RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Wed Jun 24 2009 - 19:45:26 EDT

Don said:
"If there's no evidence that later organisms differed from earlier ones, there's no reason to think evolution. By definition. Fossils in their historical context provide exactly this evidence that later organisms differed from earlier ones, so fossils offer reasons for proposing evolution. DNA evidence, on the other hand, is without its own historical context and therefore by itself provides no such motive: DNA cannot provide evidence that earlier organisms differed from later ones, because DNA exists only for existing organisms irrespective of where they fit on any time scale. DNA by itself does not contain a time scale and does not imply "earlier" or "later" for any organism. "

I disagree, and I think this is a very important point.

Specifically, your comment:
"DNA cannot provide evidence that earlier organisms differed from later ones, because DNA exists only for existing organisms irrespective of where they fit on any time scale. DNA by itself does not contain a time scale and does not imply "earlier" or "later" for any organism."

It is not true that DNA exists only for existing organisms. There is lots of DNA that is carried-over from previous organisms and they have no use in our genome. In this way they are "biological fossils." I think the DNA is much more better evidence for evolution, and fossils aren't even needed. As technology and knowledge of DNA increases, I think the 'tree of life' can be constructed without even consulting fossils, and in fact will be different and more accurate than any tree deduced from fossils.

The "DNA timeline" is also deduced like this:

Genome 'red' has gene A and B.
Genome 'blue' has gene B, C, D, and parts of A (non-functioning)
Genome 'yellow' has genes A, B, and C.

Therefore, organism 'yellow' is obviously descended from 'red' and is the ancestor of 'blue.'

All of this is determined without knowing anything at all about fossils or the age of the earth.

...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:04 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

Bernie wrote: "...The genomic data...is demonstrating that evolution actually happened....It doesn't matter what fossils you have or how old the earth is to see the DNA changes between organisms.

If there's no evidence that later organisms differed from earlier ones, there's no reason to think evolution. By definition. Fossils in their historical context provide exactly this evidence that later organisms differed from earlier ones, so fossils offer reasons for proposing evolution. DNA evidence, on the other hand, is without its own historical context and therefore by itself provides no such motive: DNA cannot provide evidence that earlier organisms differed from later ones, because DNA exists only for existing organisms irrespective of where they fit on any time scale. DNA by itself does not contain a time scale and does not imply "earlier" or "later" for any organism.

Bottom line: Studies of DNA can show how genetic material of different organisms differs, but these findings by themselves say nothing about historical connections among organisms or even whether there are any such connections. Only when you inject historical context does it become worthwhile to look for historical connections; said historical context comes not from DNA but from Earth and fossil studies.

Bernie: "DNA al by itself can demonstrate that biological evolution happened (esp. the change from ape to human, with fused chromosome #2), beyond a reasonable doubt."

Fused chromosome #2 is not direct but circumstantial evidence, and it's not evidence for evolution at all unless you have external reasons for believing chimp & human had a common ancestor. Once you have reasons to believe chimp & human had a common ancestor, then the fused chromosome provides nice support. DNA evidence by itself offers no reason for believing chimp & human had a common ancestor. God could just have made it all that way; how unsearchable his ways....

IMO you're interpreting DNA info inside a preexisting evolutionary framework, so meanings you attach to DNA info actually derive not from DNA studies but from Earth history.

Don

----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:43 AM
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 don't agree and/or don't understand. The DNA evidence can have nothing to do at all with fossils or an old earth. I'm saying the genomic data- comparing DNA across all plant/animal lifeforms, is demonstrating that evolution actually happened. There's lots of left-over junk in the DNA (pseudogenes for one) that show things were carried over and adapted. It doesn't matter what fossils you have or how old the earth is to see the DNA changes between organisms. Evolution (DNA evidence) perfectly explains why humans and chips have a retarded/unworking copy of the enzyme for ascorbic acid.

Yes- scientists can also get more out of DNA, such as estimating time when changes happened, but that is different than just seeing that evolution happened by comparing genomes, esp. that of chimp and human.

Don said:
"evidence from DNA is dependent on other kinds of evidence for its persuasiveness and hence is of secondary importance in establishing that macroevolution actually happened."

Completely disagree. DNA al by itself can demonstrate that biological evolution happened (esp. the change from ape to human, with fused chromosome #2), beyond a reasonable doubt.

.Bernie
________________________________
From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:08 AM
To: asa; Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

Bernie says, "The DNA evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In the same exact way, any court of law could say evolution happened beyond a reasonable doubt, because of the DNA evidence....I see no valid scientific way to explain away the DNA evidence...."

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.

(Obviously I enjoy pointing this out N+1 times!)

In other words, evidence from DNA is dependent on other kinds of evidence for its persuasiveness and hence is of secondary importance in establishing that macroevolution actually happened.

Don

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 19:46:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 24 2009 - 19:46:37 EDT