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.
Sounds like evolutionists.
Yes Bingo! And yet it was presented as an example to me... why is that?
And that's the question I was asking. Just how does believing all life has a common ancestor aid the research?
Phylogenomics, which advocates an evolutionary view of genomic data, has been useful in the prediction of protein function, of significant sequence and structural elements, and of protein interactions and other relationships. Although such information is important in characterizing individual pharmacological targets, evolutionary analyses also indicate new ways to view the overall space of gene products in terms of their suitability for therapeutic intervention.
Speciation does not occur repeatedly. Things may change and become subspecies but nothing ever changes into something completely different. Beetles are still beetles, spiders are still spiders etc. You may have a lizard that adapts to a new environment and it's skin or digestive system changes, but it's still a lizard. Its a subspecies.Common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the observed process of speciation. If speciation occurs repeatedly (and we know that it does) it is reasonable to project the process back to a single original species. Genetic evidence is consistant with this projection, as is the fossil record. None of which rules out a "common designer" behind it all. The problem with proposing "common design" as an alternative to evolution is that even if it is consistant with the genetic evidence, it lacks a mechanism.
Only if you believe in evolution. Evolution belief comes first. Then you assume genomic commonalities show common ancestry. When in fact all it shows is all living things have commonalities, a common design. And you are right. It does not give an indication who the designer might be.As all living organisms have common genes indicates and supports common ancestry. It is testable prediction made by the theory. It gives no indication of a designer, except to those who already believe that there is a designer.
As research is directed as invalidating theories and conclusions, there is no preconceived presumptive ideas. That is done by creationists/IDers. Trying to prove conclusions is the primary indication of pseudoscience.
"Lizard" is not a species, it's an Order, comprising over 6000 separate species.Speciation does not occur repeatedly. Things may change and become subspecies but nothing ever changes into something completely different. Beetles are still beetles, spiders are still spiders etc. You may have a lizard that adapts to a new environment and it's skin or digestive system changes, but it's still a lizard. Its a subspecies.
Then you assume genomic commonalities show common ancestry. When in fact all it shows is all living things have commonalities, a common design.
I don't understand what you mean by common design lacking a mechanism. Please help.me out here.Common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the observed process of speciation. If speciation occurs repeatedly (and we know that it does) it is reasonable to project the process back to a single original species. Genetic evidence is consistant with this projection, as is the fossil record. None of which rules out a "common designer" behind it all. The problem with proposing "common design" as an alternative to evolution is that even if it is consistant with the genetic evidence, it lacks a mechanism.
Don't be silly of course I have. Evolution from a common ancestor is false. That all things were created as separate kinds using a common design is true. See I have differentiated between the two.So you keep saying, but when push comes to shove you've demonstrated no ability to differentiate between evolution and design.
Don't be silly of course I have. Evolution from a common ancestor is false. That all things were created as separate kinds using a common design is true. See I have differentiated between the two.
How does it work? How does the "design" get into the creature? Design is just a word; what actually happens? ID people never can tell us, which is why ID is scoffed at.I don't understand what you mean by common design lacking a mechanism. Please help.me out here.
"Lizard" is not a species, it's an Order, comprising over 6000 separate species.
But I am having trouble grasping what you mean by "something completely different." All living things share similarities, genetic, cellular, etc. No living creature is completely different from the others. I suppose if we discovered a silicon-based life form on another planet or something like that we could say it was "completely different" from Earth life. What do you mean by it?
How does it work? How does the "design" get into the creature? Design is just a word; what actually happens? ID people never can tell us, which is why ID is scoffed at.
Now answer my question: What do you mean by "completely different?" You seem to be imagining qualitative differences where there are none.
No, we are not. We are made up of similar cells forming similar biologial systems. We ingest and metabolize food, and reproduce and so on. Your layman's terms are just names, just as is the nomenclature of scientific taxonomy. Just names that humans make up to try and classify what is for all practical purposes a continuum of living types.And there you have it. Common design. You know what I mean by completely different. I've used examples over and over again. We are not spiders. We are not lizards. We are not birds or fish. We are completely different.
I am truly floored. After all this time arguing about evolution you have learned absolutely nothing about it. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you should at least try to learn what the theory actually says.We can call a lizard an Order. That's fine. And you can point to all the species of lizards you want to. But they still belong to that order. They do not cross over into insect land or arachnid land or apes or cats or whatever. They remain what they are.
"The design was put there by the designer." In other words "God did it and we don't know how, but we know it wasn't evolution." So basically, you've got nothing. I think God put the design in the creature through random variation and natural selection. Until something better comes along, that's what I'm sticking with.I know you have read the Bible. The design was put there by the designer. He chose the design and used it to create all life. He put the building blocks in place so that life would exist and continue to exist until he decided to end it. And look around. No matter what has happened on this planet life goes on. Things adapt and change in order to keep on going.
Um, it was you who presented it as an example - that was the post I responded to. The link you provided was entirely about vaccinations discovered before modern medicine. It said nothing about vaccines discovered after modern medicine. You really need to pay more attention to what you post and not try to blame your mistakes on othersYes Bingo! And yet it was presented as an example to me... why is that?
From a design basis, you're still not giving me a reason why they would be more similar than they are now.
Under evolution, we know that similarities are likely conserved via natural selection and consequently important.
Under design, you don't have the same selective constraint. So your constraint is...?
They do find what's left of the gene as explained in the very next sentence, what they don't find is a functioning alx3 gene.
No I said that the less advanced life is often found in the deeper strata layers and the more advanced shows up in the upper layers
That us NOT evolution from a common ancestor. That's my point. You prove my point. Lizards will always be lizards. Evolution from a common ancestor says the order if lizards was not always the order if lizards. It is the order of lizards, apes, arachnids etc. The theory is such hogwash. They twist everything to make it sound so reasonable. Yet when you break it down it is obviously wrong according to their own theory.No, we are not. We are made up of similar cells forming similar biologial systems. We ingest and metabolize food, and reproduce and so on. Your layman's terms are just names, just as is the nomenclature of scientific taxonomy. Just names that humans make up to try and classify what is for all practical purposes a continuum of living types.
I am truly floored. After all this time arguing about evolution you have learned absolutely nothing about it. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you should at least try to learn what the theory actually says.
Any species of lizard belongs to the order Squamata. A species of lizard belonging to the order Squamata will always belong to the order Squamata as will all of its descendants, no matter how they evolve or how little they may come to resemble your superficial idea of a "lizard." No matter how insect-like, or arachnid-like or ape-like or cat-like they become, they will still belong to the order Squamata. Even if they evolved fur, long ears and little fluffy tails and hopped around in meadows they would still belong to the order Squamata. Anything else would set the theory of evolution on its ear.
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?