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...