|The Ghost of Paley
Joined: Oct. 2005
C.J. O'Brien wrote
|In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.|
That's just it, you merely assume that organisms sharing genes proves they share ancestors. That is precisely what Christians are challenging. It's just an assumption of stiff necked evolutionists--and your own words agree.
In a paper published in Trends in Plant Science1, several authors do an analysis of whole mitochondria genome-based phylogenies and get a tree that completly contardicts the tadiational evolution tree. As dogmatic evolutionists, they assume their new tree is wrong because it is inconcsistent with established Darwinian catechism. However, why should it not be. Any evolutionist can just do any test and come up with any kind of ancestry tree they feel like. All of the gene distributions are random from a point of view of common ancestry. However, the subtle and sophistaicated analysis of intellegent design theory shows each gene was put in for a specific purpose, and hence, demonstrates its design.
C.J. O'Brien likes to think I am a troll because he senses my intellgence is so vastly superior to his own.
Soltis, Douglas E., Albert, Victor A., Savolained, Vincent, Hilu, Khinder,Qiu, Yin-Long, Chase, Mark W., Farris, James S., Stephanovic, Sasa, Rice, Danny W., Palmer, Jeffry D., and Soltis, Pamela S. October 2004. Genome-scale data, angiospem relationships, and 'ending incongrunce': a cautionary tale in phylogenics. Trends in Plant Science Vol. 9 No. 10
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.