RE: [asa] RE: Analogies for pseudogenes... a tipping point for the ASA? ([asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE)

Murray said:
"Bottom line, actually, is this is all about YOUR assumptions about what God would, or wouldn't do."

You have to start with a hypothesis. Starting with a 'de novo' hypothesis you would not predict left over garbage from ancestors in the genome. You can them modify the hypothesis given this data, as you do, that God could have inserted pseudogenes for fodder for future microevolution. I don't think that makes sense when realizing the QUANTITY of THOUSANDS of pseudogenes in a genome. Also- why would God insert fodder that appeared to come from descent when it really didn't? That makes God a deceiver... not the Christian God of the leading evangelical apologists.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:43 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Analogies for pseudogenes... a tipping point for the ASA? ([asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE)

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> " Sorry to report, but your microcode analogy isn't quite on the money. Remember we're not talking about God A copying the work of God B - but rather the one God engaging in two creative acts."
>
> The illustration is to prove the point of copying, versus 'de novo' creation. It holds if the copying is done internally at the same company or by a competitor. The point: if someone claims something is copied vs. made 'de novo,' we can detect that (like ID claims... oops, ID now proves evolution, common descent!).
>
> " So a better analogy would be Code A from company A, vs Code B from company A - in which instance we'd probably expect shared code when the two programs are seeking to do the same thing."
>
> You'd expect shared code from the same company, but not shared bugs, unless the workers are incompetent. God is supposed to be perfect. So if He created 'de novo' with bugs, he wasn't too bright... not the God which is posited by Christian apologists.

>
> " Presumably, as regards the rest, a person who wanted to refuse an evolutionary interpretation of the DNA data might posit that (1) we don't know that the "junk" DNA is, in fact, junk, and (2) the "corruptions" in the code are the result of the fall."
>
> For 1, it is obvious that a. the gene works in ancestors b. we have a messed-up copy that no longer does that function which was done in the ancestor.
>
> For 2, the fall doesn't explain why pseudogenes are messed-up for both apes and man, but not lower lifeforms. Did the apes fall with man, but not the mice?
>
> "Indeed, your "fodder for future evolution" remark could well play into the hands of objectors: perhaps the reason God put this material in the genome was precisely to allow for future contingencies?"
>
> Bottom line, if 'de novo' creation were true, there's no reason to have left over junk in there unless you want to create an illusion of descent. And Christians don't like that because they don't think God is a liar.
>
> ...Bernie

Bottom line, actually, is this is all about YOUR assumptions about what God would, or wouldn't do.

Until you realize that others don't share your assumptions, you'll continue to talk past anybody who tries to engage with you - as you've done above.

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 18 12:51:32 2009