Genetic evidence of primate evolution

Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.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.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.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.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

---

Jeff:
Correct me please, if mistaken, but this sounds just like a Gawd-of-the-Gaps excuse. People used to make the same demands of science to explain lightening, volcanoes and Hostess Twinkies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

​

---

Jeff:
I was hoping you could demonstrate the logic behind the claim that genetic similarity between humans and apes is indicative of a common creator ?
Does this mean another gawd/designer is responsible for arthropods ?
See, science demonstrates the genetic similarity of apes & humans as compared to other organisms.
We share 98%+ of our genes with Chimps
We might share only 11% or 17% of our genes with a Lobster, but you claim both scenarios indicate a common creator.HOW ?I can learn from anybody.regards,jeff

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.

​

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.

---

And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

---

I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

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.

---

Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-27-2002]

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
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.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Peter:
And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????John Paul:
Not all people with Down's have 47 chromosomes. Are you saying ape-like organisms evolved from humans? Or are Down's people intermediates? Rudiments from our past?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Peter:
I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.John Paul:
I for one care very little to what Christians say about ethical grounds. It has been my experience that most "Christians" are so in name only. (BTW, I'm not a Christian)

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow observations. Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge. If the Bible is indicative of reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be interpretted.Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.John Paul:
It fails to do so. Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements. If explanations counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
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.

​

Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.

​

John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.

---

Jeff:
Displaying your ignorance of the subject again in addition to your fondness for non-answers to direct questions. In the same vein as yeah, so’s your old man come backs.
Do you have anything of substance to offer us in the way of HOW you test for this common creator hypothesis — OTHER THAN your feeble one-line comebacks ?Perhaps you’d rather avoid this direct question AGAIN from May 24th, above:

quote:

---

Jeff:
I was hoping you could demonstrate the logic behind the claim that genetic similarity between humans and apes is indicative of a common creator ?
Does this mean another gawd/designer is responsible for arthropods ?
See, science demonstrates the genetic similarity of apes & humans as compared to other organisms.
We share 98%+ of our genes with Chimps
We might share only 11% or 17% of our genes with a Lobster, but you claim both scenarios indicate a common creator.

​

HOW ?

---

Jeff:
Your lack of response is telling.

quote:

---

Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.

​

John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow observations.

---

Jeff:
No, we don’t know this. Only crack-crazed morons and creationists ‘KNOW’ this — so speak for yourself, thank you.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.

---

Jeff:
What observed evidence ? Can you list this for us ? Or can we conclude you’re making this up too ?

quote:

---

Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).

​

John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge.

---

Jeff:
Swing and a miss !!
You loathe science so much, you redefine it subconsciously now without even noticing.
Science is a methodology to explore nature and the material universe for explanations of naturally occurring phenomena. It isn’t a ‘search for the truth’ — it is a search for the facts.
Truth is subjective, depending on with outdated sacred text you subscribe to.I challenge you to present ANY scientific journal that describes science using the word ‘truth’.
Scientists don’t use it, must be an ‘enginerror’ thing.

quote:

---

John Paul:
If the Bible is indicative of reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be interpretted.

---

Jeff:
But science has already weighed in heavily that the Bible ISN’T an accurate historical document.
There was no flood.or at least no global flood that left evidence.
There is no evidence of a creation week either. No interpretation needed. Well, maybe by engineers, but not scientists.

quote:

---

Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.

​

John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.

---

Jeff:
Or, more accurately,
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as Scooby-Doo’s TOE.Here’s your chance to actually support your claim:
How is this Creation model of biological evolution tested & falsified ?

quote:

---

Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.

​

John Paul:
It fails to do so.

---

Jeff:
No, it only fails to address the supernatural and you wanna know why ?
Because you continually refuse to tell us HOW science evaluates the supernatural.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements.

---

Jeff:
So when the formation of volcanoes is ‘explained’, there is no need for a demonstration to understand the underlying concept ?
Agreed.

quote:

---

John Paul:
If explanations counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.

---

Jeff:
Yeah, Right ! I DOUBT that !!

quote:

---

Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.

​

John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.

---

Jeff:
Or, more accurately:Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's myopic biases & fear.Got Science ? ya think so ?
Got evidence ?See if you can answer just the ONE question:HOW does science evaluate the supernatural ?
If you can’t answer this, your whole ‘model’ is a non-starter.regards,jeff------------------
"I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: I am fighting for the work of the Lord."Adolf Hitler 1923 - Creationist, Man of God

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only
think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter:
And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????

​

John Paul:
Not all people with Down's have 47 chromosomes. Are you saying ape-like organisms evolved from humans? Or are
Down's people intermediates? Rudiments from our past?

---

Some do.But you have stated that differing numbers of chromosomes preclude common
ancestry. I have provided OBSERVED evidence that this is NOT the case.I'm not suggesting that Down's syndrome itself is anything to do with the
evolution of apes and man. I am citing it as evidence that an organism
can produce offspring with a different number of chromosomes to itself.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter:
I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.

​

John Paul:
I for one care very little to what Christians say about ethical grounds. It has been my experience that most
"Christians" are so in name only. (BTW, I'm not a Christian)

​

---

You seem to care very little what anyone else thinks ... and I know you are not
a christian (you've said so elsewhere) ... never said you were

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.

​

John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.

---

OK, so show me the evidence, and explain how a common creator is inferred from
it.

quote:

---

Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.

​

John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow
observations. Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.

---

Explain how we KNOE that ToE does not follow observations (and who are 'we'), please.What observed evidence, 200 years ago, lead to ID ?

quote:

---

Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).

​

John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge. If the Bible is indicative of
reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be
interpretted.

---

Science is not a search for truth ... truth is subjective, science strives for objectivity
in the face of man's innate subjective nature ... that's why you need peer review and
discussion.BTW -- why do you think I wrote 'data + interpretations' ?

quote:

---

Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.

​

John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.

​

---

So according to YOU personally it's NOT scientific at all then ?

quote:

---

​

Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.

​

John Paul:
It fails to do so. Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements. If explanations
counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.

---

What facts does ToE fail to explain ?In what way do you need to DEMONSTRATE anything in order to pass a test ? Tests are based
upon you're ability to understand the ideas behind the subject in question .... I know
I've set tests for my students.

quote:

---

Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.

​

John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.

---

It's not about your worldview ... I was raised in a christian society, and the
woprldview that was impressed upon me (without my knowledge) was rooted in
judeo-christain belief systems.Taking a conclusion (there is an IDer), and molding data to fit is NOT scientific.Taking an observation, figuring out why that should be, working out a way to test
the hypothesis (by finding other evidence perhaps) IS scientific.Or am I wrong there ?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only
think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter:
And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????

​

John Paul:
Not all people with Down's have 47 chromosomes. Are you saying ape-like organisms evolved from humans? Or are
Down's people intermediates? Rudiments from our past?

---

Some do.But you have stated that differing numbers of chromosomes preclude common
ancestry. I have provided OBSERVED evidence that this is NOT the case.I'm not suggesting that Down's syndrome itself is anything to do with the
evolution of apes and man. I am citing it as evidence that an organism
can produce offspring with a different number of chromosomes to itself.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter:
I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.

​

John Paul:
I for one care very little to what Christians say about ethical grounds. It has been my experience that most
"Christians" are so in name only. (BTW, I'm not a Christian)

​

---

You seem to care very little what anyone else thinks ... and I know you are not
a christian (you've said so elsewhere) ... never said you were

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.

​

John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.

---

OK, so show me the evidence, and explain how a common creator is inferred from
it.

quote:

---

Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.

​

John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow
observations. Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.

---

Explain how we KNOE that ToE does not follow observations (and who are 'we'), please.What observed evidence, 200 years ago, lead to ID ?

quote:

---

Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).

​

John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge. If the Bible is indicative of
reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be
interpretted.

---

Science is not a search for truth ... truth is subjective, science strives for objectivity
in the face of man's innate subjective nature ... that's why you need peer review and
discussion.BTW -- why do you think I wrote 'data + interpretations' ?

quote:

---

Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.

​

John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.

​

---

So according to YOU personally it's NOT scientific at all then ?

quote:

---

​

Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.

​

John Paul:
It fails to do so. Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements. If explanations
counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.

---

What facts does ToE fail to explain ?In what way do you need to DEMONSTRATE anything in order to pass a test ? Tests are based
upon you're ability to understand the ideas behind the subject in question .... I know
I've set tests for my students.

quote:

---

Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.

​

John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.

---

It's not about your worldview ... I was raised in a christian society, and the
woprldview that was impressed upon me (without my knowledge) was rooted in
judeo-christain belief systems.Taking a conclusion (there is an IDer), and molding data to fit is NOT scientific.Taking an observation, figuring out why that should be, working out a way to test
the hypothesis (by finding other evidence perhaps) IS scientific.Or am I wrong there ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
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. 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. As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a common ancestor.

---

RESPONSE TO JOHN PAUL'S QUESTION ON THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBER OF HUMAN AND CHIMP CHROMOSOMES: Evidence that human chromosome #2 resulted from the fusion of two formerly distinct chromosomes has been found. See "Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry" by clicking on that article at http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
"The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true in reference 3 ... The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4." Indiana University Bloomington[/URL]Click to sub-page http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.bk1.html which shows a detail pic matching human and chimp chromosomes 1-4. Note how banding patterns on the second chromosome in humans lines up with those in two shorter chimp chromosomes, while all the other chromosomes match up one for one.For matchings on other chromosomes click to http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.jpeg.html -- note, humans have 22 chromosomes (called autosomes), plus the X and Y.Go to sub-page http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html for a beautiful image matching all the chromosomes of four hominids -- human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan.Finally see the Hominoid Phylogeny (ancestral tree) based on these chromosome comparisons at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.clad.htmlBest, Ed------------------
Edward T. Babinski (author of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists; Editor of Cretinism or Evilution -- on the web)

A most humble welcome, Mr. Edward T. Babinski.--Percy

quote:

---

Editor of Cretinism or Evilution -- on the web

---

Edward T. Babinski (Mr. Humble) didn't give a link - Here it is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/Note: I couldn't get the first issue link to work.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I can e-mail anyone the first issue of Cretinism or Evilution, it's the shortest issue and it fell off the web, but hasn't been reposted in a while. Click on my name to the left of this message and you'll see my main web page listed with links and also be able to reach me via my e-mail address listed there. (ed.babinski@furman.edu)By the way, I use my full name with middle initial because there are a few other Babinski's on the internet (even some Edward Babinski's). I was joking about my hobby/interests being "knowing everything." I'm just a curious guy, and mostly I like to prove to people that they don't know quite as much as they suppose they do.
Best, Ed

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Edward T. Babinski (Mr. Humble) didn't give a link - Here it is:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/

​

Note: I couldn't get the first issue link to work.

​

Moose

​

---

If you send a copy to admin@ it can be added to this site's reference library.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

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.gifand
C. mitis has
Page not found – Wisconsin National Primate Research Center – UW—Madisondid 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...

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.

---

What do you mean by unobserved? Do you mean they have never been seen by anyone or they are unrepeatable in experimentation?