I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(02-12-2020, 05:25 PM)Paul Wrote: That still assumes common descent. DNA tests work on humans because we know humans are descended from other humans. Shared genes only mean that two organisms are related if we already know they share an ancestor. Otherwise, they could have had those genes separately from the beginning. It’s trying to prove common descent by assuming common descent, and that’s just circular.

It only works back to a certain point, because prior to that, all the different kinds were separate. If there was no first organism for everything to descend from, shared genes prove nothing. It makes all sorts of sense to say that you can’t compare the genes of fish to those of dogs if the two never had a common ancestor. The only way it works your way is if there were, which is assuming what you want to prove.


I think it's a little more advanced than that.  Have you ever taken one of those mail-in dna tests?  They're pretty accurate in matching up your relations and to the degree you're related.  Mine was able to accurately tell that my mother was my mother, not a grandmother or aunt.  It was able to accurately tell that my great aunt was my great aunt, and not my fourth cousin.  If what you're saying is accurate, we shouldn't be able to discern degrees of separation, but a simple yes/no to the question of relation.

I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on how it works for determining extra-species relations, but based on what I've read, it seems a little like tree rings.  If a notch was made into a tree x years ago, then that notch has a ripple effect on all the rings that come after it.  It's kind of like that with genes long term.  We can discern genetic markers that are older than humanity, lets say pre-human/gorilla divide.  The marker exists in humans, chimps and gorillas, but because of the distance in time from the original mutation, it looks slightly different in each.  It looks more similar between humans and chimps, because our shared 'ripple' diverged later than our common ancestor did from gorillas.

You're not making a circular argument, but you are apolying your bias against a common ancestor onto the evidence.  You are saying that, because each kind was made separately, the evidence cannot suggest a common ancestor.  But the evidence does not suggest the kinds were created independently, so there is no reason *not* to interpret the evidence as pointing to a common ancestor.  You're creating an ad hoc hypothesis.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by Melkite - 02-12-2020, 10:39 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)