Common ancestor or common Creator?

[georgedrw81]

What about them? There could of been plenty of creatures like the jellyfish that we have no proof of ever existing. DNA, like the snow flake, is unique. Chance just does not equate. The probability that there is no two alike is incomprehensible. Only God could do such a thing. Look at DNA itself. The amount of information that is each strand of DNA, if written into books, would reach the sun. Could this be done by chance? Science will never convince me of that. Only a Creator could create such a thing.

Right

[Hal P]

The real problem with common designer arguments is that it is hard to see how they account for the hierarchical nature of living organisms. It's not just a case of comparing similarities between organisms but of comparing both similarities and differences. For example, take something such as Cytochrome c, it is a protein associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion and is found universally in aerobic organisms.

Here are some sequences;

human

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

chimpanzee

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

rhesus monkey

gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne

rabbit

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne

mouse

mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne

rat

mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne

guinea pig

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

gray whale

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

camel

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

pig

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge redliaylkk atne

chicken

mgdiekgkki fvqkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaegfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkks ervdliaylk datsk

duck

gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atak

pigeon

gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkq atak

penguin

gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgifgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk

ostrich

gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nldglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk

alligator

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgligrkt gqapgfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkpe radliaylke atsn

snapping turtle

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlngligrkt gqaegfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkd atsk

rattlesnake

gdvekgkkif smkcgtchtv eeggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgysyta anknkgiiwg ddtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm vftglkskke rtdliaylke atak

monitor

gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhqlfgrkt geaegfsyta anknkgitwg edtlfeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkte rddliaylke atak

bullfrog

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk

tuna

gdvakgkktf vqkcaqchtv enggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqaegysytd ankskgivwn entlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdlvaylks ats

carp

gdvekgkkvf vqkcaqchtv zbggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqapgfsytb abkskgivwb zztlmeylzb pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylks ats

starfish

gqvekgkkif vqrcaqchtv ekagkhktgp nlngilgrkt gqaagfsytd anrnkgitwk netlfeylen pkkyipgtkm vfaglkkqke rqdliaylea atk

flesh fly

gvpagdvekg kkifvqrcaq chtveaggkh kvgpnlhglf grktgqapgf aytdankakg itwnedtlfe ylenpkkyip gtkmifaglk kpnergdlia ylksatk

fruit fly

mgvpagdvek gkklfvqrca qchtveaggk hkvgpnlhgl igrktgqaag faytdankak gitwnedtlf eylenpkkyi pgtkmifagl kkpnergdli aylksatk

corn

asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a

sunflower

asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

We notice that the human and chimp sequences are identical. This is what would be expected if they shared a recent common ancestor as cytochrome c is highly conserved, meaning it is resistant to change. If, on the other hand, people argue that the human and chimp sequence is the same because of a common designer, then why are all the sequences not either exactly the same or totally different? The reason that the rhesus monkey is sequence is still very similar to that of a chimp and human but has slightly more differences is that they share a more distant common ancestor that chimps and humans do and so there has been more time for differences to build up. Likewise the other mammals; pig, mouse, whale, etc each have a sequence that is still quite similar to the human sequence but more different than the rhesus monkey's is. Again this is because, each of these organisms share a more distant common ancestor with humans than rhesus monkeys do. What is the design argument here? Do these organisms have a different designer than primates? Further on down, we see that reptiles and bird have sequences that are slightly more different from the human's than the mammals do. Again, this is because these organisms share a more distant ancestor with humans than each of the mammals do. Or do they just have another, slightly different designer? The sequences for fish still bear many resemblences to that or the human, although not as many as reptiles and birds, and this is because humans and fish share a more distant ancestor than reptiles and birds and so more 'spelling mistakes' have accrued since the divergence. Likewise we see they fly sequence is more distant still. Do they also have a different designer? And by the time we get to plants, the differences between their sequences as that or humans is much greater than between all the animals, as animals and plants share a common ancestor that lived probably around 1.5-1.8 billion years and so more differences have been built up in that time. Or alternatively, are people proposing that they have yet another, slightly different designer?

[leoxiii]

Except that no one has claimed that the presence of bones is evidence for a common ancestor.

What is the evidence for a common ancestor?

[MorningGlory]

The real problem with common designer arguments is that it is hard to see how they account for the hierarchical nature of living organisms. It's not just a case of comparing similarities between organisms but of comparing both similarities and differences. For example, take something such as Cytochrome c, it is a protein associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion and is found universally in aerobic organisms.

Of course you are wrong once again Hal and I must ask

[Hal P]

Horizoneast, you refuse to respond to any arguments. Most of the arguments that have been presented do not even rely on homology; remnants of formerly functional genes, embryological developmental pathways etc - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Darwi...31#entry1443331 - and yet you just keep talking about homology.

In this case I am talking about nested hierarchies.

Give me an alternative explanation for the hierarchical nature of the cytochrome c sequences?

Humans and chimps are identical, but rhesus monkeys are very similar with just a few differences. I say this is because humans and chimps share a more recent ancestor than either does with a rhesus monkey. What is your explanation?

The sequence for a rat still has many similarities to that of a human but more differences than a rhesus monkey. I say this is because humans and rhesus monkeys share a more recent ancestor than either does with a rat. What is your explanation?

Likewise, reptiles and birds have sequences that are similar to humans but with more differences than rats. I say this is because humans and rats share a more recent ancestor than either does with any reptile or bird. What is your explanation?

The fish sequence is still similar to the human sequence but more different than reptiles and birds. I say this is because humans and reptiles/birds share a more recent ancestor than either does with fish. What is your explanation?

Stop complaining about homology and answer the questions.

Common descent is falsifiable and potential falsifications have been provided numerous times ( http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Evide...57#entry1427157 ) . NOT A SINGLE POTENTIAL FALSIFICATION HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED FOR COMMON DESIGN SO IT IS A USELESS HYPOTHESIS. It has no means to be tested, and so is not even worth considering.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Hal P

[MorningGlory]

Horizoneast, you refuse to respond to any arguments. Most of the arguments that have been presented do not even rely on homology; remnants of formerly functional genes, embryological developmental pathways etc - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Darwi...31#entry1443331 - and yet you just keep talking about homology.

In this case I am talking about nested hierarchies.

Give me an alternative explanation for the hierarchical nature of the cytochrome c sequences?

Humans and chimps are identical, but rhesus monkeys are very similar with just a few differences. I say this is because humans and chimps share a more recent ancestor than either does with a rhesus monkey. What is your explanation?

The sequence for a rat still has many similarities to that of a human but more differences than a rhesus monkey. I say this is because humans and rhesus monkeys share a more recent ancestor than either does with a rat. What is your explanation?

Likewise, reptiles and birds have sequences that are similar to humans but with more differences than rats. I say this is because humans and rats share a more recent ancestor than either does with any reptile or bird. What is your explanation?

The fish sequence is still similar to the human sequence but more different than reptiles and birds. I say this is because humans and reptiles/birds share a more recent ancestor than either does with fish. What is your explanation?

Stop complaining about homology and answer the questions.

Common descent is falsifiable and potential falsifications have been provided numerous times ( http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Evide...57#entry1427157 ) . NOT A SINGLE POTENTIAL FALSIFICATION HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED FOR COMMON DESIGN SO IT IS A USELESS HYPOTHESIS. It has no means to be tested, and so is not even worth considering.

So....you've traced YOUR ancestry back to a fish? This is getting too ridiculous.......

[Hal P]

Yes, try reading this - http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Jour...r/dp/0375424474

Anyway, our ancestry goes back a lot further than 'fish', which is a cladistically meaningless term anyway.

[leoxiii]

Except that no one has claimed that the presence of bones is evidence for a common ancestor.

What is the evidence for a common ancestor?

Um. . .are you finished explaining how the fossil record supports a common designer over common descent yet because I missed where you even got started. And again, I'm unable to "teach" you about the evidence for a common ancestor as per forum rules. Sorry.

Lurker

I am trying to establish what is the EVIDENCE for a common ancestor. There is no need for you to TEACH me anything at this point. Just post one or more scientific facts that prove beyond all doubt all living things have a common ancestor.

For instance: The fact that all living things reproduce by passing on their traits using information bearing molecules is proof of a Common Creator.

So, what fact do you have that proves a common ancestor?

[leoxiii]

how can both the presence and absence of bones be evidence for a Common Designer over a common ancestor?

I do not know. Now it is your turn:

How can both the presence and absence of bones be evidence for a common ancestor over a Common Designer?

[Kem P]

Leoxiii, the important question is: what would you accept as evidence of common ancestry over common design? If we were to treat them both as competing scientific hypotheses we would have to know what each predicts and what should be the case if either one were true so we can compare these predictions to reality to test them. We must also know what could not possibly be the case if each one were true, and what would prove them wrong. If an idea is consistent with all possible outcomes (as the actions of a supernatural entity would appear to be) then how do we test it? If we were to accept common design as a working hypothesis, how would we seek out errors in our understanding of how a supernatural agency would operate so that we can correct them? That's the whole point of science, you seek out flaws and weaknesses in your current models and theories so that they can be improved. As soon as you invoke the supernatural, there's just nowhere else to go.