Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)

From: dfsiemensjr <>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 14:54:34 EDT

There is a notable difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt," under
which some guilty have been released and some innocent have been
convicted; the lower requirements of noncriminal cases; and strict proof.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:57:29 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<> writes:
I think it is irrelevant if there is another use for the retarded genes
in humans (supposedly thereís 1,000ís of them). The question is, why do
we have it now, and where did it come from? If the gene is fully
functioning in lower life-forms, and our copy is hacked-up, then
obviously the bad version came from the good one.
If organisms 1 has genes a,b,c,d
Organisms 2 has genes b,c,d,e,f,g,h,I (gene a present but hacked)
Organism 3 has c,d,e,f,g,h,I,j,k,l (and retarded copies of a,b)
Then obviously you can see the decent. If the retarded copy in organism
3 has other uses, it is irrelevant. Where it came from and itís purpose
is obvious.
If someone canít see this proof, then they would never, ever, convict
someone (a murderer) in court based on DNA evidence for the same reasons.

From: dfsiemensjr []
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:06 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)
Can you prove \that the only purpose for the gene that is part of the
ascorbic acid synthesis in most mammals is the production of ascorbic
acid? Note my communication is PSCF, 58:239 (Sept. 2006). A different
purpose was found for a "defective" gene. I'll grant that pseudogenes are
evidence in a broader theory, but they are not proof. Remember that the
/cogito/ gives me direct proof that I exist, but I cannot prove that
there are other similar entities around. Everybody who is attempting to
communicate holds to the existence of their fellows, to be sure, but it
is an assumption. It is also recognized that talk of scientific proof is
going too far, and this is what Don is talking about.
Dave (ASA)
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:01:38 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<> writes:
Don said:
ďAs to whether segments of DNA "have no use," it's far too early in the
process of DNA analysis to jump to such conclusion, partly because it's
strictly impossible to prove that a thing has no use. ď
If you look at the gene for the enzyme of asorbic acid in a lower
life-form, you can see it has a definite use. When you see a retarded
copy in the human genome, the implication is obvious. First, the gene
has a function in lower life-forms. Second, the function doesnít work as
intended for us (since it is retarded, truncated, or otherwise
destroyed), so we need an external source of Vitamin C. People can
refuse to see the obvious implications if they want, but I donít think
they should be tolerated because it is illogical and just plain ignorant
to ignore the plain consequences.
Asorbic acid is supposedly one of 1,000ís of pseudogenes in the human
genome. Thatís why the DNA evidence is overwhelming for evolution.
It is like seeing footprints leading to the cookie jar. If the footprint
matches my kidís foot, I donít care what excuse they have- they did it.
Some parents will refuse to see the evidence because they want to believe
junior is a little angel. People can be very creative in brushing-off
the obvious implications of the data.

Click now to find a divorce attorney near you!
Become a Top Chef! Click here for Culinar School information.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 26 14:57:04 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 14:57:04 EDT