RE: [asa] Re: (appearance of age) ASA origins

What do you mean it is not an appearance of age? How could someone look
like a mature adult (over 15 years old... which is over 5,000 days) if
they were only in fact only 1 day old??? If you met Adam the day after
he was made, any scientist would say he was not 1 day old... according
to all measurements... thus, the obvious appearance of age.

Sure, no liver spots or gray hair, but those are certain signs of old
age. But the size of the body parts obviously gives an appearance of
age, much, much older than he is if he were truly only 1 day old. Adam
was likely able to sexually reproduce on the day he was made. Normal
humans can't do that at 1 day old. Again, obvious appearance of age, is
it not?

I think young earthers have to admit appearance of age. Where am I
wrong?

...Bernie

www.sciligion.org <http://www.sciligion.org/>

________________________________

From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:21 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: (appearance of age) ASA origins

That's not the appearance of age, they would say he was a mature male,
but brand new. He wouldn't have any gray hair or liver spots on him.
That would be the appearance of age.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:48 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: (appearance of age) ASA origins

John Whalley said:
"Even Ken Ham rejects the appearance of age argument because he says
that makes God look deceptive and he's right on that one."

How can Ken Ham reject an appearance of age? According to YEC, suppose
you met Adam the day after he was born. Would Adam look like a 1 day
old infant or a mature male? Obviously a mature male... the appearance
of age right there.

Thanks in general to all who replied to my email. I read them all
quickly, and want to read them again later to fully digest.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'Janice Matchett' <janmatch@earthlink.net>; 'Dehler, Bernie'
<bernie.dehler@intel.com>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 3:02 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for
evolution...?

I saw that article when it was first published as well but that is
hardly the mechanism by which humans and chimps share pseudogenes. These
genes were known to be formerly functional genes in a near relative, not
bacteria.

Could God have specially created man with broken pseudogenes and copying
errors if He wanted to? Sure, just like He could have created a young
earth and just made it look old. But why?

Even Ken Ham rejects the appearance of age argument because he says that
makes God look deceptive and he's right on that one.

I think we just need to take our own advice and follow the evidence
wherever it leads and be prepared to accept the most likely
interpretation of the data without letting sentimental notions or
theological hang-ups get in the way.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu?> ] On Behalf Of Janice Matchett
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 2:32 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for
evolution...?

At 01:02 AM 11/4/2007, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

 
"...Both the pseudogene and chromosome evidence for evolution were cited
as evidence by Dr. Francis Collins in his recent book. .." ~ Bernie
Dehler

 @ You may my post of 9/13/2007 here to be of interest:

http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0318.html
Share Alike: Genes from bacteria found in animals - Patrick Barry

Some insects and roundworms pick up DNA from bacteria living within
their cells, new research shows.

The DNA transfer occurs in the animals' egg cells, so the genetic
modification passes between generations. The mechanism therefore
provides an alternative to mutation of existing DNA as a way for the
species to acquire new genetic traits.

Gene swapping is ubiquitous among bacteria and other single-celled
organisms. Even plants and fungi are known to occasionally adopt a piece
of foreign DNA. But scientists thought
that multicellular animals picked up genes from bacteria only rarely.

"Our data are indicating that [DNA transfer] is going on all the time,"
says John H. Werren of the University of Rochester in New York, who led
the research team.

The discovery challenges the prevailing view of animal evolution, in
which genetic information is passed exclusively from parents to
offspring. The transfer of DNA from bacteria means that an individual
could acquire and pass on genes that it had not inherited.

"We're sort of on the edge of a transformation in the field" of animal
evolution, comments Laura A. Katz of Smith College in Northampton, Mass.
"These sorts of data allow us to redefine
the field to capture this other process going on."

Werren's team looked at several species of insects and roundworms
infected by a parasitic bacterium called Wolbachia pipientis, which
afflicts about 20 percent of insect species as well as many other
invertebrates. The bacterium lives inside the animals' cells, including
their egg cells, giving it ready access to the chromosomes that are
passed on to the animals'
offspring.

"I think that physical access is the key to allowing this [DNA transfer]
to happen," Werren says. The way in which animals' bodies insulate their
eggs and sperm from foreign bacteria is
the main barrier to heritable-DNA transfer in animals, he says.

The researchers compared the genetic code of the bacterium with the code
of 11 other species: four roundworms, four fruit flies, and three wasps.
The team found that all but three of the
fruit fly species had segments of the bacterium's genetic code embedded
in their DNA. The report appears online
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1142490> and in an upcoming Science.

Some of this transferred DNA is active in the host species' cells, the
researchers found, but they didn't determine whether the genes serve a
biological function in the host.

The team also scanned an archive of published genomes for 21 other
invertebrate species and found bacterial genes in nine of them.

Such bacterial genetic code is routinely ignored during the sequencing
of animals' genomes because most scientists have assumed that the
foreign DNA is a sign of contamination,
Werren says. However, the new research rules out the possibility of
contamination, Katz says. "I think it's a really beautifully done,
elegant study."

Julie C. Dunning Hotopp, a member of the research team and a scientist
at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., says that the
mechanism by which DNA leaves the bacteria and becomes inserted into the
host species' chromosomes remains uncertain.

While in-cell parasites such as W. pipientis are common among
invertebrates, none is known to infect people or other mammals, Werren
says.

________________________________

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?nc
id=AOLAOF00020000000970> !

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 6 13:29:02 2007