Douglas Hayworth wrote:
> To use ID terminology, the sequence (gene, base-pair, and telomeric)
> underlying this chromosomal pattern of variation among humans and
> chimps has such a high level of "specified complexity" that is
> specific to what one would expect as a result of common ancestry. It
> would be ludicrous to entertain any other cause for it other than
> special creation meant to deceive.
>
> And if this one chromosomal example is not enough evidence, keep in
> mind that it is only one of many such characters that tell the same
> common ancestry story. See the articles by Finlay in PSCF:
>
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2008/PSCF6-08Finlay.pdf
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF9-06Finlay.pdf
>
> Doug
>
Well said, Doug! I recommend the above articles by my University of
Auckland colleague Graeme Finlay. The response of the NZ YEC evangelist
Lewis Meyer to Finlay's argument is of interest, so I take the liberty
of making this a long message by copying parts of a dialog that I had
with Meyer. Please note that Meyer spells Finlay's name incorrectly.
Don N
Extracts from “In The beginning: Three Views on Creation and Science”
presented by Lewis Meyer, Ian Wishart, Donald Nield (Vision Network of
New Zealand, 2005).
MEYER
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 ….
NIELD
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 Jul 8 20:28:08 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 08 2009 - 20:28:08 EDT