I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(02-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: 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.

We can discern degrees of separation only by assuming common descent. We know it's true within a species, because we know about sexual reproduction.

(02-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: 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.

But if that notch is found in three different trees, are those trees related, or was the notch made three different times?

That marker may be shared between gorillas, chimps, and humans because their common ancestor had it and it's been passed down. Or all three species were created with similar DNA, including that particular marker. It's also possible that gorillas and chimps had a common ancestor, and humans didn't, but Adam's DNA and ape DNA both included that marker.


(02-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: 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.


I'm not saying that at all. One interpretation of the evidence is indeed a common ancestor. But that doesn't prove it. It only proves it if the common ancestor hypothesis is correct, and modern science's first axiom is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Therefore, the only possible way for two different species to have similar DNA is a common ancestor, or the same DNA evolved twice, since God, according to science, doesn't exist. But there's no evidence ruling out creation, only the bias of science against it.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by Paul - 02-13-2020, 04:44 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)