• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

How many mutations to get Y from X?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by tas8831, Oct 4, 2021.

  1. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    I don't think creationists realize that by appealing to a "common creator" they're implying that said creator is constrained in the exact same way evolution is.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Yes - by using mutations and selection. Funny how that works out for them.
     
  3. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
     
  4. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    Why would the creator of everything be constrained by anything?
     
  5. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    That's what the "common designer" refrain implies.
     
  6. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    That doesn't make any sense.
     
  7. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    That's why I said creationists don't understand the implications of the "common designer" refrain.

    It's always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.
     
  8. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    Ok, then, it must be a big secret. More likely your reasoning is skewed.
     
  9. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    The "common designer" refrain is always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.

    This is simply about understanding the context for the evidence that shows common ancestry.

    A creator wouldn't necessarily be bound that, so what creationists need to do is show evidence that wouldn't work in the context of common descent. Blatant chimeric organisms would be one such piece of evidence (like these genetically engineered glow-in-the-dark rabbits made with jellyfish DNA). Yet such things don't exist in nature.
     
  10. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    Oh that old nonsense. It didn't make any sense the first time I heard it either.
    Common design just means that a designer would be likely to use some of the same features in different species.
    How you get that the designer is subject to his design? Like I said, skewed reasoning, and a tiny view of the Creator.
     
  11. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    Possibly. But there is no reason to assume they would do so in a manner constrained by hereditary descent.

    Because we're talking about patterns of similarities in the context of hereditary descent. So by saying "common designer!" you're implying the designer is constrained in the same manner.

    If you want to claim otherwise, you need to demonstrate patterns in biology that aren't bound by hereditary descent (or otherwise known HGT mechanisms). IOW, something that can't be otherwise explained by known mechanisms.
     
  12. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
    The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.
     
  13. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    It's not just similarities. It's patterns of similarities predicated on hereditary descent.

    This is why I said that creationists don't realize the implications of this when they reply, "common designer!" They don't know what those patterns indicate.
     
  14. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.
     
  15. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    In terms of phylogenies, we're talking about patterns that are well within statistical significance (broadly speaking). It's not nearly the "mess" you make it out to be.

    If a designer was truly creating things and mixing and matching genetic bits and bobs with no constraints, then we wouldn't expect to find any real phylogenetic convergence.

    Yet, we do.
     
  16. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?
    Now you're just making stuff up.
    No constraints doesn't automatically equal no commonalities.
     
  17. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    I'm just saying what a designer could do if they wanted to, free of constraints based on hereditary genetics.

    Like I always say, if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution. There's really no way around that.
     
  18. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    That's like saying that because my house looks designed it must have built itself.
     
  19. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    That's nothing like saying that.

    When I talk about life having the appearance of evolution (e.g. common ancestry), I'm referring to the observed evolutionary mechanisms that change populations over time coupled with the patterns of biodiversity that suggests common ancestry.

    As I said, there's no actual way around that. The patterns are what they are.

    Either a designer decided to make things appear like they evolved... or they actually evolved.
     
  20. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,098
    Christian
    Married
    Populations change because of built in mechanisms, not because of some non existent selection process.
     
Loading...