Re: Gen 1-11 as history/gene sequences

Pattle Pun (
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:50:47 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 wrote:

> Pattle,
> Thank you for your contribution. There are two hearty Amen's I have and
> one area of, well, less than an Amen.
> At 09:14 AM 08/17/1999 -0500, Pattle Pun wrote:
> it seems unwarranted to assume the creation account to be
> >allegorical while the rest of these narratives are historical.
> This has always seemed odd to me and to many YECs. So an Amen here.
> > The distinction of man and beasts is that man was created
> >in the image of God and other creatures were not. Therefore, in Genesis
> >2:7, man becomes a living being for the first time, just as other
> >creatures, This would seem to rule out the interpretation that man is
> >genetically derived from some previously existing living forms.(38)
> But the scientific data is so overwhelmingly in favor of this connection
> that it is hard to take such a theology seriously anymore. If I sent you
> and four other people to separate cities with instructions to copy by hand
> the Encyclopedia Brittanica. If when you all came back I found the same
> paragraph from the 3rd volume, page 345 paragraph 4 inserted between
> paragraphs 6 and 7 of page 894 volume 16, and this was not in the original,
> I would say that you all copied from each other and didn't independently
> copy the Encyclopedia.
> What is the point of this? The same thing happens with pseudogenes.
> Pseudogenes are mistakes, partial genes that don't have a function which
> are found inserted at the same site on the same chromosome of Gibbon,
> Chimp, Gorilla and Man. The odds of a useless bit of flotsam DNA being
> found at the same site without common descent, is astounding. And lest we
> say that God did it by copying, remember this, designers don't design
> broken things. There is not a broken transmission in addition to a working
> one on your car.
> See . Edward Max, "Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another
> Argument in the Evolution-Creation Controversy," Creation /Evolution, 6:3,
> Winter, 1986/1987, p. 34-46
We do not know what the original "patterns" of genes by which the
intelligent designer has laid down. What we observe today are the "pruned"
or "mutated" versions. Comparison of genome or proteome sequences sheds
light on the patterns. So far the patterns seem to be grouped into the 3
domains of Archea, Bacteria and Eukarya. (Microbiol. & Mol. Biol. Rev.
Vol. 61, p. 456-502, Dec. 1997) Although most evolutionists still believe
that they came from the same universal ancestor by early divergence
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol 95, p. 6854-6859, June, 1998), I
have repeated some of the same sequence comparisons and found the grouping
among the three domains to be arbitrary. It seems to leave the impression
that the most natural grouping are 3 distinct origins. I hope to present
these data soon.