amariselle
Jesus Never Fails
- Sep 28, 2004
- 6,648
- 4,194
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
It isn't true.
Upvote
0
Why not?
All fossils are consistent with species sharing a common ancestor since all fossils fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. We also have extensive DNA evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
So you are just going to ignore all of that evidence?
The fossil record in fragmentary and incomplete.
And DNA confirms that each species has a unique genetic code that it passes along to its offspring as it reproduces.
I haven't ignored it, I read the information in the link you provided and I've read countless others like it as well.
My conclusions are much different than yours of course, which is why I said we can agree to disagree.
It doesn't need to be complete in order to evidence macroevolution.
Just as it should be if macroevolution is true.
The problem is it isn't complete enough to make such claims.
The fossil record does not definitively support macro evolution.
Except, this DNA code keeps each species distinctly within their own kind. DNA ensures that one species does not simply become another.
Then why don't you explain why congruent phylogenies for DNA and morphology are not evidence for macroevolution, as discussed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
Your conclusions are contradicted by the facts.
That is your perspective and opinion only, not absolute fact, as you claim.
Look, we can obviously argue back and forth about this continuously. We're not going to agree.
Which is why I said, and I will say again, agree to disagree.
It is a fact that there is a statistically significant correlation between the phylogenies based on morphology and DNA. It isn't an opinion. It is a fact that evolution produces this exact branching structure for both morphology and DNA.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to ignore these facts by calling them opinions.
If you can't tell us how the evidence does not support evolution, then your agreement or disagreement matters very little.
It matters little to you, and that's fine.
Why would an uninformed opinion matter in a discussion of what reality is really like?
Exactly.
So why do you think your disagreement matters?
The real arrogance here is someone claiming that hundreds of thousands of scientists are all wrong and have been wrong for 150 years, even though the person claiming they are wrong doesn't understand the basics of genetics, cladistics, or biology.
You have no idea what I understand and what I don't.
Oh, and by the way, people can be wrong.
You don't think I have any basis for saying thousands of scientists have been wrong for 150 years,
and yet you would undoubtedly turn right around and say that millions of Christians have been wrong for thousands of years.
So, if you want to make this a numbers game, mainstream science loses.
Then prove me wrong. Explain why the convergence of the independent phylogenies of morphology and DNA is not evidence for macroevolution. When somebody says "it's just opinion", it only demonstrates that they don't understand the evidence.
We could also look at the evidence from genetic equidistance, if you want. For example, if a human and mouse gene differs by 10% and the same human and chicken gene differs by 20%, what should the difference be between the mouse and chicken gene be? What predictions does creationism make about the difference between the mouse and chicken gene, and why?
Then show us that they are wrong.
You have yet to present anything that shows them to be wrong.
What evidence demonstrates that creationism is right? What pattern of similarities and differences does creationism predict we should see for both morphology and DNA, and why does it make that prediction?
The majority of christians across the globe already accept evolution.
I don't have to "prove" anything.
The mouse and the chicken are two very distinct animals. The percentage of gene "differentiation" has nothing to do with it, it's called common sense.
I don't have to,
One species simply does not/cannot become an entirely different species. It didn't and doesn't happen.
Hey, YOU wanted to turn this into a numbers game, not me. There have been far more Christians throughout history than Macro-evolutionists, and you wanted to argue from that position.
They accept micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. (And this includes me)
http://www.gotquestions.org/microevolution-macroevolution.html
"In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). 'The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.'"
"Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen."
"Could microevolution occur within a kind? I certainly think so. It is, in fact, essential that organisms adapt over the generations to their changing environments; otherwise, all life would be threatened with extinction. But the adaptations of various kinds (species, as scientists would identify them) occur as a result of the variable genetic expression made possible by the vast amount of genetic information already present within a population of any given kind. However, each kind received the totality of its genetic information at Creation, and the expression of any characteristics related to that kind is limited to the genetic information with which it began. Evolution insists that new information can be added to a species' genome (the total amount of an organism's genetic information), arising by chance, through random mutations, and producing new characteristics in certain individuals of a population. Then, as a result of these new characteristics, those individuals have higher survival statistics and the characteristics become part of the overall population over time."
"What should be noted is that there has never been any observation made of new genetic information being produced by random mutation, resulting in some new characteristic in an organism. The only observations ever made are that mutations result in the loss of genetic information. Sometimes the loss of information is beneficial to the organism in a particular environmental situation, but the benefits are never a result of new genetic information."
http://www.scriptureoncreation.org/science-question-answer/macro-vs-microevolution/
That is exactly what someone with a lack of knowledge in biology would say.
No, that is called denial. Common sense tells us that evolution should produce a specific pattern of similarities and differences between genomes. Common sense tells us that if evolution is true, then the difference between mouse and chicken gene should be 20% because mice and humans are genetically equidistant from chickens. And guess what? That is exactly the case. Of course, you would already know this if you understood genetics.
Here are the pairwise alignment scores for cycs (i.e. cytochrome c).
View attachment 177833
As you can see, the homology between the human gene and mouse (M. musculus) gene is 90.5% and the homology between the human and chicken (G. gallus) gene is 81.6% for the DNA sequence. So what does the mouse comparison look like?
View attachment 177834
Just as we should see with evolution, the homology between the mouse and chicken gene is 81.9%, as expected. You can check my numbers at Homologene if you want.
How is this not evidence for evolution?
Yes, you do. When you accuse people of being wrong you are expected to demonstrate they are wrong. That's how it works.
Where is the evidence to back your claim?
I never turned it into a numbers game. I clearly stated that it was a knowledge game.
Where does it say that they don't accept macroevolution? I would agree that macroevolution includes processes not included in microevolution, namely speciation.
It supports no such thing.
ICR? Seriously? That is not a scientific organization.
No science anywhere in that quote. All it contains is claims supported by zero evidence.
Ha ha...see what I mean? This is going nowhere. Now can we just agree to disagree?