousands of
> pseudogenes in the human genome. Humans and apes have these messed-up
> copies, but not lower life-forms. Since we share the messed-up copies with
> apes, we can't say that it is from the fallen human nature, as apes also
> have them messed-up while lower lifeforms don't. A prime example is
> supposed to be ascorbic acid (vitamin c).
>
>
>
> Hugh Ross, in his book "Who was Adam" explains the technical details
> well, and ends up saying there is no "old earth" response (since old earth
> is against evolution)… no response yet, anyway. Young earther's also don't
> seem to have a response to this argument.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that we have to accept this evidence for evolution…
> just as we have accepted evidence from Copernicus/Galileo regarding a
> heliocentric solar system.
>
>
>
> *Question*: Is it true there is no serious response from young
> earthers or old earthers to the claim that pseudogenes are overwhelming
> proof for evolution?
>
>
>
> Then again, there's also the biological evolutionary evidence based
> on chromosomes. Humans have one less chromosome than apes, and it can be
> seen that the reason why is because two ape-like chromosomes have joined
> into one for human. This joint is obvious. Again, any good young earth or
> old earth responses?
>
>
>
> Both the pseudogene and chromosome evidence for evolution were cited
> as evidence by Dr. Francis Collins in his recent book.
>
>
>
> By the way, I'm on the mailing list for Liberty University. They
> claim there is no compelling evolutionary evidence. Check out this quote:
>
>
>
> *Dr. David DeWitt, Liberty University professor of biology, wants to help
> Christians understand the nature of creationism and teach them how to ably
> counter mainstream arguments.*
>
> * *
>
> *His new book, "Unraveling the Origins Controversy," is a crash course in
> biblical creationism and examines assumptions on both sides of the origins
> debate with clear biblical teachings. *
>
> * *
>
> *The veteran professor, who is director of Liberty's Center for Creation
> Studies, notes that there are new scientific findings in terms of the
> earth's foundations almost every day and Christians need to have a framework
> for understanding these alleged evolutionary breakthroughs. *
>
> * *
>
> *Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of Health
> grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We live in the
> same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We simply use different
> assumptions and reach creation conclusions." *
>
> * *
>
> *Included in Dr. DeWitt's scientific refutation of evolutionary theory, he
> incorporates Scripture throughout his book to support the science of
> creationism. He believes the value of his book is that it is written by a
> scientist who integrates up-to-the-minute findings with a biblical
> worldview. *
>
> * *
>
> *Asked if there is any argument an evolutionist can make that a
> creationist cannot effectively answer, Dr. DeWitt smiled wryly and offered a
> simple, "No." *
>
> * *
>
> *"We have nothing to worry about in defending our beliefs," he confidently
> stated. *
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
> www.sciligion.org
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 4 12:19:03 2007