Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[bhsmte]

Hmm.... Not sure that I can falsify God. Can't prove him either to your satisfaction. But as a theory goes common design is just as good as evolution. I choose common design.

Intelligent design is a scientific theory?

Thats news. When dr. Behe the star witness was cross examined on the stand in the dover trial, not only did he have to admit design as not a scientific theory, but he admitted if design was considered science, than astrology would be considered science as well.

 

[sfs]

Those things show common design. They are not evidence of evolution.

Sorry, but they are indeed evidence for common descent. These are retroviral insertion points that are shared between species. A retrovirus insertion is an actual event that happens in the history of a species, and finding even one shared insertion would be evidence for common descent. Finding hundreds of thousands of shared insertions, with the sharing occurring between species expected from their evolutionary tree, is overwhelming evidence for common descent.

What's particularly nice is that you can measure how long a particular family of ERVs has been present in the genome, by looking at the accumulated mutations in the different instances; more mutations means the ERVs have been there longer. When you do that, you find that the older the ERV family, the greater the range of species that share insertion points for it.

 

[sfs]

Hmm.... Not sure that I can falsify God. Can't prove him either to your satisfaction. But as a theory goes common design is just as good as evolution. I choose common design.

Unfortunately, common design is just about worthless as a theory. Common design tells you nothing about which species will share a way of carrying out a function and which ones won't. It won't tell you anything exactly what genetic differences will look like between species. It really doesn't make any predictions at all.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Those things show common design. They are not evidence of evolution.

What evidence do you have for this claim? What test can you show that would demonstrate design and what is your falsifiable test? What should we expect to see if things weren't designed? If you cannot demonstrate this, then your claim is wrong.

 

[ScottA]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

So...you don't believe in the authoritative word of God. Terrific.

 

[USincognito]

There aren't enough steps for that transition!!

How do you know? Your argument appears to be based on emotion, not facts.

 

[USincognito]

Hmm.... Not sure that I can falsify God. Can't prove him either to your satisfaction. But as a theory goes common design is just as good as evolution. I choose common design.

Common design is not scientific because it is an ad hoc proposition and unfalsifiable.

 

[USincognito]

Intelligent design is a scientific theory?

Thats news. When dr. Behe the star witness was cross examined on the stand in the dover trial, not only did he have to admit design as not a scientific theory, but he admitted if design was considered science, than astrology would be considered science as well.

Point of pedantry - they referenced common design, not intelligent design.

 

[USincognito]

Those things show common design. They are not evidence of evolution.

Unless you can explain to use why the designer:
- placed 203,000 ERVs in the same location in the human and chimpanzee genome
- made the human chromosome 2 to look exactly like a fusion of chimpanzee chromosome 2a and 2b
- placed fossils in the geological column so as to exactly replicate what we'd expect to find from evolution
- placed a broken GULO gene in all primates that is broken the exact same way
- placed egg yolk genes in mammals
- placed a broken gene package for hind leg development in whales
- etc.
your assertion is nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

 

[mmksparbud]

How do you know? Your argument appears to be based on emotion, not facts.

Sorry---I do not have the right, scientific words to state this---nor the knowledge of this theory of evolution that you do to debate it--I read it, but see no logic in it. I believe in my God and that He created us in His image--and a gorilla ain't it. And you can draw all the little pictures you want showing all the little steps it takes to transform a tiny nothing into a gorilla and then into a human that looks like that till the cows come come---It doesn't add up, it makes no sense, I reject it and I'll stay in my so called ignorance, thank you. The gorilla is a magnificent animal--beautiful in his own way---but he's not in my family tree.

 

[rjs330]

Sorry, but they are indeed evidence for common descent. These are retroviral insertion points that are shared between species. A retrovirus insertion is an actual event that happens in the history of a species, and finding even one shared insertion would be evidence for common descent. Finding hundreds of thousands of shared insertions, with the sharing occurring between species expected from their evolutionary tree, is overwhelming evidence for common descent.

What's particularly nice is that you can measure how long a particular family of ERVs has been present in the genome, by looking at the accumulated mutations in the different instances; more mutations means the ERVs have been there longer. When you do that, you find that the older the ERV family, the greater the range of species that share insertion points for it.

Hmmm sounds like common design to me. God made a lot of similarities between creatures. Makes sense there would be some commonalities just like the retrovirus issue.

 

[rjs330]

What evidence do you have for this claim? What test can you show that would demonstrate design and what is your falsifiable test? What should we expect to see if things weren't designed? If you cannot demonstrate this, then your claim is wrong.

Same test you use for evolution. Common design fits the test.

 

[rjs330]

Common design is not scientific because it is an ad hoc proposition and unfalsifiable.

I don't care if it's "scientifically accepted" or not. It just as good a proposition as evolution since evolution hasn't been observed and can't be tested either. Unless of course you know someone who was around when that thing that turned into everything else evolved.

 

[loveofourlord]

So...you don't believe in the authoritative word of God. Terrific.

where did I say that? And congrats on breaking site rules, I just accept the fact of evolution, I refuse to ignore what reality says just to keep some undefensible concept of the bible.

 

[USincognito]

I don't care if it's "scientifically accepted" or not.

Of course you don't.

It just as good a proposition as evolution since evolution hasn't been observed and can't be tested either. Unless of course you know someone who was around when that thing that turned into everything else evolved.

I'm sorry, but whenever I see stuff like this I immediately know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Most Creationists have a straw man version of scientific observation in that they want to limit it to real time and in the lab. That simply isn't true. Geology is science. Astrophysics is science. Evolution is science.

As far as "that thing" you clearly don't comprehend that it was around and left information for us in the form of DNA and fossils.

 

[USincognito]

Same test you use for evolution. Common design fits the test.

Please provide us with an example of a prediction made my "common design" and a potential falsification.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry---I do not have the right, scientific words to state this---nor the knowledge of this theory of evolution that you do to debate it--I read it, but see no logic in it. I believe in my God and that He created us in His image--and a gorilla ain't it. And you can draw all the little pictures you want showing all the little steps it takes to transform a tiny nothing into a gorilla and then into a human that looks like that till the cows come come---It doesn't add up, it makes no sense, I reject it and I'll stay in my so called ignorance, thank you. The gorilla is a magnificent animal--beautiful in his own way---but he's not in my family tree.

The problem is the evidence for evolution is not "little pictures". It is a sweeping, overarching body of evidence from numerous lines such as fossils, genetics, homology, anatomical and molecular vestiges, atavisms, biogeography, etc.

If you're not interested in learning about, and being able to address that evidence, then you'll understand if we don't take your argument from incredulity and personal revulsion seriously.

 

[sfs]

Same test you use for evolution. Common design fits the test.

Okay, try taking the test. There are millions of genetics differences between humans and chimpanzees. What does common design predict should be the transition to transversion ratio for single-base differences? What fraction will be at CpG sites?

 

[ScottA]

where did I say that? And congrats on breaking site rules, I just accept the fact of evolution, I refuse to ignore what reality says just to keep some undefensible concept of the bible.

If you cannot defend the Bible, does not mean it is not defensible. In fact, it is defensible, and it even explains that each creature [did not evolve] but was created "in kind."

And, summarizing your claim and referring to yourself...is not me breaking the rules...it's you.

 

[loveofourlord]

same designer, same design is pretty silly argument, thats like saying because ford makes both a truck and a car and they are esentially the same thing, they use all the parts for a truck to make a car even if they just get welded onto the body as they have no use. Or instead of using a new muffler, they pound the truck muffler to fit in a car, or use the same amount of piping even though half the amount is needed.

Oh and the radio has a list of all stations in the world and has to sort through them just to reach the one you want.

This is what we see in humans and nature, nerves that are 10*'s longer then they need too because it's built that way in a fish even though it's stupid in a giraffe.

dolphins have genes for scents even though they don't use them to smell in water, same in humans 4% of our DNA is devoted to scents, most we don't use.

we have ERV's, we have chromosonal fusions like human chromosone 2, and many many many more simular things.

these don't make sense in same designer same design, because we wouldn't design things and don't.