Re: What goes around comes around

From: Cornelius Hunter <>
Date: Mon Oct 10 2005 - 13:42:00 EDT

<Sorry about that previous empty post>


>> "There is no compelling empirical or theoretical reason to expect
>> SINEs to
>> commonly insert at the exact same locus or be transferred or removed
>> from
>> the genome in any way that is ambiguous by standard methods of
>> experimental
>> detection."
>> This statement has, imbedded in it, the assumption that evolution is
>> true.

> No, it does not.

Sometimes circular arguments are the most deceptive. We observe an abundance
of SINEs at homologous loci. This is clear and obvious empirical evidence
that SINEs commonly insert at homologous loci. Furthermore, in some cases,
common descent doesn't work as the explanation since those SINEs are in more
distant species, so even evolutionists agree that common insertion is a
likely explanation. So it is not as though the conclusion is otherwise

However, in normal science (in which the paper is operating) they assume
evolution is true. In this case, yes, there is no compelling empirical
evidence. It would really be stretching things to say that a pair of species
shares a relatively recent common ancestor, yet their shared SINEs probably
are independent. The statement makes perfect sense within the paradigm, but
not outside the paradigm.

Here is what's important. The bottom line is that the paper that Preston
cited takes this conclusion its starting point:

"Repetitive elements, particularly SINEs (short interspersed elements) and
LINEs (long interspersed elements), provide excellent markers for
phylogenetic analysis: their mode of evolution is predominantly
homoplasy-free, since they do not typically insert in the same locus of two
unrelated lineages ... (Shedlock and Okada

This premise relies on the assumption that evolution is true. Lift this
assumption, and the question of whether the pattern of repetitive elements
is mostly due to common descent or common process is much less certain.
Common process is the more parsimonious explanation since it is required in
some cases.

> The claim that ID or YEC is necessary to good religion occurs either
> explicitly or implicitly in many popular accounts of both. These
> clash with the doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus alone.

Is "good religion" the same as "salvation"?


> Dr. David Campbell
Received on Mon Oct 10 13:49:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 10 2005 - 13:49:03 EDT