Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic evidence of primate evolution
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 15 of 29 (5077)
02-19-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
02-01-2002 2:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
I would like to know why this can't be used as evidence for a Common Creator with the Common Mechanism Brown talks about here:
Pseudogenes
Of course the difference being that Brown can test his hypothesis in a lab whereas Father Time and someunknown natural process prevent that with the alleged evolutionary scenario.
Ahh, how soon they resort to denial and selective memory....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 02-01-2002 2:51 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:08 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 28 of 29 (14654)
08-01-2002 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by John Paul
05-24-2002 2:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
No, I did. That you cannot see that is a given. Afterall, you provided links on the evolution of language and claim that they supported ReMine's tall tales about fixed beneficial mutations...
quote:
Creationists see the difference in chromosomes as a tell-tale indication primates and humans did not share a common ancestor. Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
So these monkeys:
Cercopithecus mona has
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4697.gif
and
C. mitis has
Page not found – Wisconsin National Primate Research Center – UW—Madison
did not share a common ancestral 'kind'? C. mona had 2n=66, C. mitis has 2n=72.
They have far mor phenotypic traits in common with each other than human and chimp do. Clearly, they are separate Kinds. Another pair to add to the ark's hold!
quote:
Evolutionists like to claim the difference is due to chromosomal fussion. If this was the case then with our knowledge of genetic engineering we should be able to effect this change and test the hypothesis.
This was already discussed at BB and you kept adding disclaimers, excuses, caveats, and additional criteria. You concluded that doing something in a lab would at least let us know how much intervention was required. That is, you assume that Intervention is required. Circular.
quote:
As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science, also.
Apples and fish. It is a waste of time to go over this again, as it has been explained to you probably dozens of times on several different boards. It is neither rational, logical, or scientific to infer 'common design' when looking at DNA sequence data, which you obviously have never done. You can, and no doubt will, continue to make this naive and spurious claim forever. However, doing so will not make it a defensible claim. If one 'infers' common design from DNA sequence data, then one will infer it everywhere, in everything, under any circumstance.
Not science.
By the way - since you keep insisting that unless you personally can be provided with 'objective' tests of common descent that would meet your personal criteria (which i do not think yo have yet to divulge), it stands to reason that because you think whatever it is you believe in is science, you should be able to present us all with your objective test of common design. Make thayt, Common Desing in Nature, as the usual silly analogies to computers and such are irrelevant.
i am going to go eat my lunch...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:08 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024