Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions b... - 4/12/2008 8:03:33 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 224
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
All my life I have been told Evolution is a theory. Today, I am told it is a fact. Whence the difference? What for seventy years I told my children and grandchildren was theory, now I am expected to tell my great grandchildren is fact.
A scientist friend told me that there is evidence found in nature that man shares common DNA with the Great ape. This is offered as proof that man descended from a common ancestor with the great ape.
(All you scientific buffs feel free to correct my education if you fault my premise)
I contend that the commonality of DNA between great apes and man is evidence of a conclusion far different from the "descent from common ancestor" theory. I think it is evidence that favours the Genesis account of creation.
Look at the argument, then read the Genesis account, and you will see what I mean. (This is dependent upon my having a correct understanding of the scientist's point.)
He says, since Man shares a high per cent (97 or 98?) of DNA in common with the great apes, it shows proof of a common ancestor.
But look at what Genesis has to say about the same thing (Common DNA). (Bet you didn't know it was there).
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Do you see it? Earth and seas occupied common space. They were combined in a kinda' "primordial soup," is the way it was explained to me. But what is significant to this account, is common space, common DNA source.
When God separated dry land from the sea, why would life that is brought forth from these disparate sources NOT share a common Gene pool? Why would they NOT expect to share DNA in common? They came from the same source; that shared-in-common primordial soup, prior to the separation thereof therefrom.
When God says he brought forth birds from the sea, why does common DNA with dinosaurs somehow negate their natural heritage, and remove them to some "out of body" experience to being offspring of land animals?
No my friends, common DNA does not show evidence of a common ancestor. It shows evidence of a common creator; just as the Genesis account states it.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 4/12/2008 8:43:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 4/14/2008 6:11:36 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1683
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
good call, If you can't discredit the evidence then attempt to claim it as your own. [/sarcasm off]
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 4/14/2008 7:43:54 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 224
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
good call, If you can't discredit the evidence then attempt to claim it as your own. [/sarcasm off]
But sir!!!
It IS my own. Do you see it posted anywhere else?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 4/21/2008 1:59:49 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
"All my life I have been told Evolution is a theory. Today, I am told it is a fact. Whence the difference? What for seventy years I told my children and grandchildren was theory, now I am expected to tell my great grandchildren is fact."
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is the most accurate theory used to explain our observations of evolution in nature.
"A scientist friend told me that there is evidence found in nature that man shares common DNA with the Great ape. This is offered as proof that man descended from a common ancestor with the great ape."
Great apes. And not just the apes. Birds, reptiles, fish-- we even share DNA with grass and bacteria.
"When God says he brought forth birds from the sea, why does common DNA with dinosaurs somehow negate their natural heritage, and remove them to some "out of body" experience to being offspring of land animals?"
Because the text mentions that god created birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, and all other life forms in the span of six days. That is completely contrary to the idea of all life forms springing from a common ancestor. You're twisting the text to support what we know, even though the literal text is antithetical to evolutionary biology.
"No my friends, common DNA does not show evidence of a common ancestor. It shows evidence of a common creator; just as the Genesis account states it."
I've never met anybody whose DNA says, "Yahweh made me." Therefore, your assertion is invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 4/21/2008 6:40:38 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 224
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sartrian
"All my life I have been told Evolution is a theory. Today, I am told it is a fact. Whence the difference? What for seventy years I told my children and grandchildren was theory, now I am expected to tell my great grandchildren is fact."
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is the most accurate theory used to explain our observations of evolution in nature.
Actually, the current "theory of evolution" is many times revised from Darwin's understanding of the concept.
quote:
"A scientist friend told me that there is evidence found in nature that man shares common DNA with the Great ape. This is offered as proof that man descended from a common ancestor with the great ape."
Great apes. And not just the apes. Birds, reptiles, fish-- we even share DNA with grass and bacteria.
Of course. Common pool, dry land and sea!
quote:
"When God says he brought forth birds from the sea, why does common DNA with dinosaurs somehow negate their natural heritage, and remove them to some "out of body" experience to being offspring of land animals?"
Because the text mentions that god created birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, and all other life forms in the span of six days. That is completely contrary to the idea of all life forms springing from a common ancestor. You're twisting the text to support what we know, even though the literal text is antithetical to evolutionary biology.
Not unless you consider heaven and earth; light separated from darkness
to be "life forms" created on the first day.
Not unless you consider waters separated above and below the firmament to form the heavens, to be a "life form" created on the second day.
And not unless you consider the sun, moon, and stars to be "life forms" created on the fourth day.
Grasses, herbs, fruit trees, were "life forms" created the third day.
The fish and birds were "life forms" created the fifth day.
living creatures, cattle, creepers, and man were the "life forms" created the sixth day.
So, the "life forms" were actually created in THREE day, not six.
quote:
"No my friends, common DNA does not show evidence of a common ancestor. It shows evidence of a common creator; just as the Genesis account states it."
I've never met anybody whose DNA says, "Yahweh made me." Therefore, your assertion is invalid.
I never met anyone whose DNA was stamped with the notice" Made by energy acting upon matter, and evolving millions of years to produce "the real me!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 4/26/2008 6:35:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 667
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Look at the argument, then read the Genesis account, and you will see what I mean. (This is dependent upon my having a correct understanding of the scientist's point.)
He says, since Man shares a high per cent (97 or 98?) of DNA in common with the great apes, it shows proof of a common ancestor.
There is more to the argument than that.
quote:
Do you see it? Earth and seas occupied common space. They were combined in a kinda' "primordial soup," is the way it was explained to me. But what is significant to this account, is common space, common DNA source.
When God separated dry land from the sea, why would life that is brought forth from these disparate sources NOT share a common Gene pool? Why would they NOT expect to share DNA in common? They came from the same source; that shared-in-common primordial soup, prior to the separation thereof therefrom.
That may work for the primordial beginning of life emerging from the primordial "soup", but it doesn't explain what we see today. How is it that we can distinguish the DNA of kangaroos from the DNA of emus if they both took the same DNA from their common origin?
quote:
When God says he brought forth birds from the sea, why does common DNA with dinosaurs somehow negate their natural heritage, and remove them to some "out of body" experience to being offspring of land animals?
Why are birds more like the terrestrial dinosaurs than like the fish or the whales of the sea, if the birds came from the sea?
What you are missing is that relationships are not only about how DNA is shared but also about how it differs. The differences are just as important as the similarities. Together differences and similarities give us sets of DNA that are specific to each creature, yet not randomly distributed.
You are also not looking at how DNA moves from one generation to another. How did your DNA get into your grandchildren and how do we know it is your DNA and not that of your second cousin?
Your objection fails because you have not taken the whole argument and all the evidence into account. You have taken only a partial and poorly understood segment of the argument into account.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 4/27/2008 5:47:20 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 224
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Look at the argument, then read the Genesis account, and you will see what I mean. (This is dependent upon my having a correct understanding of the scientist's point.)
He says, since Man shares a high per cent (97 or 98?) of DNA in common with the great apes, it shows proof of a common ancestor.
There is more to the argument than that.
quote:
Do you see it? Earth and seas occupied common space. They were combined in a kinda' "primordial soup," is the way it was explained to me. But what is significant to this account, is common space, common DNA source.
When God separated dry land from the sea, why would life that is brought forth from these disparate sources NOT share a common Gene pool? Why would they NOT expect to share DNA in common? They came from the same source; that shared-in-common primordial soup, prior to the separation thereof therefrom.
That may work for the primordial beginning of life emerging from the primordial "soup", but it doesn't explain what we see today. How is it that we can distinguish the DNA of kangaroos from the DNA of emus if they both took the same DNA from their common origin?
quote:
When God says he brought forth birds from the sea, why does common DNA with dinosaurs somehow negate their natural heritage, and remove them to some "out of body" experience to being offspring of land animals?
Why are birds more like the terrestrial dinosaurs than like the fish or the whales of the sea, if the birds came from the sea?
What you are missing is that relationships are not only about how DNA is shared but also about how it differs. The differences are just as important as the similarities. Together differences and similarities give us sets of DNA that are specific to each creature, yet not randomly distributed.
You are also not looking at how DNA moves from one generation to another. How did your DNA get into your grandchildren and how do we know it is your DNA and not that of your second cousin?
Your objection fails because you have not taken the whole argument and all the evidence into account. You have taken only a partial and poorly understood segment of the argument into account.
My responses were as sophisticated as my friends postulates. Of course my responses are not to any degree of accuracy; but neither were his generalities.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/6/2008 2:23:10 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
theo_book,
Evolution is both theory and fact. Gould explains it best,
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
As for homology, evolution not only predicts that we should find homology between species that share common ancestry, it also predicts a PATTERN OF HOMOLOGY. This is important, and something that your Genesis theory does not cover. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. For apes (including humans) this means that genes involved in morphology should be just as similar as genes that do not involve morphology. As an example, the cytochrome genes in your mitochondria have nothing to do with the shape of your body. They are there to make energy. In fact, it is quite simple to swap out prokaryotic cytochromes with eukaryotic cytochromes without affecting the bacteria one bit. Therefore, according to your "common design, common designer" we should expect to find crocodile cytochromes in our mitochondria just as much as we would expect to find chimp cytochromes, but we don't. We find chimp cytochromes. Genes that are independent of morphology still fall into the same nested hierarchy produced by morphology. Only evolution can explain this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 6:46:26 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 224
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
theo_book,
Evolution is both theory and fact. Gould explains it best,
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
As for homology, evolution not only predicts that we should find homology between species that share common ancestry, it also predicts a PATTERN OF HOMOLOGY. This is important, and something that your Genesis theory does not cover. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. For apes (including humans) this means that genes involved in morphology should be just as similar as genes that do not involve morphology. As an example, the cytochrome genes in your mitochondria have nothing to do with the shape of your body. They are there to make energy. In fact, it is quite simple to swap out prokaryotic cytochromes with eukaryotic cytochromes without affecting the bacteria one bit. Therefore, according to your "common design, common designer" we should expect to find crocodile cytochromes in our mitochondria just as much as we would expect to find chimp cytochromes, but we don't. We find chimp cytochromes. Genes that are independent of morphology still fall into the same nested hierarchy produced by morphology. Only evolution can explain this.
It seems to me, when you explain what you should "expect to see" but don't, you are in the position of telling God how he should have done it.
Doesn't work that way.
God's "ways are past finding out." Look for him in vain. Be still and he will be shown to you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 7:14:44 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 485
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
It seems to me, when you explain what you should "expect to see" but don't, you are in the position of telling God how he should have done it.
Doesn't work that way.
God's "ways are past finding out." Look for him in vain. Be still and he will be shown to you.
Two things here:
First, Method was talking about Intelligent Design. ID proponents frequently claim that the Designer is not necessarily God. Are you saying that the Designer is God?
Second, ID proponents say that intelligent design leaves certain indicators that we should "expect to see". If the Designer is indeed God, you might want to remind them they are not in the posiotn of telling God, the Designer, how he should do things.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 8:44:35 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Second, ID proponents say that intelligent design leaves certain indicators that we should "expect to see". If the Designer is indeed God, you might want to remind them they are not in the posiotn of telling God, the Designer, how he should do things. Still don't understand ID theory, do you Veritas. How the design was accomplished is irrelevant to the evidence available for detection of design. Got it?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 8:52:03 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 485
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Second, ID proponents say that intelligent design leaves certain indicators that we should "expect to see". If the Designer is indeed God, you might want to remind them they are not in the posiotn of telling God, the Designer, how he should do things. Still don't understand ID theory, do you Veritas. How the design was accomplished is irrelevant to the evidence available for detection of design. Got it?
I'm not talking about how the design was accomplished. I'm talking about looking for indicators of design. Got it?
But... Since you brought it up... In any other field, like say archeology, once an artifact is found that is thought to be desinged, this immediately raises the question of how the design was accomplished. Why is ID an exception?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:00:14 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm not talking about how the design was accomplished. I'm talking about looking for indicators of design. Got it? Then why did you say that ID proponents "are not in the posiotn[sic] of telling God, the Designer, how he should do things (bolded by me for emphasis)? That's exactly what you're talking about! ID is talking about looking for indicators.
quote:
But... Since you brought it up... In any other field, like say archeology, once an artifact is found that is thought to be desinged, this immediately raises the question of how the design was accomplished. Why is ID an exception? Yes, isn't it refreshing to see a scientific discipline like ID carefully avoid philosophical issues of how, and why, and so on! Archaeology has been more about social engineering and political correctness for many decades now!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:03:19 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
All my life I have been told Evolution is a theory. Today, I am told it is a fact.
You just aren't operating with the correct definition of "scientific theory". No wonder you are confused.
There is a Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory etc.
facts support hypotheses
hypotheses support theories
theories support laws
Some "laws" are mis-labeled as laws. Newton's "Laws of Motions" were once considered laws but are no longer considered scientific laws. They were demoted because Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a more accurate model than Newton's Laws of Motion.
I do not think Evolution will ever become a scientific law.
quote:
No my friends, common DNA does not show evidence of a common ancestor. It shows evidence of a common creator;
Common DNA is consistent with both a common ancestor and a common creator, but it is a near impossibility to use scientific methods to prove a preference for either.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 5/10/2008 9:12:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:05:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not think Evolution will ever become a scientific law. Evolution cannot ever become even a hypothesis, swan! It is completely untestable, thus unfasifiable.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:14:28 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I do not think Evolution will ever become a scientific law. Evolution cannot ever become even a hypothesis, swan! It is completely untestable, thus unfasifiable.
Rhetoric aside, I was discussing how evolution can consistently be considered two things at once to someone who doesn't understand scientific terminology. If I have some spare time I'll dig up some genomic predictions of the fossil record.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:21:20 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Save your effort, swan (try reading Genesis for a change). Unless you can show me that observational data on fossil genomes exist, I'm really not interested in worthless, self-serving, circularly reasoned predictions!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:33:19 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolution cannot ever become even a hypothesis, swan! It is completely untestable, thus unfasifiable.
A few brief copies from Wikipedia so we can use the same terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.
Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis
Scientific hypothesis
People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.
According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
* Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
* Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
* Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:36:20 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Save your effort, swan (try reading Genesis for a change). Unless you can show me that observational data on fossil genomes exist, I'm really not interested in worthless, self-serving, circularly reasoned predictions!
They are working on just that. Observational data on fossil genomes like this.
German Scientists to Sequence Neanderthal Genome
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:38:04 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1459
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
Common DNA is consistent with both a common ancestor and a common creator, but it is a near impossibility to use scientific methods to prove a preference for either.
Actually it is not a “near” impossibility. Being consistent with both it is impossible for science to prove a preference for either. The preference is determined solely by worldview.
The Bible plainly states that man shares no common ancestor with any other animal. The Bible also plainly states that land animals and fowl and fishes do NOT share a common ancestor with each other. Ergo, the preference for a common ancestor for all animals is based on an anti-Bible worldview.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 9:44:14 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
****anything unclemonkey says
Ergo, the preference for a common ancestor for all animals is based on an anti-Bible worldview.
Only if the bible contains X or fewer metaphors.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 10:16:50 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(This is dependent upon my having a correct understanding of the scientist's point.)
He says, since Man shares a high per cent (97 or 98?) of DNA in common with the great apes, it shows proof of a common ancestor.
Well your scientist friend is wrong. Scientists frequently over generalize just as non-scientists frequently over generalize.
Chimpanzee and humans are 98.77% DNA sequence similar. This is evidence in support of a common ancestor explanation. It is not proof positive of a common ancestor explanation.
This link describes evidence in support that a designer left very similar engineering plans in a object that appears to be a leg bone of what appears to be a robust person frozen in ice for what appears to be ~40,000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 10:28:46 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Chimpanzee and humans are 98.77% DNA sequence similar. Actually, this is wrong. But the important point is emphasized by uncmonk above: It is the interpretation of genetic homology that is the issue here and that relates directly to pre-existing worldview assumptions.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 10:47:09 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1459
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
quote:
Ergo, the preference for a common ancestor for all animals is based on an anti-Bible worldview.
Only if the bible contains X or fewer metaphors.
If science is incapable of delineating between “common ancestor” and “common Creator” then what other than worldview do you use to choose your preference?
Yes, the Bible contains metaphors. Do you not believe it also contains literal history? Do you not believe that literal history can also serve as metaphor?
However, the Bible plainly states that God made the fowl “after their kind” and the fishes “after their kind”. Can you provide a Biblical reference that God used evolution to produce the individual “kinds” from a common ancestor? If not then your exegesis is flawed.
I maintain that a common ancestor, as well as any theory that relies on “mass extinction”, are based on an anti-Bible worldview.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/10/2008 10:51:26 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Chimpanzee and humans are 98.77% DNA sequence similar. Actually, this is wrong. But the important point is emphasized by uncmonk above: It is the interpretation of genetic homology that is the issue here and that relates directly to pre-existing worldview assumptions.
No need to dwell. The important point of my post was to put up some number to start with relative to post #1 on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
