afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Eric said ... | Quote | | Dave, I really think you need to read, and understand (that means read it slowly and carefully and make sure you understand each paragraph before you go onto the next one) Douglas Theobald's superb article at Talk Origins setting forth the mountain of evidence supporting common descent with modification. If you honestly read and understand that one article, you will understand that common descent with modification is not an hypothesis in need of evidence; it's a fact in need of explanation. |
Eric ... you seem to misunderstand the Creationist position (it's OK, sometimes I misunderstand your position as well) ... I actually have no problem at all with "Common Descent with Modification" and I have said so here several times. You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on. And it is quite true that all the hundreds of variations within these kinds we see today are the result of Common Descent with Modification--modification meaning random mutation and controlled random mixing during reproduction. No argument there at all. I understand Natural Selection quite well (and artificial selection too) and agree that it is a proven fact. It is also a Creationist prediction. Where we differ is in the evolutionist idea that everything shares one common ancestor, with my most interest in this regard being on the Ape/Human question. We also disagree that random mutation and natural selection can produce anything like an eye where there was no eye before, or a flagellum, or what have you. No one has been successful in showing how new features like this could have evolved by random mutation. In almost all cases, random mutation makes things worse or neutral. And in the few cases that they make things "better", it's not because a flagellum was added or an eye was added. The changes are extremely minor changes. This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out. And nothing simpler can be formed as a precursor, because it only would get selected for if it is complete and working.
AFD said ... | Quote | She says the convergence may not be unlikely. She says that primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance.
I don't understand the second sentence, but why is it so unusual to share "dozen mutations"? Guinea pigs and humans share a lot of mutations too, right? |
Oops ... sorry, Incorygyble (or Jeannot) ... I meant to say THIRD sentence, not second.
What is Jeannot referring to when she says "And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance." ?? Is she switching back to apes and humans, or is she still talking about humans vs. guinea pigs?
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
