Here's some more arguments in my correspondence and debate with that creationist (ID) professor I mentioned earlier. I'd be happy to hear any opinions about his statements:
Quote:
|
I guess I would like to know what mechanism(s) evolutionists provide that explains the tremendous information required for one simple, reproducing life form IF it wasn't by chance? In fact, isn't the core belief of evolution based on chance (a statistical notation as far as I understand it) occurrence of mutations (spiced-up with punctuated dis-equilibrium)? But that aside, you can't get mutations if there is no information (DNA/RNA) to mutate.
|
(when I refered to the chimp telomere in the human chromosome as evidence of a translocation (common ancestry) he said: ---->
Quote:
|
Same is true of the chimp/human chromosome. To me, evolution is an unlikely "agent" because there is no known mechanism or direction that would lead to this similarity. To me a single "designer' or " cause" is far more rational. I must say that over 30 years in science, it has struck me as unusual that every time "similarities' in organisms are found .... anatomic, physiological, etc. that the conclusion is that evolution did it. How can a mechanism that has no real direction other than "survival" account for that? Or can you tell me what is the ultimate "direction" of evolution?
|
Quote:
|
Likewise for pseudogenes and retroviruses. If evolution was correct, why would there be a pattern? Why wouldn't translocation, retroviral insertions, be random?
|
I'm lost how he thinks this
isn't evidence for common ancestry. Non-functional genes and retro-virus patterns in chromosomes do not indicate "design."
Quote:
|
I would ENCOURAGE you to take the currently accepted scientific scenario and chronology and put it beside the creation account in Genesis 1. I would be interested to know where you think the discrepancies lie. And why there is (at least to me) harmony between science and this record ( a record not duplicated in other so-called ancient texts or accounts of creation). Is it possible that Genesis 1 got it right by accident?
|
I'm extremely puzzled by this. I'd think you'd really have to twist the Genesis narrative with a lot of speculative metaphor and imagination to make it look anything like the earth's history and fossil record.
(referring to the
Nature Feb. 21 article by McGinnis regarding crustacean/fruit fly genes supporting macro-evolution (the same one Jonathan Well got caught trying to refute and didn't bother reading it)): --->
Quote:
There are several concerns I have with this (and that is not going into the biochemistry/molecular biology of the hox story itself).
First, I would encourage you to read the accompanying editorial/commentary. You will see what I refer to as the "agenda" that drives many of these publications. Second, the diagram of Drosophila and its evolutionary descendent (sorry if I use the wrong term here), is so contrived it disappoints me to see it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. This is Haeckel, peppered moths on tree trunks, feathers on dinosaur fossils all over again. If I drew a diagram like that and submitted it to Nature or Science, it wouldn't even make it to peer review.
|
Quote:
|
Last I checked, Heackels diagrams are still widely published in Science and Biology textbooks.
|
Seems we have a huge gap in opinions here. I've heard elsewhere (from criticisms of Wells) that very few if any textbooks still carry them as evidence for evolution. Who's right here? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>
02-23-2002, 05:10 PM
Creationist correspondence
