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

Those who know the fossil record are very unlikely to believe in an old Earth without evolution. Fossils are distributed throughout sedimentary rocks that are miles thick. At the bottom of the sedimentary column (which often enough appears at Earth's surface) are fossils of bacteria and no higher organisms. Farther up are multicelled organisms largely unlike any existing today. Higher yet are fossils of primitive fish, sponges, etc., and still higher are land organisms such as plants and vertebrates, most of which are unlike any existing today. At the uppermost levels are fossils of plants and animals recognizably similar to many living today.

The thickness of the sedimentary column is in itself evidence of great age. That fossils are distributed throughout and that the kinds of fossils vary with position in the column are evidences that the organisms came into existence over long time periods. Given "God can do anything," it's possible that God created bacteria 3.8 billion years ago and just let them exist for 3 billion years without higher life forms, then created those peculiar organisms of the so-called Cambrian explosion, then 50 million years later created organisms of radically different kinds, etc., etc. But if all the millions of species that came into existence and then died out were special creations and were not made at least in part by some natural process (evolution is the only viable candidate), it would just make God look weird or capricious. Evolution makes sense of the apparent capriciousness of species generation.

On the other hand, pseudogenes that seem to link disparate organisms offer no evidence for evolution if there's no evidence that organisms have ever significantly changed. This is especially true if there's also no evidence of the time required for them to change. If there's not enough time, then the junk DNA would have to be seen as a special creation, which (if it really is junk) would once again make God look weird or capricious.

Don

  From: Dehler, Bernie
  To: asa
  Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:14 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (best evidence for evolution) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

  Don Winterstein said:
  "By far the strongest evidence for evolution has always lain and continues to lie in the fossil record and the great ages it implies. "

  I disagree (for me, anyway). I've been following this creation/evolution controversy for many years,,, and it always seems (on the surface) to be very questionable. as if both sides have very good scientific evidence. I was an old young earth creationist (a combo of the OEC and YEC views ;-)

  Since reading Collin's book, and appreciating that he's a born-again Christian, and seeing him state the evidence regarding pseudogenes and human/ape chromosomes, I have come to a variation of the TE theme. It's a radical shift. all because of the biological evidence. If special creation is true, there would be no copies of junk from other life-forms... I'm convinced of that.

  Because of the biological evidence, I'm now more readily willing to accept the fossil evidence and traditional scientific interpretation.

  I have a Masters in Ministry degree from Luther Rice Seminary (www.lru.edu). just got it this year. We had a class called "Worldviews and Origins." They pretty much assumed a YEC position, and a textbook for worldviews was Nancy Pearcy's (Discovery Institute) "Total Truth." We also learned the basics of DNA and the marvels of protein synthesis in class (these complex designs and process prove God's working). This biology was a start for me, I then graduated, then read Collin's book. I have a deep respect for Collins because of his scientific knowledge and Christian service/thinking, so it carries tremendous weight for me. YEC's (and Phillip Johnson) seems to say that modern scientists are only believing what they do because of their atheistic worldview. I think people like Collins demonstrate that to be false.

  So for me, the biological evidence of pseudogenes and human/ape chromosomes ("biological fossils") became the evolution dam that was breeched, and now I'm being swept away by the flood. It was hopeless for a while, but people like Collins and groups like ASA have been rescuers for me. My house was on fire. now it is being remodeled. The fires have all been put out, and I'm looking for design advice and picking colors now ;-) Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but they both fit well ;-)

  .Bernie

  www.sciligion.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
  Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 5:17 AM
  To: asa; Dehler, Bernie
  Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

  "Is it true there is no serious response from young earthers or old earthers to the claim that pseudogenes are overwhelming proof for evolution?"

  By far the strongest evidence for evolution has always lain and continues to lie in the fossil record and the great ages it implies. Without this evidence for massive change in life forms down through long ages, the theory of evolution wouldn't stand a chance. Pseudogenes would be mere unexplained curiosities.

  However, given the compelling evidence for both great age and great change, the DNA contribution becomes meaningful and forceful.

  Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 5 10:11:59 2007