Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2007,11:14) | Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 1
The thread starts as an apparent rewrite of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution by Doug Theobold.
Theobold: According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.
JoeG: According to the theory of common design, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single grand design put in motion in the distant past.
But then it looks like JoeG loses steam leaving most of the text intact, including strong evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common descent were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common descent, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:
"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)
At the end JoeG adds, Thanks to Dr Theobald and Talk Origins for all the work for this article. See Fundamental Unity of Life.
I don't get it. |
Looks like Joe has finally done all the hard work. Search & Replace along with a footnote:
| Quote | | Joe G: All I had to do was to make a few corrections indicated with emphasis above. |
Except that now the text makes false claims. Joe is ascribing views to scientists that they did not in fact hold!
In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common design were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common design, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:
"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)
That is not correct, of course. Hinegardner and Engelberg made their predictions based on non-telic evolutionary theory.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
