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

RE:
" What you are doing is offering strong evidence that creation was not
"de nova." Since strong evidence of this has been on the table for
over 100 years, it is an interesting confirmation that evolution
happened."

In my opinion, prior to the DNA evidence of pseudogenes and fused human chromosome 2 (details in Francis Collins' book), the evidence was highly technical and easy to dispute. With this new DNA evidence since the genome has been mapped, and as the data grows with genomics (comparing across other genomes), the evidence is so much easier to understand and explain, and clearly demonstrates descent.

RE:
"But it has 0 to do with Christianity."

The impact to Christian theology is tremendous.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: John Burgeson (ASA member) [mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:59 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Analogies for pseudogenes... a tipping point for the ASA? ([asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE)

What you are doing is offering strong evidence that creation was not
"de nova." Since strong evidence of this has been on the table for
over 100 years, it is an interesting confirmation that evolution
happened. But it has 0 to do with Christianity.

On 11/18/09, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.