[asa] DNA and YEC (was Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig))

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Francis Collins explains this in his book "The Language of God." I would suggest you get that book for your personal library. In a non-technical nutshell, each chromosome has end markers and a middle marker. We have one less set of chromosomes than that of apes. How could we descend from them and have 1 less chromosome pair? The answer is that two of their chromosomes fused into our #2. In the middle of the #2 human chromosome you can see the end markers where they meet and fuse- I think unlike any of the other chromosomes. All that is non-technical and from memory, so there is likely some error in the details, but it should give the big picture as to why the reverse can't be true- couldn't have started with human chromosome #2 dividing to create the apes. The book explains it much better with some pictures, as I recall.
>
> I think this all relatively new DNA evidence (last few years) for the descent of man from apelike creatures- and YEC hasn't dealt with it yet. I think this DNA evidence and pseudogene evidence will bury the YEC and OEC movement for good... once it gets out. It is taking a long time for the news to get out because it is highly technical, and the general population is largely ignorant on modern biochemistry and these genomic findings. But I think the genomic studies are advancing and building quickly... soon it will be in everyone's face. The first to generally learn about it will be our kids in college.
>
Don Nield writes:
As it happens, something has come out, and some YECs have responded. I
quote from “In The Beginning: Three Views on Creation and Science”,
presented by Lewis Meyer, Ian Wishart and Donald Nield, Vision Network
of New Zealand, 2005. (For each view there was a statement by an author
followed by a response by the other two authors.) As background I
mention that Graeme Finlay is a colleague of mine at the University of
Auckland.. He has published a booklet that is cited by Meyer, plus
articles in CiS and ASA publications, on this subject.

In his statement presenting a YEC position, Lewis Meyer wrote:
A popular dogma used in support of evolution is that there are areas on
the chromosomes (strings of DNA), which are ‘useless leftovers’ of
evolution. Some suggest that up to 98% is not used to code for proteins
and therefore must be obsolete. They suggest that viruses (called
retro-viruses) have deposited information sequences into the DNA). Also
other pieces of DNA floating around have added information. These
insertions, along with deletions and reversed sections supposedly can
continue to mutate in various ways until they produce a code for a
useable protein which will be preserved from mutation by the cell and,
in addition to many others made the same way, produce a brand-new trait
that has never existed before.
To bolster this idea, evolutionists like Graeme Findlay^5 point out that
these features in this non-coding DNA (called pseudogenes) are the same
in humans as in chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. He seems to
accept without reservation, an old evolutionary dogma, that these
changes are random effects so they would be unlikely to happen the same
twice. Thus, the changes must have happened in a primate ancestor that
humans and apes share. This is presented as proof positive that we are
related to these primates through evolution. It comes across as a very
convincing argument to anyone not aware of the following points. (There
is nothing like a brutal gang of facts to ruin a nice theory.)

1. We don’t know as much about the genetic mechanisms of such creatures
as some suppose. For example we have some situations where one gene is
involved in more than one activity (pleiotropy). We also are aware of
situations where more than one gene has influence on one trait
(polygeny). As an aside, this should be a warning to those engaging in
genetic modification. We know the sequence of the 3.1 billion letters in
our genetic code, but we are a long way from knowing what much of it does.

2. It is not definitely established fact that all genetic changes are
random. Some mutations are definitely not random. For example,
substitutions are much more likely to happen with the same type of base
(there are four bases; two types). It may well be that certain sequences
of DNA lettering are more likely to move, reverse or be deleted than
other more stable sequences. It may depend on where in a chromosome they
are.

^ 3. No-one saw viruses introducing the pieces of DNA in question.
Neither did anyone see the changes happen to prove they were changes and
not programmed in. As suspected, and not only by creationists, these
vast areas of the chromosomes are not non-functional after all. The
so-called junk DNA is not junk. (Of course, some of it probably is, as
we would expect in a decaying, de-evolving world where information
becomes damaged.) In fact, an Australian company now owns the patent to
all the junk DNA (legally dubious in my opinion) because its former
owner (a Kiwi, I believe) was scientifically bright enough to question
the dogma. The company is doing very well out of people like cancer
researchers who are more and more realising the research value of these
chromosome areas. It came as a shock to some scientists when it was
recently discovered that some so-called retro-transposons are not random
insertions at all, but are involved in important biological gene
control.. To quote plant physiologist Dr Don Batten, “More and more
evidence is accumulating that things like retro-transposon sequences are
not inserted randomly. They are not parasitic DNA. A recent paper [2004]
shows they are intimately involved in embryo development.” ^6

4.Similarity does not necessarily mean the two similar creatures have
evolved from a common ancestor. It can just as easily mean that the same
creator has created all the creatures containing the same sequence. If a
function is the same in the two kinds of animal, they will have the same
or similar DNA. That is why much of human DNA is similar to chimpanzee
DNA. We eat similar food, we breathe air, we control our blood sugar
similarly, we use similar muscles, we have similar hair, we bear infants
and feed them in similar ways so our proteins must be similar and
therefore our genetic code must be similar. The creator used a similar plan.

5. In spite of the rhetoric from evolutionists, random rearrangement of
sections of unused DNA would still not give new usable chunks of
information to give creatures new features that have never existed
before. The maths simply does not work, no matter if there were billions
of years available. Take for example a basic function of humans like
insulin-based blood sugar control. Not only do we need the insulin,
which is a relatively short protein, but we also need an insulin
production facility in the pancreas and specific insulin receptors that
will recognise the signals and balance the system. Without all that, we
die fairly quickly. These must be all intact to be selected and
protected from mutation by our cells….

In response, I wrote, after consulting Graeme Finlay :

In response to Meyer’s detailed attack on Graeme Finlay’s position, I
supply the following information. Meyer’s understanding of mutations is
out of date. It is now known that duplications of genetic material are
common, and these generate spare gene copies in which mutations may
cause functional diversification. Meyer denies that the production of
pseudogenes is random. The same processes damage genes to cause a host
of genetic diseases. Does Meyer ascribe these processes to God’s
deliberate action?
Re Meyer’s numbered points: (1) Meyer is correct, but our ignorance
should not rule out the possibility of authentic understanding. (2)
Chromosomal location indeed affects the frequency and nature of changes,
but we cannot know what will change next or how it will mutate. (3)
Retrotransposons are /still/ active in our DNA, and scientists /are
/learning how they work. Changes in ‘junk’ DNA cause diseases such as
cancer, so it should be obvious that the changes are random. The fact
that many changes now serve useful functions demonstrates an
evolutionary principle: randomly arising genetic changes can be selected
to provide genetic function – the very thing that Meyer dismissed! (4)
That common design features point to a faithful Creator is not in
question. What we must not do is look at natural processes ordained and
upheld by this Creator and insist that they are in some way miraculous.
Science becomes impossible if it is denied that retrotransposons are
naturally occurring agents, or if it is denied that viruses cause
diseases. (5) The argument is invalid. The following are
counter-examples. The genetic region that controls the immune system has
been generated by a series of copying events. Trichromatic vision has
risen from the copying of an ospin gene.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 15:56:53 2008