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

Randy said: * 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.*
*
*But this does undercut the argument that non-coding regions are nothing but
* * "relics" of evolution, just like fossils in rock strata. Fossils in
rock strata are dead and non-functional, and serve only to evidence a past
history. Likewise, junk DNA is purported to be nothing but evidence of a
past history. If this supposedly non-functional DNA in fact has a function,
however,* *that undercuts the "appearance of age" argument against a
progressive creation / re-use / design perspective concerning DNA.

Randy said: *[re-use] It's certainly a hypothetical possibility but it's
the particular pattern of genetic modification that renders this unlikely.*

Why? Is there some aesthetic design principle that's been violated?
Wouldn't the same be true for the messiness of "ordinary" evolution?

Ok, so why am I, who had been leaning towards all these TE arguments, now
pushing back a bit? I've come to realize that a "strong" TE view seems
inevitably to lead to a non-literal Adam & Eve, or a large population of
first humans -- something that seems completely incongruous with arc of the
Biblical narrative to me.
*

*

On 11/4/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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 18:59:42 2007