>to know: how sure is science about the pseudogene not having a
>purpose?<<<
I must, with reservations, agree. Speaking of pseudogenes, I remember
reading somewhere (I can't remember the reference) that the pseudogene that
is common to both man and ape causes them not to be able to produce vitamin
C (a loss of DNA information, not an increase). Is that true?
Ye shall know the Truth, and trhe Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: evolution@calvin.edu; Steven Warren Blake <swblake@wsunix.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: i am new
> Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 10:14 PM
>
> At 04:48 PM 6/4/98 -0700, Steven Warren Blake wrote:
> >I am new to this topic of creation. I want to learn more, but it
> >seems terribly complicated. Can you point me in a direction to learn
> >the basics about some of the more common theories?
>
> If you want to know the young-earth creationist position then there is no
> better work then John Whitcomb and Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood.
>
> The Progressive creation Position you need to read people like Hugh Ross
>
> Theistic evolution, Howard van Till.
>
>
> >
> >I am not sure that I agree with your views but I am impressed with
> >the way they are thought out. The logic seems mostly solid. I am
curious
> >to know: how sure is science about the pseudogene not having a
> >purpose? It seems like things in the past which have no purpose
> >have been found to have a use afterall.
>
> It is impossible to prove a negative. Thus it is impossible to prove
that
> there is no function for the pseudogene. However, given that the
processed
> pseudogenes discussed by Edward Max are identical to working genes except
> that they are missing the instructions on how to use the information, I
> personally doubt there is a function for them. It is something like
trying
> to read a disk written by a TI 99-4a computer from the early 1980s. The
> 'instructions' on how to read such a thing (the disk drive) is missing
today.
>
> >
> >one more question about your logic from a webpage of yours:
> >" If you remember the
> >verse Genesis 3:19 God said, "for dust you are and to dust you shall
> >return." A dead body is "dust." Adam came from dust and to dust he now
> >will return.~
> >Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider
this.
> >If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the
> >living Adam 'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to
dust
> >you will return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being
> >and so the dust does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that
> >when Adam died he would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust). "
> >
> >You say that a dead body is dust. "Then why does God call the living
Adam
> >'dust'?" By your own logic this cannot mean that a dust is a dead body.
>
> I think God was pointing out to Adam (and now to us) that we are not
> separate from the creation no matter how much we think of ourselves. The
> material that Adam was made from was dust, the material that his body now
> is, is dust and he will return to dust (at his death). In the article on
> my web page I was emphasizing the fact that at death adam would return to
> dust, a cadaver, and equating it with his beginning (something no one had
> done before and many don't like). Only by doing what I suggested can I
> have a special creation of Adam AND explain the connection with the apes.
> The genetic and molecular data clearly shows we are related to the apes.
I
> either give up the special creation of man and go strictly with
evolution,
> or I do what I did.
>
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm