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

Welcome, Bernie!
    It's good to have you on board. I enjoyed meeting you in September. Good question.

    The YEC/OEC response to the genetic data you cited, once they have examined and understood the data, seems to be "yes, but that doesn't prove common descent." There's a spectrum of reasons and counter-possibilities offered.

    1. Designer re-use. Engineers like the re-use with modification approach. It's certainly a hypothetical possibility but it's the particular pattern of genetic modification that renders this unlikely.

    2. Purpose-driven designer. Closely related to the above is the notion that a designer intending to implement a specific function will use the same source but tailored to the specific application. Same problem.

    3. Periodic creation of species. Depending on one's bias, the proposal is that God created a new species when appropriate that looks identical to what one might expect from evolution. You might call it "the appearance of common descent" but justified by the need for common functionality. This ranges all the way from one extreme to occurring for every "kind" or genus to the other end where only homo sapiens sapiens was uniquely created, with all appearances of commonality. Like "appearance of age" it can't be logically disproven but neither is it resonant with what has been revealed to us of our Creator.

    Mixed in the middle of all these discussions is often a discussion of functionality of so-called "junk DNA". Many ID advocates have argued that a design perspective implies that there really is a usefulness of those portions of genetic code for which we do not yet know any function. In this mode, discoveries of function in junk DNA serve as support for ID but that doesn't work, in my books, since ID doesn't mandate it and evolution doesn't require a lack of functionality.

    A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting someone working at the Broad Institute here in Cambridge. He had a high energy physics degree from Yale and was now doing computer data analysis of genetic codes with a special interest in human history. He told me about the complexities of the genetic data. Genes are now known not be contiguous but may be distributed and even overlap. Lots of DNA seems to have a function other than coding for proteins. He didn't like the black and white notion of functional vs non-functional DNA. He preferred to think of it as DNA regions that had either low sensitivity or high sensitivity to nucleotide changes.

    That concept slowly began to make sense to me when I realized that there are 64 possible codons that can map to amino acids but only 22 or so different amino acids. (I need help from the biochemists here). Only two of these acids map to a unique codon sequence and some have as many as 6 different ones. I'm not sure if this is the right rationale but at least it's oversimplified to the point that even a physicist can partially understand it.

    In any case, mutations tend to accumulate in regions of low sensitivity to changes and the DNA is more stable to regions of high sensitivity. The sequences in the regions of low sensitivity are quite useful for studying relationships between species and reconstructing the history. Net: I think you are right about the evidence and that YEC/OEC have yet to honestly grapple with it.

    Randy

----- Original Message -----
  From: Dehler, Bernie
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:02 AM
  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 16:36:09 2007