afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
| Quote | | So Dave, since 36% of similarity between the broken GLO genes in guinea pigs and human are very low and support our view, what is your interpretation? |
My view is that Dr. Max made an unwarranted assertion by saying that "GLO mistakes" were copied from the common ancestor of apes and humans. I think the GLO situation we have in humans and apes today could just as easily support Common Design Theory.
Of course, it is fine for him to have that interpretation if he chooses. I just think we know too little to be dogmatic as he seems to be.
Renier said that basically this was a closed case for him and was the very issue that made him abandon the YEC position.
*********************
Separate issue: the guinea pig thing
This is interesting, but I'm not saying anything dogmatic about it. I really don't understand enough about it and I would value Jeannot's analysis of the AIG article. Jeannot, do you also have the Inai article that AIG quotes?
It appears that they are saying that humans would be more closely related to guinea pigs (because humans also have broken GLO) than to pro-simians (functional GLO) if we followed evolutionary logic, but this is obviously absurd, because they are not related. Again, I don't know if I agree with this or not.
I think they are also pointing out that evolutionists agree that guinea pig GLO broke independently from the simian line, so why shouldn't we expect ape GLO to break independently from human GLO?
We should. At the very least, we cannot dogmatically say that the GLO gene definitely broke in the common ancestor, then was copied to apes and humans.
Do you agree?
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
