Steven Meyer, Dr Dawkins, Scott discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast


Scott clues. Indoor for i think is the top. Pro-life apologised in the country. He will teach you how to make the case for the unborn and deal with just about every kind of objection. You might get to that and as you know nationally. This is coming to a debate. Here with the texas abortion law and many other laws that are coming down the road to the supreme court including a law from from the state of mississippi. So you're gonna wanna be schooled on this matter. Don't miss out on the premium version. Where you are going to be with scott live on several zoom meetings to ask questions of scott and your fellow classmates. Just go to cross examine dot org click on online courses and you will see that course there let me go back to my friend. Steven meyer steve. Just before the break you were about three reasons to doubt what dr dawkins said was true. Just summarize those three reasons again. And then i'm going to ask you to steal and the best argument for macro evolution. Go ahead well. Yeah he wants to say that the sequence similarity between same genes in different organisms provides the basis for reconstructing history of life. And that when you do that. Reconstruction what is inevitably produced is a beautiful branching tree pattern suggesting that the trunk of the tree is the source of all life so everything has morphed and changed from one simple one celled organism and developed into all the forms of life we see today in a continuous way. That's the theory of universal common descent and Summarized in the in the though somewhat long answer before the break was that there are three reasons to doubt that first of all the the algorithms that analyze those data are program to produce trees irrespective of what data are put into them so the tree is in and out. It isn't inevitable consequence but not of of the evidence itself but rather of the way in which the evidence is being analyzed. And what they're trying to prove well they absolutely secondly When you do those same analyses on different molecules if you analyze say protein hemoglobin. Or you get one tree if you look at the sequence similarities in the protein side chrome c. or some other protein. You very often get other trees and so you've got these conflicting trees based on which proteins you choose and that and all the trees can't be they can't all be bright because there's only one history of life and the conflicting trees is actually a mark of design systems. Which we we could explain in more detail and you get the same type of conflict between When when you do an analysis of anatomical characters as opposed to two protein molecules those conflicts between molecules conflicts between ma when you compare molecules in anatomical characters and you even get conflicts when you compare different anatomical characters and i document all of this in the sixth chapter of my book darwin's doubt and i'd recommend the people who really want to dive into a Do a deeper dive there as to your second question. I'll take it out of your mouth. Because i know what you're gonna ask. What's the strongest argument for for Universal common ancestry sometimes also called macro evolution. It is in fact this argument. We've been talking about. It is the strongest argument for large-scale macro evolutionary. Change and a universal tree of life is not from the fossil record. The fossil record shows profound discontinuities especially at the level of what are called the higher. Taxonomic categories the big divisions of life at filo class and order show dramatic and abrupt. They showed dramatic discontinuity the abrupt appearance of major groups of animals and plants without discernible ancestors in the lower strata beneath their first appearance so the fossil record has is not actually providing strong evidence. What modern new darwinist repair to is precisely the argument. The docklands just made that. Well we can't see the connections in the fossil record but we see it in these These gra- this gradual morphing. And and we we see it in these close similarity between different Between the same jeans in different organisms and we can see the gradual morphing in the in the in the gene sequences. But in fact we do not see that we. We actually see now. Very dramatic evidence of discontinuity in genomics as we're discovering what are called orphan genes genes that lacks sequence similarity to into other genes in other presumably related organisms so the picture is not nearly as clear as doctrines and colleagues make out and instead i think we see profound evidence of discontinuity both in the fossil record and in genome analyses friends. We've talked about this concept before. In fact i talk about it in our book stealing from god. That science doesn't say anything scientists do because all data needs to be gathered data needs to be interpreted. And yes you could interpret the data in a macaluso. Mary way steve has been saying the problem is if you do that. You're going to run into other problems that don't add up to this universal tree of common. Ancestry steve you have also addressed the question and let me ask you this question. Because i've heard this as another reason to maybe suggest mak revolution is and that is the idea that there are broken genes in the same spot in different animals and we would have to say that their ancestor ancestrally related. Otherwise are we going to say that an intelligent designer put those broken genes in the same spot in species that were related. How would you respond to that. Maybe maybe i'm giving you the wrong characterization of the you've described it really accurately and it would be a good argument if it were known to be true. Okay but many of the genes that were allegedly pseudo genes that this idea of a broken genes that are no longer functional and darkens alluded to that in his answer in his in his clip. But it turns out that Many of the claims about non functionality associated with these quote unquote pseudo genes are now obsolete that the the these genes like many other sections of the genome which were dubbed junk turned out to be importantly functional and so it would be very surprising to find broken genes that exhibited the kind of sequence similarity that indicated common ancestry. Because in that case you couldn't argue that the sequence similarity was the product of a of a common designer. Why would the designer make two similar things that were not functional that it would be a good argument. If the factual predicate were solid but it's increasingly looking not to be solid and that that sudha genes that have been cited as examples of this kind of Non genes that have been cited as examples of pseudo genes are turning out to be functional just as much or perhaps the overwhelming preponderance of the the the so called junk. Dna has done so it was. It was an argument that seemed to have force. About the time francis collins used it in his book The language language. To ask you that because my question was the question was going to be. Steve francis collins not know this when he wrote language. God that that these that these so-called broken genes or junk dna wasn't really junked was areas of the genome. That did something. I don't know about the timing of that. But collins us had his name on papers that have come out since then establishing the functionality of of of of of junk dna okay so he should now know he should know now. This.

Coming up next