RE: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism

Hi Bill-

For fused human chromosome #2, here are good sources of info:

1. In print: "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. (This is a good book for your personal library, or try the public library if you are cheap ;-)

2. Kenneth Miller's YouTube presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJMSHKjc56E

I first learned from number 2. It was a shocker for me. Number 2 is great as a tutorial on the subject.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: wjp [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:25 PM
To: "" Dehler@ame8.swcp.com; Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa
Subject: RE: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism
Importance: Low

Bernie:

If I can find the time, I will try to investigate the claims of "fused chromosome #2."

I have looked briefly at an explanation and realized that I would not be able to make much of assessment without considerable background.

For the benefit of us all, if it would not be too burdensome, can you please explain what this evidence is and how it makes "certain" that humans and apes have the same evolutionary ancestors.

I am interested in the logical steps that procede from the "evidence" to the conclusion. I am presuming that this evidence indicates that with a very high probability this process has occured. Unless the steps are deductive, you will have to indicate how you assess these probabilities.

thanks,

bill

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:13:51 -0700, "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Moorad-
>
> I was a typical evolution denier (like the ID people), until I
> studied and saw the evidence for evolution. Now I'm certain evolution
> happened because of the evidence (pseudogenes and fused chromosome
> #2). Since I'm now certain that evolution happened in the creation of
> humans because of the DNA evidence, the critic who says "explain how
> it happened or I won't believe it" has zero impact. They are not
> being logical, but looking for an excuse to deny the evidence of evolution.
>
> I think if someone understands this DNA evidence still rejects
> evolution, it is equivalent to also rejecting that 2+2=4. How can you
> explain 2+2=4 to someone who rejects it? No matter what you say,
> objections can be manufactured.
>
> I see evolution-deniers in these camps:
>
> 1. Those who reject evolution because they don't know and understand
> the DNA evidence. I think the vast majority fall into this camp. I
> used to be in this camp.
>
> 2. Those who think they know the DNA evidence but don't really know.
> These are difficult to talk to because they act like they know what
> they are talking about.
>
> 3. Those who know the DNA evidence but seek to suppress the truth,
> because they have built a god out of their doctrine and would rather
> worship their false god than live in the truth.
>
> Behe is at least honest enough to recognize the evidence and say the
> logical thing- he has no disagreement with human evolution from
> apelike animals (which is macroevolution).
>
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 9 12:03:27 2009