Hi Bernie:
I hope that the following information is helpful. First, some backgound
info.
Lewis Meyer is a NZ evangelist who holds a BSc. He operates a YEC
ministry independent of Answers in Genesis (now Creation Ministries
International in this part of the world).
Graeme Finlay is a cell biologist who teaches at the University of
Auckland Medical School. His publications include a booklet “God’s
Books: Genetics and Genesis”, Telos Publications (NZ) 2004.
The following are two extracts from the booklet “In the Beginning: Three
View on Creation and Science”, by L. Meyer, I. Wishart & D. Nield,
Vision Network of NZ , 2005
Extract 1: CLAIM by Lewis Meyer:
…..To bolster this idea, evolutionists like Graeme Findlay^5 point out
that these features in this non-coding DNA (called pseudogenes) are the
same in humans as in chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. He seems
to accept without reservation, an old evolutionary dogma, that these
changes are random effects so they would be unlikely to happen the same
twice. Thus, the changes must have happened in a primate ancestor that
humans and apes share. This is presented as proof positive that we are
related to these primates through evolution. It comes across as a very
convincing argument to anyone not aware of the following points. There
is nothing like a brutal gang of facts to ruin a nice theory.
1 We don’t know as much about the genetic mechanisms of such creatures
as some suppose. For example we have some situations where one gene is
involved in more than one activity (pleiotropy). We also are aware of
situations where more than one gene has influence on one trait
(polygeny). As an aside, this should be a warning to those engaging in
genetic modification. We know the sequence of the 3.1 billion letters in
our genetic code, but we are a long way from knowing what much of it does.
2 It is not definitely established fact that all genetic changes are
random. Some mutations are definitely not random. For example,
substitutions are much more likely to happen with the same type of base
(there are four bases; two types). It may well be that certain sequences
of DNA lettering are more likely to move, reverse or be deleted than
other more stable sequences. It may depend on where in a chromosome they
are.
^3 No-one saw viruses introducing the pieces of DNA in question. Neither
did anyone see the changes happen to prove they were changes and not
programmed in. As suspected, and not only by creationists, these vast
areas of the chromosomes are not non-functional after all. The so-called
junk DNA is not junk. (Of course, some of it probably is, as we would
expect in a decaying, de-evolving world where information becomes
damaged.) In fact, an Australian company now owns the patent to all the
junk DNA (legally dubious in my opinion) because its former owner (a
Kiwi, I believe) was scientifically bright enough to question the dogma.
The company is doing very well out of people like cancer researchers who
are more and more realising the research value of these chromosome
areas. It came as a shock to some scientists when it was recently
discovered that some so-called retro-transposons are not random
insertions at all, but are involved in important biological gene control
. To quote plant physiologist Dr Don Batten, “More and more evidence is
accumulating that things like retro-transposon sequences are not
inserted randomly. They are not parasitic DNA. A recent paper [2004]
shows they are intimately involved in embryo development.” ^6
4 Similarity does not necessarily mean the two similar creatures have
evolved from a common ancestor. It can just as easily mean that the same
creator has created all the creatures containing the same sequence. If a
function is the same in the two kinds of animal, they will have the same
or similar DNA. That is why much of human DNA is similar to chimpanzee
DNA. We eat similar food, we breathe air, we control our blood sugar
similarly, we use similar muscles, we have similar hair, we bear infants
and feed them in similar ways so our proteins must be similar and
therefore our genetic code must be similar. The creator used a similar plan.
5 In spite of the rhetoric from evolutionists, random rearrangement of
sections of unused DNA would still not give new usable chunks of
information to give creatures new features that have never existed
before. The maths simply does not work, no matter if there were billions
of years available. Take for example a basic function of humans like
insulin-based blood sugar control. Not only do we need the insulin,
which is a relatively short protein, but we also need an insulin
production facility in the pancreas and specific insulin receptors that
will recognise the signals and balance the system. Without all that, we
die fairly quickly. These must be all intact to be selected and
protected from mutation by our cells. The same issue is seen with blood
pressure control in humans. I recall hearing USA evolutionist and
research biochemist Dr John Meyer tell his story at an Auckland meeting.
He became a creationist as he studied the many mechanisms that balance
against each other to control human blood pressure. He rightly realised
that, if you have many systems balanced against each other, they all
have to be complete and in place at the same time to give any advantage.
Evolution cannot achieve this.
As “Intelligent Design” advocate and molecular biologist Michael Behe
rightly points out,
“The essence of cellular life is regulation: The cell controls how much
and what kinds of chemicals it makes; when it loses control, it dies…..
Because a viable cell keeps its chemicals on a short leash, it would
tend to _prevent_/ /new, complex metabolic pathways from organizing by
chance”. ^8 (emphasis mine).
Extract 2: RESPONSE by Don Nield:
In response to Meyer’s detailed attack on Graeme Finlay’s position, I
supply the following information. Meyer’s understanding of mutations is
out of date. It is now known that duplications of genetic material are
common, and these generate spare gene copies in which mutations may
cause functional diversification. Meyer denies that the production of
pseudogenes is random. The same processes damage genes to cause a host
of genetic diseases. Does Meyer ascribe these processes to God’s
deliberate action?
Re Meyer’s numbered points: (1) Meyer is correct, but our ignorance
should not rule out the possibility of authentic understanding. (2)
Chromosomal location indeed affects the frequency and nature of changes,
but we cannot know what will change next or how it will mutate. (3)
Retrotransposons are /still/ active in our DNA, and scientists /are
/learning how they work. Changes in ‘junk’ DNA cause diseases such as
cancer, so it should be obvious that the changes are random. The fact
that many changes now serve useful functions demonstrates an
evolutionary principle: randomly arising genetic changes can be selected
to provide genetic function – the very thing that Meyer dismissed! (4)
That common design features point to a faithful Creator is not in
question. What we must not do is look at natural processes ordained and
upheld by this Creator and insist that they are in some way miraculous.
Science becomes impossible if it is denied that retrotransposons are
naturally occurring agents, or if it is denied that viruses cause
diseases. (5) The argument is invalid. The following are
counter-examples. The genetic region that controls the immune system has
been generated by a series of copying events. Trichromatic vision has
risen from the copying of an ospin gene.
Don Nield (ASA member)
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
> www.sciligion.org <http://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 15:51:37 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 04 2007 - 15:51:37 EST