RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Wed Jun 24 2009 - 18:37:34 EDT

I agree with Dawkins. In fact, the DNA can be called "biological fossils" because they also contain traces of the past. That was my point. The pseudogenes (for one example, there are many more) are "fossils" (remnants) from pre-existing organisms.

...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:55 PM
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

Don said:

"As I've pointed out N times already on this list, any "evidence for evolution" from DNA would be mere curiosity if (1) there were no fossil evidence of systematic changes in life forms with time and (2) there were no evidence that Earth is old."
I'm just reading Richard Dawkins "The Ancestor's Tale". In the General Prolog (page 13 my paperback edition) he claims that even without all of the fossil evidence that evolution would still be demonstrated at least for sane people.

"If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary and that all living species are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus to be sure but not an essential one."

As a descendant of Scots, I would say "Maybe, but I'ha me doubts".

Dave W
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 Jun 24 18:38:34 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 24 2009 - 18:38:34 EDT