Proof of Creation?

[lasthero]

It could possible be common design and not common decent. Why come up with a completely different design to something that you have already designed and works well. A lawn mower has a many similarities with a motor car but are individually designed. Why make the lawn mower work on a completely different set of mechanisms

The problem is that life forms a nested hierarchy, human inventions don't. With a lawn mower, you could actually use certain parts on other machines. Human inventions can have interchangeable parts. You can take things out of future models or put new things in whenever you want.

With a nested heirarchy, that's not possible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It could possible be common design and not common decent. Why come up with a completely different design to something that you have already designed and works well. A lawn mower has a many similarities with a motor car but are individually designed. Why make the lawn mower work on a completely different set of mechanisms.
. . . . .

Well, that works for the things that aren't flawed. But what about the common flaws? Take, for example, the broken vitamin c gene we still have but doesn't work any more, and that broken gene is shared among the primates.

No common designer would recopy a bad gene that doesn't do anything over and over. Common descent, however, explains that among the primates.

Take, for example, the ear wiggling muscles, ubiquitous among the mammals. You see your dog use them every day. You have them and cannot use them. Common descent explains this. Intelligent designer keeping up a common function with common design does not explain this.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, that works for the things that aren't flawed. But what about the common flaws? Take, for example, the broken vitamin c gene we still have but doesn't work any more, and that broken gene is shared among the primates.

No common designer would recopy a bad gene that doesn't do anything over and over. Common descent, however, explains that among the primates.

Take, for example, the ear wiggling muscles, ubiquitous among the mammals. You see your dog use them every day. You have them and cannot use them. Common descent explains this. Intelligent designer keeping up a common function with common design does not explain this.

Some people can use those muscles a little bit, but yeah, that activity is not useful besides for some short lived entertainment in our species.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, don't forget the other, more specific details about the end of the world in the bible. It says a bunch of stuff will happen before the world is finally destroyed too.

No the worlds not destroyed. Luckily Jesus comes back before that one.

 

[stevevw]

Well, that works for the things that aren't flawed. But what about the common flaws? Take, for example, the broken vitamin c gene we still have but doesn't work any more, and that broken gene is shared among the primates.

No common designer would recopy a bad gene that doesn't do anything over and over. Common descent, however, explains that among the primates.

Not really again. If its the same gene made in both then it will be bad in both because its bad.

Take, for example, the ear wiggling muscles, ubiquitous among the mammals. You see your dog use them every day. You have them and cannot use them. Common descent explains this. Intelligent designer keeping up a common function with common design does not explain this.[/quote]
The trouble is you keep finding the things that suit that theory. There are a lot that dont. So your a Chritian so you dont believe in Adam and Eve then. What about Jesus.

 

[Smidlee]

Some people can use those muscles a little bit, but yeah, that activity is not useful besides for some short lived entertainment in our species.

You can use the exact same argument with crying tears. Broken genes doesn't disprove design no more a broken computer does. Would you claim a broken computer automatically means it wasn't designed?

 

[Kylie]

It could possible be common design and not common decent. Why come up with a completely different design to something that you have already designed and works well. A lawn mower has a many similarities with a motor car but are individually designed. Why make the lawn mower work on a completely different set of mechanisms.

Except that it's not a case of someone who said, "Hey, that worked well on those animals, I might use them on Humans as well." It is a case where the best explanation is that there was an ancestral species that had these features before splitting into two groups and then evolving. The gene that gives Humans type O blood is more closely related to the gene that gives Chimps type O blood than it is to the gene that gives Humans Type A blood.

Common designer is not able to answer questions like these.

Not really, it is claimed but not fact. Many of the connections are disputed and argued between scientists. Because we are looking back as fossilized bones which are often fragmented and displaced it can be easy to make little adjustments and see things how you want to see them. We havnt got the fleshly creature creature in front of us. Because the creatures are fairly close in design it can be easy to make an ape more human like and a human more ape like. Especially when there is a very big variation in both species. That variation can cover similar shapes that have been proposed as new species as with the skulls at Georgia. They found 5 supposed ape man skulls that covered 5 different shapes. Those shapes covered all the shapes of several species of ape man that had already been classified as new species when it was actually just the variety of one species.

You don't actually understand how it works, do you?

Do you think that all human skeletons look alike?

Some have also reclassified or excluded several species of dinosaurs that had been made into new species when they were actually juveniles of the same species. Thats because evolutionists are quick to name new species all the time. The more they can have the more they can fill the gaps. So it can all come down to how you see things or actually what you want to see.

Do you understand WHY they were given different species names? Because they had different features. If all you had was the imprint of a shape of a caterpillar and of a butterfly, wouldn't you also conclude that they were different?

And yet, I find it curious that you discount the scientific explanation and claim that science has it wrong, and yet you are happy to use scientific information when it suits you to.

 

[Smidlee]

The trouble is you keep finding the things that suit that theory. There are a lot that dont. So your a Chritian so you dont believe in Adam and Eve then. What about Jesus.

If humans didn't have the vitamin c pseudogene do you think this would falsify evolution? If humans couldn't wiggle their ears would this falsify evolution?
When evolution make a prediction which happens to be true is it evidence for evolution but when it prediction turns out false it's evidence for co-evolution.

It's "heads we win and tails you lose" theory.

 

[Kylie]

If humans didn't have the vitamin c pseudogene do you think this would falsify evolution? If humans couldn't wiggle their ears would this falsify evolution?
When evolution make a prediction which happens to be true is it evidence for evolution but when it prediction turns out false it's evidence for co-evolution.

It's "heads we win and tails you lose" theory.

What would falsify evolution is something that evolution says is impossible.

Can you show me that such a thing has happened?

 

[Tina W]

Just out of curisoity, if you believe this, how do you explain the many features of human bodies that suggest a close relation with other members of the primate family?



Firstly, it doesn't seem like you understand evolution if you speak of missing links.

Secondly, the evolution of modern humans is fairly well documented and understood in the fossil record.

We look the way we look because God made us that way and primates look the way they look because God made them that way.

 

[Smidlee]

What would falsify evolution is something that evolution says is impossible.

Can you show me that such a thing has happened?

Evolution says? Are you asking me to show you the past?

 

[Kylie]

We look the way we look because God made us that way and primates look the way they look because God made them that way.

And did God also make us to look like we had evolved?

 

[Kylie]

Evolution says?

Typical. No actual response, so you start suggesting that perhaps I think a process can speak.

You know what I meant, now address the point and stop playing games.

 

[Smidlee]

Typical. No actual response, so you start suggesting that perhaps I think a process can speak.

You know what I meant, now address the point and stop playing games.

And there is the problem. It's evolution says and not evolutionist says. It's still "Heads we win and tails you lose".

 

[Kylie]

And there is the problem. It's evolution says and not evolutionist says. It's still "Heads we win and tails you lose".

Are you really going to insist on playing childish games?

Fine, be that way.

What would falsify evolution is something is impossible with the processes of evolution.

Now, show me something which is impossible with the processes of evolution and stop playing silly word games.

 

[Smidlee]

Are you really going to insist on playing childish games?

Fine, be that way.

What make you think I'm playing a game?

What would falsify evolution is something is impossible with the processes of evolution.

Now, show me something which is impossible with the processes of evolution and stop playing silly word games.

Since we are a long way of fully understanding the developmental biology no one knows what those "processes of evolution" could be.
As of now we don't have anything to falsify.
Whenever they find anything that is not predicted by evolution they simply slap the "co-evolution" title on it.

Since evolution explains both similarities and differences at the same time so there is nothing to falsify it. It's still "heads we win and tails you lose".

 

[lasthero]

Whenever they find anything that is not predicted by evolution they simply slap the "co-evolution" title on it.

Example?

 

[Kylie]

What make you think I'm playing a game?

The fact you are twisting my words. Or are you doing that in all seriousness?

Since we are a long way of fully understanding the developmental biology no one knows what those "processes of evolution" could be.

Yes we do. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what causes evolution

As of now we don't have anything to falsify.

Rubbish. If evolution was true, then we could not find a fossil rabbit in the precambrian. If we found a rabbit there, it would falsify evolution.

You apparently don't understand what "falisfy" means.

Whenever they find anything that is not predicted by evolution they simply slap the "co-evolution" title on it.

And you don't understand evolution either. How would "co-evolution" explain a fossil rabbit in the precambrian?

Since evolution explains both similarities and differences at the same time so there is nothing to falsify it. It's still "heads we win and tails you lose".

If you think evolution explains everything we could conceivably see, then you really have no idea what evolution is. Why do you argue against a thing when you don't even know what that thing is?

 

[Tina W]

Well, that works for the things that aren't flawed. But what about the common flaws? Take, for example, the broken vitamin c gene we still have but doesn't work any more, and that broken gene is shared among the primates.

No common designer would recopy a bad gene that doesn't do anything over and over. Common descent, however, explains that among the primates.

When Adam & Eve fell, the whole world became cursed, that includes animals plants and humans, and that brought disease and imperfections into humans and animals. Any flaws are a result of the curse or fall, plus humans and primates are not the only species that have that broken vitamin C gene so that doesn't prove any link between humans and primates at all.

And did God also make us to look like we had evolved?

No, you convinced yourself of that when you chose not to believe what God told us when He said He created Adam & Eve from the ground. When you choose not to believe God, then you have to find another source of where we came from and force it to fit into your reasoning. That's not God's doing.

 

[stevevw]

Except that it's not a case of someone who said, "Hey, that worked well on those animals, I might use them on Humans as well." It is a case where the best explanation is that there was an ancestral species that had these features before splitting into two groups and then evolving. The gene that gives Humans type O blood is more closely related to the gene that gives Chimps type O blood than it is to the gene that gives Humans Type A blood.

Common designer is not able to answer questions like these.

The only problem the similarities and as has been the case more and more no with the genetics it doesn't match the nice neat tree of common decent. There are creatures that are distant on the tree which share similar genetics and there are creature who are suppose to be linked on the tree with many difference. And as it has been said there are to many of these occurrences now to put it down to convergent evolution. Its more like the tree is a hedge indicating many roots being taken up. This is more in line with single creation of many different kinds and them growing parallel and having a small amount of evolution then all creatures being traced back to a common ancestor.

And yet, I find it curious that you discount the scientific explanation and claim that science has it wrong, and yet you are happy to use scientific information when it suits you to.

It is the science that is stating this.

Increasingly genome similarities in otherwise distant species, and genome differences in otherwise similar species were discovered. And while evolutionists sometimes tried to explain these uncooperative findings, the evolutionary histories they needed to construct became increasingly complex and circuitous. Today these uncooperative findings have become undeniable and in response evolutionists have all but dropped the common descent prediction, replacing it with a lineage-specific model where evolution is constantly creating new genome features, even between nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree.


Phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits. This paper reports on incongruent gene trees in bats. That is one example of many. These incongruences are caused by just about every kind of contradiction possible. Molecular sequences in one or a few species may be out of place amongst similar species. Or sequences in distant species may be strangely similar. As one paper admitted, there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.” Or as another evolutionist admitted, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1632/20130021.full



We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
Genetic similarities between bats and dolphins discovered -- ScienceDaily


However, recent studies have demonstrated that adaptive convergent sequence evolution can be detected in vertebrates using statistical methods that model parallel evolution.
In other words not a tree in common decent but a hedge.
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

In recent years, evolutionary biologists have increasingly used DNA sequences to construct evolutionary trees. Researchers find transposons particularly suitable for this endeavor. When evolutionary biologists propose evolutionary relationships, they rely on the principle that organisms with shared DNA sequences arise from a common ancestor. But other mechanisms exist that can introduce the identical DNA sequences. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is one.


In other words gene are passed sideways and not down as would be with common decent and common ancestors. This also explains why we see similarities in distant creatures on the traditional tree and differences in creatures that are suppose to be closely related.
Reasons To Believe : Lost in a Masquerade: Horizontal Gene Transfer Impersonates Common Ancestry