A Question for Creationists

[Rational Agnostic]

DNA similarities doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove a designer or accidental events, but still
a designer is much closer to be the case.

The most plausible explanation for DNA being more similar in some species than others is that those species shared a more recent common ancestor. Not to mention the other mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, like numerous transitional fossils (I made a thread on that awhile ago), that confirm this.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible.

Good to see you've realized scientists have faith, too. It's to bad they put their faith in each other's guessing games.

Without science, you wouldn't have a computer to criticize scientists on. You do realize that scientists are the ones who dragged people like you out of the Stone Age, correct?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Without science, you wouldn't have a computer to criticize scientists on. You do realize that scientists are the ones who dragged people like you out of the Stone Age, correct?

It may have been pointed out before, but practical technologies that make this possible: like electronics, powered flight, computer software systems....

The Wright brothers were high school dropouts, Edison was home schooled, Bill Gates dropped out of college, they were not 'scientists'- they were engineers, inventors, entrepreneurs

'scientists' were too busy at the time pushing theories like Phrenology, Piltdown man and global cooling.



But on DNA similarities, why would God go out of his way to produce physically similar animals with completely different DNA structures? just to avoid confusing Darwinists for a brief period in history?

The schematics of a Ford and Chevy pickup will show many similarities, this does not suggest, far less confirm, that one spontaneously adapted from the other, far less that no intelligent design was involved at any point.

 

[leibowde84]

Our biases are often irrational, as they are ruled by our egos rather than by our reason. If we want to understand the bias of others, all we have to do is examine those of your own. The mechanisms are the same, even if the subjects are different.

That's true, I guess. But, how is that relevant here? What biases are you looking at specifically?

 

[Jose Fly]

The most plausible explanation for DNA being more similar in some species than others is that those species shared a more recent common ancestor. Not to mention the other mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, like numerous transitional fossils (I made a thread on that awhile ago), that confirm this.

It's not just "the sequences are similar, therefore they're related", it's the specific nature of those similarities, both in terms of the nested hierarchy they exhibit and the shared errors.

It's one of the main reasons even ID creationists like Michael Behe acknowledge the reality of universal common ancestry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may have been pointed out before, but practical technologies that make this possible: like electronics, powered flight, computer software systems....

The Wright brothers were high school dropouts, Edison was home schooled, Bill Gates dropped out of college, they were not 'scientists'- they were engineers, inventors, entrepreneurs

'scientists' were too busy at the time pushing theories like Phrenology, Piltdown man and global cooling.

No, this only shows you do not know what scientists are. Yes, your heroes may be engineers but you have no clue as to what science is.

But on DNA similarities, why would God go out of his way to produce physically similar animals with completely different DNA structures? just to avoid confusing Darwinists for a brief period in history?

Are you seriously proposing a lying God? That is what a denial of science ultimately results in for creationists.

The schematics of a Ford and Chevy pickup will show many similarities, this does not suggest, far less confirm, that one spontaneously adapted from the other, far less that no intelligent design was involved at any point.

Ye,s but your car argument is a failed argument. Try another line of attack.

 

[FearGod]

The most plausible explanation for DNA being more similar in some species than others is that those species shared a more recent common ancestor. Not to mention the other mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, like numerous transitional fossils (I made a thread on that awhile ago), that confirm this.

Still it doesn't say if the DNA was designed to mutate or it was a matter of chance and luck.

 

[Darkstorn]

The schematics of a Ford and Chevy pickup will show many similarities, this does not suggest, far less confirm, that one spontaneously adapted from the other, far less that no intelligent design was involved at any point.

I really don't understand why you keep repeating this argument. You've been explained in other threads how it fails. Then you just abandon that thread, move onto another and repeat the claim as if the last exchange never happened. Here's a refresher:

The last time you did this argument, others successfully managed to argue you to a point where you no longer replied back. Now you're in a different thread repeating the same argument. Explain your angle.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

Well, offhand, I'd say the designer did a good job of making sure life could perpetuate itself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, offhand, I'd say the designer did a good job of making sure life could perpetuate itself.

Which is not an easy thing to do, not the sort of thing that's likely to happen by sheer fluke

 

[Altfish]

Which is not an easy thing to do, not the sort of thing that's likely to happen by sheer fluke

Come on Guy. You know this, IT IS NOT SHEER FLUKE !!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Come on Guy. You know this, IT IS NOT SHEER FLUKE !!

Well yes I know, it was probably just designed that way

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is not an easy thing to do, not the sort of thing that's likely to happen by sheer fluke

Do you think that that is what evolution depends upon? If so you do not understand the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well yes I know, it was probably just designed that way

He was pointing out that by implying evolution is based upon "sheer fluke" you were being dishonest at best. You obviously have been corrected on this error. If one repeats an errant claim after they have been corrected several times they have crossed past ignorant, past dishonesty, to openly lying. I am sure that you don't want to lie. What good would lying for Jesus do?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well yes I know, it was probably just designed that way

It is designed that way by the laws of this universe. Is there any other way for it to exist here?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is designed that way by the laws of this universe. Is there any other way for it to exist here?

'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo

 

[sandy whitelinger]

'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo

See, even Galileo agrees with me.

 

[dad1]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

I don't know the answer. However, I wonder if we could rule out, before dissecting this any further, that some wicked human mated with an animal some time, say after the flood?

The nature of that day in the Bible was not as today, so we can't use what we might normally expect today as the standard. If something like this was the case, then the physical body of the offspring might share a lot of dna.

 

[Altfish]

I don't know the answer. However, I wonder if we could rule out, before dissecting this any further, that some wicked human mated with an animal some time, say after the flood?

The nature of that day in the Bible was not as today, so we can't use what we might normally expect today as the standard. If something like this was the case, then the physical body of the offspring might share a lot of dna.

This flood you are referring to, I assume you mean the Cockermouth Floods of 2009; when the bridge got swept away and a policeman tragically lost his life.

That would make sense as there are lots of sheep on the fells around there and a few locals are referred to as 'sheep sh*gg*rs'.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't know the answer. However, I wonder if we could rule out, before dissecting this any further, that some wicked human mated with an animal some time, say after the flood?

The nature of that day in the Bible was not as today, so we can't use what we might normally expect today as the standard. If something like this was the case, then the physical body of the offspring might share a lot of dna.

Dunno. I just read an interesting article yesterday that said some Japanese species of monkeys are messing around sexually with deer, so I suppose it's possible. But irrelevant to this topic of discussion nonetheless.