Common Design and Phylogenies

[AV1611VET]

Then what pattern of shared DNA would a REAL connection produce?

Given that there's no connection: none.

That's like asking what pattern of snow would show a connection between my snowape and snowman.

There is no connection.

Only a similarity in parts.

Adam was created within hours of apes being created.

Meaning an ape couldn't have been in his line of DNA.

As Solomon put it ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice how he refers to evolution as an "invention" -- not a "discovery"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fords and Dodges do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

That's right.

And neither do apes and man.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Given that there's no connection: none.

You're being asked to consider a hypothetical (based on your assumption that common descent is false). If evolution were true, what would common descent look like in the DNA of related organisms? How is your prediction different from what we actually observe?

 

[AV1611VET]

(based on your assumption that common descent is false)

And why, may I ask, would you say a thing like that?

Didn't I descend from my father?

And didn't I say Luke shows us descending all the way back to God, who created Adam?

 

[essentialsaltes]

And why, may I ask, would you say a thing like that?

Didn't I descend from my father?

And didn't I say Luke shows us descending all the way back to God, who created Adam?

You are being tiresome.

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.

You're being asked to consider a hypothetical (based on your assumption that common descent is false). If evolution were true, what would common descent look like in the DNA of related organisms? How is your prediction different from what we actually observe?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are being tiresome.

I'm being tiresome?

Look at this confusing-at-best definition of common descent you posted:

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.

Let's parse this joke, shall we?

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor.

For about the third time now, my most recent ancestor is my father.

And if I'm wrong about that, then maybe you guys need a more accurate term.

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.

Aside from the Bible strongly disagreeing with this, shouldn't it say:

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the first universal ancestor.

If not, I submit this philosophy needs a serious overhaul.

Let me play devil's advocate and make a suggestion:

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from its universal ancestor.

Or even more accurately:

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from its terrestrial ancestor.

Now maybe the common man can understand it better and realize it's lolable.

If evolution were true, what would common descent look like in the DNA of related organisms?

No different than how it looks now.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm being tiresome?

Look at this confusing-at-best definition of common descent you posted:

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.

Let's parse this joke, shall we?

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor.

For about the third time now, my most recent ancestor is my father.

And if I'm wrong about that, then maybe you guys need a more accurate term.

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.

Aside from the Bible strongly disagreeing with this, shouldn't it say:

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the first universal ancestor.

If not, I submit this philosophy needs a serious overhaul.

Let me play devil's advocate and make a suggestion:

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from its universal ancestor.

Or even more accurately:

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from its terrestrial ancestor.

Now maybe the common man can understand it better and realize it's lolable.No different than how it looks now.

Checkmate!

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm being tiresome?

Yes.

Let's parse this joke, shall we?

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor.

For about the third time now, my most recent ancestor is my father.

Are you a group of organisms?

No different than how it looks now.

Excellent, the theory of evolution made a successful prediction.

 

[Loudmouth]

But when nested heirarching is used to connect genera, it's gone too far.

Why?

Luke gives us our nested hierarchy ... all the way back to God, Adam's creator.

You still don't understand what a nested hierarchy is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Given that there's no connection: none.

That's like asking what pattern of snow would show a connection between my snowape and snowman.

There is no connection.

Only a similarity in parts.

Adam was created within hours of apes being created.

Meaning an ape couldn't have been in his line of DNA.

As Solomon put it ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice how he refers to evolution as an "invention" -- not a "discovery"?

You still haven't answered the question.

Then what pattern of shared DNA would a REAL connection produce?

 

[Loudmouth]

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor.

For about the third time now, my most recent ancestor is my father.

Notice how you left the "common" out of the last sentence.

Who is the most recent common ancestor between you and your first cousins? That would be your grandparents. Who is the most recent common ancestor between you and your 2nd cousins? That would be your great-grandparents.

Notice how the common ancestor changes, depending on who you are comparing.

There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.

Aside from the Bible strongly disagreeing with this, shouldn't it say:

The map is not the territory. If a map says there is a mountain range going through the middle of Kansas, which is wrong? The map or Kansas? Most people would say that if something written down does not match up to what occurs in reality, it is the written claim that is wrong. That is, most rational people come to this conclusion.

 

[lifepsyop]

Please explain how this observation:

Leading to this organization:

Is a "false positive (link) between them".

The orgainzation is real and it exists as an objective observation. Yes you can rearrange the colors, but they are still there and they imply a nested hierarchy and that hierarchy in turn implies a common decent. Implication are facts, i.e. common decent is a fact.

This is a good example of fundamental misconceptions of evolution.

The anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs that the poster calls out as undeniable evidence of shared ancestry, is in fact contested by leading experts on bird evolution, who claim the similarities may be convergent. (arising in multiple lineages independently) and that birds arose from totally different animal groups.

This is why the evolutionary discussion is such a disaster. Evolutionists themselves cannot even settle on a consistent framework to make their case. Look at any of their claims of certainty and you can usually find major contradictions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean like a duck-billed platypus?

The duck-billed platypus testifies how science will make up anything to explain away exceptions to their paradigms.

That's why I refer to it as the "No True Scotsman Principle," rather than the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

A platypus is not a mix of different DNA from different creatures, but a case of different DNA resulting in similar looking phenotype in some of the body parts. The function of the bill in particular is far different than that of a duck.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is a good example of fundamental misconceptions of evolution.

The anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs that the poster calls out as undeniable evidence of shared ancestry, is in fact contested by leading experts on bird evolution, who claim the similarities may be convergent. (arising in multiple lineages independently) and that birds arose from totally different animal groups.

This is why the evolutionary discussion is such a disaster. Evolutionists themselves cannot even settle on a consistent framework to make their case. Look at any of their claims of certainty and you can usually find major contradictions.

There are always people that disagree with the mainstream. That doesn't mean the mainstream is wrong, nor does it make the alternative you support more likely to be right.

 

[lifepsyop]

There are always people that disagree with the mainstream. That doesn't mean the mainstream is wrong, nor does it make the alternative you support more likely to be right.

I agree but that is completely beside the point.

The point is that the evolutionist was portraying bird/theropod dinosaur similarities as indisputable evidence of shared ancestry, which is totally false.

Evolutionists are on such shaky ground scientifically that they can't simply come clean about these sorts of issues and instead choose to manipulate the general public with exaggerations or lies.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree but that is completely beside the point.

The point is that the evolutionist was portraying bird/theropod dinosaur similarities as indisputable evidence of shared ancestry, which is totally false.

Evolutionists are on such shaky ground scientifically that they can't simply come clean about these sorts of issues and instead choose to manipulate the general public with exaggerations or lies.

The dinosaurs/early birds have a mix of bird and dinosaur traits. Which one evolved from which, or if they evolved from a shared ancestor, is irrelevant in how they serve as evidence of the overall concept.

 

[lifepsyop]

The dinosaurs/early birds have a mix of bird and dinosaur traits. Which one evolved from which, or if they evolved from a shared ancestor, is irrelevant in how they serve as evidence of the overall concept.

Nonsense. You're imposing your evolutionary beliefs onto the data.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Evolutionists are on such shaky ground scientifically that they can't simply come clean about these sorts of issues and instead choose to manipulate the general public with exaggerations or lies.

Do you know what we call the people who publish their alternate views about the bird/dinosaur issue that you describe as "contested by leading experts on bird evolution"?

Evolutionists.

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you know what we call the people who publish their alternate views about the bird/dinosaur issue that you describe as "contested by leading experts on bird evolution"?

Evolutionists.

Indeed, evolutionists are evolutionists. Thank you for that bit of enlightenment.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Indeed, evolutionists are evolutionists. Thank you for that bit of enlightenment.

Well, it's just that you seemed to be casting aspersions on evolutionists, saying they were "on shaky ground", pushing "exaggerations and lies" when in fact they are on both sides of this issue and are debating it among themselves. Antievolutionists haven't contributed anything to the dialogue.