RE: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)

Ian said:
"And it seems (even from Wikipedia, not just creationist websites) that
pseudo-genes are increasingly being found to have some function, to do
with gene regulation."

I think finding some functions for pseudogenes is irrelevant. The point is that the gene is fully formed in lower animals, and retarded in other descended animals (truncated, etc.). The enzyme for asorbic acid (vitamin c) doesn't work for us and apes, but does for lower lifeforms- and I don't think that retarded gene has any other use. But even if it does something, it seems obvious the main function was to create vitamin C, and so we can't while lower lifeforms can. (This was explained rather well in RTB's book "Who was Adam"). We eat vitamin c, so we don't get scurvy.

Ian ssaid:
" Now you know I don't believe in creation by Poofing"

If you don't believe that humans were created by poofing, then you must accept evolution (humans created from apelike creatures- which is macroevolution). What other alternative is there? I don't get it- please explain.

You have to get it straight- are you defending 'poofing' or not?

I hope you're not like Cameron who argues both sides at the same time, IMO.

Ask Cameron if he accepts DNA evidence for human evolution from apelike creature, and you won't get a clear answer. If he says yes- he just accepted macroevolution. If he says no, he rejects the DNA evidence and he knows that it is wrong. So he argues both, in long-essay form.

Sorry- Cameron- just my impression of you... And I know you won't comment to me, so I can get away with it ;-)

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:37 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian-
>
> You said:
> "you're being self-contradictory here.  On one post you concede that the chromosome fusion is a micro-evolutionary step and in this one you claim that it conclusively demonstrates that macroevolution happened.  You can't
> have it both ways."
>
> Every evolutionary step is a microevolutionary step.  If a fusion happened at one point, that is a microevolutionary event.  Now when you say "prove macroevolution happened" I would say that the fused chromosome (and thousands of pseudogenes too) are obvious evidence of macroevolution from apelike creature to human.  These two DNA things show the path through lifeforms, disproving the idea that man was biologically made unique by 'poofing' things into existence. (The alternative hypothesis to evolution, common descent, is creation by poofing).

Now you were the one who said it "conclusively demonstrates macroevolution".

I agree it's strong evidence. And the pseudo-genes - I'll have to
think about that - it certainly adds to the evidence. Does it
conclusively prove macro from a number of instances of micro? And it
seems (even from Wikipedia, not just creationist websites) that
pseudo-genes are increasingly being found to have some function, to do
with gene regulation. Now you know I don't believe in creation by
poofing, but I'm sure a creationist with more knowledge than me about
pseudogenes could construct an argument for it, based on the notion
that they have a function. What pseudogenes and chromosome fusion
show is evidence that is consistent with evolution, (evolution
predicts pseudogenes and fusions etc) but you can't necessarily turn
the arrow round the other way.

Let's take another example.

You know the equation F = m . d^2x/dt^2

It's Newton's second law of motion. It allows you to compute the
motion of an object of mass M through time. It's a simple
differential equation that is easily solved. It predicts that if you
start with a 1 Kg object at rest on a frictionless surface and apply a
force of 1 Newton to it for 1 second that it will move half a meter in
the time. Just as failure to find evidence of chromosome fusion would
completely sink common ancestry of us and apes, so if you conduct the
above experiment and find the object moves three metres, then you will
have effectively disproved Newton's second law.

But you carry out the experiment and the prediction of the equation is
verified. In fact you can vary the masses and always verify that the
equation is true to within the limits of your measurement devices.
There is in fact a massive amount of evidence that Newton's second law
is true - you can observe it in the motion of a pendulum, the
elliptical orbits of planets, the motion of billiard balls and so on.

Newton's second law also predicts that if you apply a steady force
that the velocity will increase without limit.

Since your experiment has so conclusively demonstrated the predictive
power of Newton's second law, you've also conclusively demonstrated
that if a constant force is applied that the velocity of the object
will increase without limit, right?
It seems Kirk, Spock and co didn't need warp drive - just a
sufficiently powerful thruster would have eventually done the trick.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 23 15:11:12 2009