Discussing "29 evidences..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

Confirmation:

​

Many genes with very basic cellular functions are ubiquitous — they occur in the genomes of most or all organisms.

​

John Paul:

​

Common Creator.

​

Do you guys think life is just (a) chemical reaction(s)?

---

1/
The genes may be, but the amino acids that make those proteins aren’t. For example, Cytochrome c shows gives a good comparison to taxonomic phylogenies, when comparing amino acids. i.e. Humans & Chimpanzees have a 100% match. Humans & Rhesus Monkeys have 1 difference, Pigs 13, Rattlesnake 20, Tuna 31, Candida 66 etc. The same is true of carbonic anhydrase I, a fast mutator, gives excellent comparisons of the primate taxonomic phylogenies. There is absolutely NO reason God would need to make cytochrome c different for organisms that are TAXONOMICALLY different. Come to that, there is absolutely no reason there should be any cytochrome c amino acid sequence/number differences in any organism, they all work just as well. The differences are there for you to explain, without reference to the supernatural. Creation science, don’t forget.The genes that have been sequenced in humans & chimps, show a 99% correlation. How is this evidence of a creator? Similar taxonomy calls for similar gene sequence? There is absolutely no reason that an Ider should create any duplicate sequences whatsoever. He could mix ‘em up, give a nip & a tuck to the control genes to account for ordering, & there you have it, a chimp with no gene sequence comparable to us. No amino acid/gene sequence similarities between taxonomically similar organisms, would be better evidence of an Ider, the exact opposite of what is found. Again, the differences are there for you to explain, without reference to the supernatural. Creation SCIENCE.The comparable phylogenies that can be made from methods such as these present a real problem to creationists. When the only argument becomes Godidit, the debate is over.2/ Is there any evidence that life isn’t JUST a series of chemical reactions?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by :

John Paul:
I didn't ask you for alleged evidence to support reptile to mammal evolution, I asked how could you test such a thing? If your answer is to look in the fossil record, that isn't a valid test because it assumes the ToE is indicative of reality and is therefore circular.

​

schraf:
The fossil evidence of gradual modification of the reptilian jaw bones to mammalian ear bones is quite good, for just one line of evidence.

​

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

​

---

The evidence of both reptile to mammal, & mammalian ear bones is evidence of evolution.It DOES NOT presuppose evolution, it is not a circular argument.Fossils are lain down in the geologic column by the principle of superposition. Younger on older. The fossils present snapshots of change in older to younger fossils. Anyone who had never heard of evolution would be able to deduce that progressive physical change occurred over time. Evolution.How on earth is this circular?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.