Traces of Evolution in Chromosome 2

[Mallon]

Bottom line - 1-1 tie. Not in "favor" of one or the other.

I don't think so.
I hope you would watch the video Xaero posted above, pop. You'll note in the video Miller makes the point that, given the disparity in chromosome counts between men and chimps, evolution actually predicts the fusion of chromosomes to account for the difference. And lo and behold, that's what we find.

Creationism does not predict this. What creationism predicts is that, because man was designed separately from the apes, his chromosome count should not reflect that of the apes. That is, man should get along just fine with 46 chromosomes, with no need to account for a mysterious extra pair. I think if you're honest with yourself, that's what you have to admit.
Instead, this sort of finding catches creationists off guard, and they are forced to react by saying "This is evidence for a common designer!" But we both know that's total ad hoc bull puckey (at least I do). Creationism didn't predict the fusion of the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes in man. Evolutionary theory did.

Evolution - 1
Creationism - 0

 

[laptoppop]

I disagree - but I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, so I won't push it further for now.

 

[Mallon]

I disagree - but I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, so I won't push it further for now.

You can disagree all you like. But with all due respect, pop, unless you can support yourself with more than just a theological afterthought, then I'm afraid my point still stands. Creationism simply does not predict chromosome fusion in humans (if it did, perhaps you could kindly point out where).

 

[Deamiter]

If absolutely anything could be support for ID, it's not falsifiable then is it? I mean, you're essentially resorting solely to Goddidit and giving up on presenting ID as a scientific theory here as apparently everything imaginable is predicted by ID (i.e. everything we can imagine could have been created by intelligence... we just don't know why).

Hey, for all I know, that's exactly how God did it! Just don't you dare try to teach it to my kids as science that has been supported by evidence and has withstood attempts to falsify it... If it's not falsifiable, it's no more than mere speculation.

Similar to conspiracy theories -- it turns out that our utter lack of evidence is in fact evidence of the government's covering it up...

 

[gluadys]

Yes, this can be seen as a support for evolution. Beautiful repetitive and creative design can also be seen as a support for creationism.

Bottom line - 1-1 tie. Not in "favor" of one or the other.

I think you are missing an important aspect of what Deamiter said. Yes, beautiful repetitive and creative design can be seen as support for creationism. However, when the pattern of such beautiful repetitive and creative design forms a nested hierarchy which is never broken, even when, from a design perspective, it would make sense to break it, the pattern becomes strong evidence for evolution. Why?

Because evolution requires such a pattern. Creationism and ID do not.

As Deamiter said:

I can't emphasize this enough -- a nested hierarchy is predicted and is required by evolution. It is neither predicted nor required by special creation.

Both creationism and evolution can account for beautiful repetitive and creative designs. But only evolution accounts for such designs being arranged in a nested hierarchy.

Hence, not a tie.