David Opderbeck said:
"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."
I'm leaning to the TE side, and trying to decipher the Adam and Eve
story in light of it. I hope to have a first draft by the end of the
year. Yes, I tend to think that if evolution were true, then there is
no unique Adam and Eve. Evolution works on groups. Also, there was no
global flood, but OEC's already have that position... only instead of
saying it was local, I would say there was no such flood at all. I
think the reason for the flood and creation in Scripture is to teach a
spiritual lesson, but they (creation with Adam and eve, and the flood)
are not historical events. Yes, I'm not claiming the bible is inerrant,
but I think I can still say it is "authorative."
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 3:59 PM
To: Randy Isaac
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 20:11:43 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 04 2007 - 20:11:43 EST