Wow. What a deluge of notes. Lots of good comments if I could find the time to read and digest it all.
I think David Campbell addressed this very well in his recent post but let me just add a little bit more. No, no, this is not at all about aesthetics or any principle of messiness. We're talking very specifically about the pattern of genetic modification. In fact, one might properly apply the concept of specified complexity to this problem. Take a DNA sequence of a non- or low-functionality portion of DNA in any organism. What is the probability that a different organism will have the same, or nearly the same, sequence in the corresponding part of the genetic code if there is no common ancestor? This meets the ultra-low probability criterion for being virtually impossible. With a common ancestor, the probability is very high. Maintaining that there is no common ancestor requires miraculous creation which immediately puts it beyond the realm of a scientific explanation. Once we move to the theological realm and claim that, yes, the organisms were miraculously created and not descended from a common organism, one must find a rationale for the particular patterns of genetic code--both the similarities and the differences. We are imaginative enough to be able to invent such rationales, but they remain just that--rationales to bolster an arbitrary non-scientific solution when a simple scientific one exists that works just fine.
Randy
David Opderbeck wrote:
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?
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 21:59:42 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 05 2007 - 21:59:42 EST