Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no justification for why an unlimited common creator would use a nested hierarchy when creating diverse species.
It has been repeated many times that it's not simply the fact of similarity between life that is evidence, it's the pattern of similarity.
Yes - by using mutations and selection. Funny how that works out for them.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.
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
That doesn't make any sense.
Ok, then, it must be a big secret. More likely your reasoning is skewed.
Oh that old nonsense. It didn't make any sense the first time I heard it either.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.
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.
Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.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.
Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.
The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.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.
The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.
Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?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.
Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?
Now you're just making stuff up.
No constraints doesn't automatically equal no commonalities.
That's like saying that because my house looks designed it must have built itself.
Populations change because of built in mechanisms, not because of some non existent selection process.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?