Genetic evidence for "macroevolution"...

by ThiChi 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ThiChi

  Greetings List Members:

  I received a reply from Michael A. Cremo, author of “Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race” (see http://www.mcremo.com/index.htm ) regarding the Topic “Genetic evidence for "macroevolution"?
  See

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=21092&site=3

  I am posting the reply sent to me. Any questions, flames or cuss words should be directed to Dr. Cremo. The reason for this post is to give another viewpoint on this issue.

  "
  Dear xxxx,

  The article you sent said:

  >The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis,
  showed
  in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple
  mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master
  switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development.
  Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine
  shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene UbxÿÿÇÇööwhich
  suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of
  fruit flies, but only 15 percent in ArtemiaÿÿÇÇööwould have allowed the
  crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose
  their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged
  insects.<

  Without reading the article I cannot really say what is going on. I am
  traveling at a fast pace on a lecture tour in India and it is difficult
  for me to get on the web right now. One would have to ask the following
  questions. 1. How did these "regulatory genes" come into existence. 2. What
  is the exact mechanism by which this particular operation takes place, on
  the biomolecular level. 3. what are these ancestors to the brine shrimp? 4.
  how likely is it that the proposed modifications of the Hox gene could have
  occurred in nature? One would like to know how many modifications there
  were. How many individuals would these have occurred in? What is the
  likelihood that these modifications would have spread throughout a
  population.

  To me, the existence of a set of switches that allows small changes in one
  part of the system to produce significant changes in the whole system seems
  to require some explanation. It seems like something that is designed into
  the system. One would have to explain just how this system works, and how
  it could have arisen by normal genetic evolutionary processes, as opposed
  to design.

  Anyways, this sounds like typical Darwinist propaganda that when closelyexamined will leave them further from a Darwinian explanation than when they started. But without seeing the whole paper, I can't say too much more.

  Sincerely yours,
  Michael A. Cremo

  9701 Venice Blvd. #5
  Los Angeles, CA 90034 USA
  310-837-5283, fax 310-837-1056
  www.mcremo.com
  [email protected]
• 

  gravedancer

  Thi Chi,

  I think there is a problem. You post something and then say we should not respond to it - because it was penned by someone else. So why post it? It seems like a cop-out to me. So you are not even open to discussing the ideas and concepts? Do you agree with them? do you understand them completely?

  Did you get permission from the author of the email prior to posting his email and all his personal contact info?
• 

  Satanus

  Thichi

  Thanks for taking the effort to email cremo, and posting his response. I enjoyed his first book. He subscribes to the hindu cosmology. Supporting it was the reason for his book.

  SS
• 

  ThiChi

  GraveMan:

  You proceed from a false assumption. I love a good debate. However, I can’t answer or speak for the author of this e-mail. However, blast away....let your thoughts fly.......

  ""we should not respond to it ""

  I never said this........
• 

  ThiChi

  SS: I am reading it now.....
• 

  gravedancer

  Well as McGinnis explains:

  "The creationists' argument rests in part on the fact that animals have two sets of chromosomes and that in order to get big changes, you'd need to mutate the same genes in both sets of chromosomes"

  "It's incredibly unlikely that you would get mutations in the same gene in two chromosomes in a single organism. But in our particular case, the kind of mutation that's in this gene is a so-called dominant mutation, so you only need to mutate one of the chromosomes to get a big change in body plan."

  "If you compare this gene to many other related genes, you can see that they share certain regions in their sequences, which suggests that their function might be regulated like this gene," says Ronshaugen.

  "This may establish how, not only this gene, but relatives of this gene in many, many different organisms actually work. A lot of these genes are involved in the development of cancers and many different genetic abnormalities, such as syndactyly and polydactyly, and they may explain how some of these conditions came to be."

  So I quoted the scientists involved in the study. Please do not argue with me over what they said ;-) (just joking)

  Since much of the studies are occurring in the name of evolution are producing the latest genomic based medication perhaps the creationists might develop a conscience that prohibits them from taking the drugs. We were taught for years on thing such as XMAS to look a the origins and if the origins of things were "unscriptural" we should refrain. Asking for consistency is just too much??
• 

  ThiChi

  The questions Cremo asks deserve some thought.........