Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8998 total)
74 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,546 Year: 11,294/23,288 Month: 546/1,763 Week: 185/328 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How creationism explains babies with tails
Modulous
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 41 of 59 (599310)
01-06-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Aaron
01-06-2011 2:53 AM


Common design failure
With creatures that look similar, there's bound to be similar genetic makeup.

There are marsupial mice and moles etc. They look like their placental namesakes. A marsupial mole is genetically closer to a kangaroo than it is to its placental version. A placental mouse is genetically closer to an elephant than it is to it's marsupial counterpart.

So your assertion that there is bound to be similar genetic makeup when creatures 'look similar' is falsified by this evidence.

Further - we can test genes that have no effect on the way an organism looks such as cytochrome c and the pattern holds as if they were evolved.

A designer could have done it this way.

Yes, the designer could have done it ANY WAY. Evolution can only have done it in conformity with one pattern. Remember that wise man that once said:

quote:
There would be those who would find patterns to support their position no matter what this world looked like.

That's design for you: if it looks evolved it could have been designed that way. If it doesn't look evolved: it was designed that way. Whatever we find, whatever we could find, all supports design equally and therefore whatever we find doesn't actually increase our confidence in design.

I responded by saying that some signalling genes were common across the board.

I'm no master of biology, but I'm wondering about the depths of your understanding. Have you heard of molecular specificity? Proteins perform specific roles and can only interact with other specific proteins. God can't break those rules and use a sequence of proteins to perform one function in a mammal and another function in an insect.

You can take genes from one species and plonk them into a completely different species to create interesting new designs. Often called genetic modification, this is evidence of intervening design and it is exactly the thing we don't see unless a human has been involved. God can do that if humans can, but God (or whatever designer) didn't. Again - it could have looked designed with GM going on here and there - but it didn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Aaron, posted 01-06-2011 2:53 AM Aaron has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Aaron, posted 01-15-2011 3:29 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 59 (600835)
01-17-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Aaron
01-15-2011 3:29 AM


Re: Common design failure
A full discussion on the issues you raise would probably take us way off topic. I'm glad to see you have agreed to concede the assertion 'With creatures that look similar, there's bound to be similar genetic makeup.' is untrue. I presume you are happy to drop the 'the designer could have designed that way' argument as being as empty is as I argued it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Aaron, posted 01-15-2011 3:29 AM Aaron has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020