Not even a local flood

[SwordFall]

Are you questioning the evidences, or simply finding ways to deny them?

You may be your own blinder to the truth.
Evolution is true
Just deal with it, brother.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Anthony wrote:
When one understands these patterns, it's clear that they do show common ancestry. For instance, one of the many pieces of evidence is the DNA evidence of the GULOP gene, in which the mutations form a nested hierarchy (proof of descent).

This is one of those examples of similarities and so-called patterns that are falsely assumed to prove common descent. The fact that different species have similar genes does not show that the species are related by ancestry or descent. It isn't reasonable to assume that genetic similarities could only have resulted from common ancestry,because different species with many common traits could have come into being separately. Given that all genetic material is composed of the same materials that come from the earth - amino acids,proteins - it stands to reason that there should be genetic similarities between species in accordance with the similarities in structure. To focus on genetic similarities just pushes back the question of structural similarities to the microscopic level,but the genetic evidence does not demonstrate reproductive connections any more than the structural evidence. Descent has to do with the reproductive connections between organisms,not just the inheritance of genetic material,and you can't prove reproductive connections if you can't show that there is or was reproductive compatibility.

There are many others. DNA is another of the many solid lines of evidence - it's even used to prove descent in court cases.

There is a big difference between tracing a connection between two known persons and tracing connections between different kinds of creatures that have never been known to reproduce with each other.

Just because you don't personally understand these is no reason to ignore those scientists who do.

I do understand the reasoning behind evolution theory.

That's why Pope Benedict was so clearly in support of common descent and our evolution from earlier apes, as you and I have discussed before.

I answered that claim in this post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7772561-10/#post64436035

Just like the black knight won here:

No one has chopped off the legs of my arguments.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Are you questioning the evidences, or simply finding ways to deny them?

I deny the evidences because I questioned them and found them illogical.

You may be your own blinder to the truth.
Evolution is true.
Just deal with it, brother.

Truth is recognized as true through reason. Whatever is worthy of belief should be rational,in accordance with reason. The historical claims of evolution theory are not. Evolution theory is not in accordance with reason,but is naturalistic,mechanistic,phenomenalistic.

 

[gluadys]

This is one of those examples of similarities and so-called patterns that are falsely assumed to prove common descent. The fact that different species have similar genes does not show that the species are related by ancestry or descent.

Turn this around into an "if/then" framework.

If different species are related by ancestry or descent, would you then expect them to have similar genes? Why or why not?


For what other reasons might you expect them to have similar genes?


Now I will grant you that in the first instance finding similar genes in different species does not tell us whether they are there for reasons of relatedness or for some other reason.

But it doesn't rule out relatedness as a reason either. Relatedness is at least one reason why similar genes are in similar species, so it has to be considered unless there is a reason to rule it out.

It isn't reasonable to assume that genetic similarities could only have resulted from common ancestry,because different species with many common traits could have come into being separately.

For what reason, other than relatedness could that happen?

Given that all genetic material is composed of the same materials that come from the earth - amino acids,proteins - it stands to reason that there should be genetic similarities between species in accordance with the similarities in structure.

Underlying all structures are the genes that build them. Structures can act as a proxy for genes, but at bottom it is all genes.

To focus on genetic similarities just pushes back the question of structural similarities to the microscopic level,but the genetic evidence does not demonstrate reproductive connections any more than the structural evidence.

True, but when we are looking for an explanation for the similarities, reproductive connections can't be ruled out without sufficient reason. What would be a sufficient reason to rule them out?


Also, consider, that it is not just similarities that lead to the conclusion of common ancestry, but also differences and above all the pattern of similarities and differences. Differences are just as important in establishing relationships as similarities are and are often key in deciding which way a lineage is branching.

Descent has to do with the reproductive connections between organisms,not just the inheritance of genetic material,

Can there be any inheritance of genetic material without reproduction?

and you can't prove reproductive connections if you can't show that there is or was reproductive compatibility.

Prove, no. Find evidence, yes.