RE--But, leaving that aside, why should it call it into question? Humans aren't special; we're just another species. There's no reason that a human/chimp common ancestor should be considered more important evidence for the ToE than the hippo/whale common ancestor.--
I was wondering, since creation also predicts that many organisms would share similar features, what evidence is there for common ancestory that does not rely on the similarity argument? Otherwise how can we know which view is the correct one?
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
RE--The reason we see ToE as indicated by genetics is that two of the normal 24 Ape chromosomes can be seen to have fused together in man who has only 23 chromosomes.--
You'll have to forgive me here as I'm not familiar with all the jargon and acronyms, so I would ask that you please explain what "ToE" stands for. Next I would ask again that you explain (apart from using any and all similarity arguments) how you can be sure that humans were not "created" with the 23 chromosomes as is? How do you "know" that two evolved into one fused one?
RE--This means that a new creature was evolved by an Act-of-God about 7 million years ago.--
Is this an assumption or is it something we "know"? If it is something we know then please explain how... apart from use of similarity arguments?
RE--Then we have this genetic trail of evidence that follows down the 22 names of species--
All I see is more "similarity arguments." Let me put it this way. Suppose I asked you to design just one thousand different modes of transportation. Do you think you could do it without a single similar feature in any? Or as a designer would you find that wheels are pretty handy? That wings work best when they contain a certain structures? Or that engines and motors require certain fundamental similarity? My point of course is that a "creator" would have found that certain similar features work best to function within this type of biosphere. Therefore creationists predict that life would all contain a good many similarities, from structure right down to genetic information. But it is not our similarities that interest me. It is our differences that are truly intriguing. Just a small 2 percent or so difference in our DNA can be all that is needed to be the difference between a chimp and a man.
RE--After that extinction, 40,000 years ago, all other kinds of humanoids except those with the Y-chromosome of Noah disappeared.--
Lol. Okay, so how do you know this? Do we have some 40,000 year old intact human DNA to compare to human? And if so how do we know that's its true age?
RE--My question to you is why don't you use this amazing analogy as evidence FOR the Bible instead of seeking to deny the science?--
Where did I deny it? I'm merely questioning it. And what about the Genesis account tells you it is merely an "analogy"?
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
RE--I assume you've graduated high school. It's a shame that you don't already know the history of hominid/chimp biology... You're questioning of it is terrible. It's like that of a kid who keeps asking "but why" but never getting anywhere with the answers.--
You seem to have the same attitude that one of my HS biology teachers had. He didn't like questions either. But why should we just accept something as a "matter of fact" when we haven't ever been shown a logical trail that leads to the stated conclusions? However I did have one very wise HS science teacher who once told me "There can only be one 'dumb' question... and that is the one that you never bothered to ask."
RE--By the use of dating methods.--
I'll be nice and not ask since this isn't the thread for that discussion.
RE--Yes we do: 40,000 year old DNA--
So where in your link does it support the claim that 24 chromosomes of ape ancestors fused into 23 human chromosomes? And how does it support this claim apart from use of any similarity arguments?
Since special creation also predicts that many organisms would share similar features, what evidence is there for common ancestory that does not rely on the similarity argument? In other words, since both schools of thought predict similarity among many organisms, then similarity can not be used to prove one above the other. So what evidence is there for common ancestory that does NOT depend on the similarities in the phenotype or genetic information?
RE--The first humanoid appeared when an ape surrogate mother with 24 Chromosomes experienced an Act-of-God by which two chromosomes fused together, creating a new creature in God with only 23 Chromosomes. From that point, intelligence was the resulting feature of the mutation which after 22 links to modern man clearly distinguishes us from Apes. --
That is an interesting story. Very imaginative. But again I am trying to ascertain where one can find its basis in reality?
RE--Special creation doesn't predict anything at all - it just says that God created everything as we see it today 6,000 years ago.--
Yes and when one looks for evidence that would support this story, wouldn't one "logically" expect to find that in a plethora of life supposedly all designed by a single designer, many would share similar "design" features?
RE--God could have made animals with wheels and three legs and plants with pink chlorophyl if he'd wanted to. --
But of course He could. Without a doubt. However if He wanted His creations to function at (what He saw as) the best possible potential then don't you think it would be more logical that He created things with better designing? For example have you considered what an animal with "wheels" would forfeit? Wheels are very difficult to design in a way so they can self repair. While attached legs that only hinge back and forth can more easily be fed nutrients necessary for repair. That is only one, but I am sure there are many design reasons for preferring legs to wheels. The same could probably be said for your other suggestions. The story says that when He finished His work that He looked at all His designs and said they were "good."
We may never know the half of "why" He designed things the way He did. But why wouldn't it be reasonable to predict that if things did have a single designer, they would have similar features?
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
RE--The entire field of biology and most of modern medicine operate on the premise that the way the Theory of Evolution explains the history of life is the correct interpretation of the evidence. --
I'm so glad that you agree it is only a premise. Here's the problem I'm struggling with. The atheist comes along and says there is no god and therefore we have to come up with our own Genesis account. Interestingly they invented the tale of abiogenesis and typically use that as their backdrop to the theory of Universal Common Decent. The theist comes along and says no that is wrong there is a God and they affirm their story of Genesis to be true. Neither account can in anyway be proven. In a sense they are both taken on faith. Depending on which of the two "premises" you ascribe to, it will determine how you interpret the exact same evidence.
My problem here is that as an objective observer who is trying very hard not to be swayed by personal "premises," I actually see more logical reasons (in the evidence) to accept the "premise" of special creation over common ancestry. Since both ideologies expect similarity among the various life forms, for me this means the debate can not be won with a similarity argument.
RE--Man, it must be hard being that smart.--
Lol. Yes I find myself having to "dumb it down" a lot so as not to scare the villagers. (grin) jk
RE--I won't do it for you because I feel anything I post you'll disregard. --
Not so my friend. I never disregard anything sent my direction so long as it is done tastefully and with respect. But also I'm not afraid to scrutinize it and ask the tough questions either.
RE--It's been pointed out many times that if god did create the animals and plants as we see them today, he is a really awful designer, not a 'good' one. He also did it in a way that makes it look exactly as if they had evolved in a haphazard way.--
Lol. Kind of reminds me of the joke "You know why God created Adam before creating Eve?... Because He didn't want a woman standing around telling Him how its done." jk But the point again is that what you and I may see as "bad design" doesn't mean it is. And it doesn't really matter what we think. That's kind of like babies in a playpen complaining that there's no toilets in the pen. And no espresso machines. At this point we're just looking back and trying to see what we can see to tell what did happen. Not what we think should've happened. And regardless of how many times you say na uh... special creation would expect to find organisms with many similar features. You have your opinion and I have mine. I guess we'll leave it at that.
RE--Except that it's not my opinion. It's science's explanation supported by the evidence versus your opinion.--
Regarding the last common ancestor premise and creation, don't you agree that what you personally believe about what creationists predict or don't predict is only your opininon? Your claim is that creation doesn't predict that the "last common ancestor" premise, could also be the result of a common creator. That is your opinion isn't it? I have been involved in the debate for almost nine years now and all the creationists I have ever spoken with and most of the creationist websites I have veiwed do explain the similarities this way.
RE--Science offers an explanation supported by evidence. --
Yes, supported by the same similarity "evidence" that creationists say supports a common creator.
RE--Handily, as well as providing evidence for its own position, it also disproves the creationist position by also pointing out the problems with it - dates, bad design, nested hierarchy, lack of floods, lack of genetic bottlenecks caused by floods and so on.--
And I have seen all the arguments on the reverse side of the spectrum. Neither really propell this debate forward, but rather leave it spinning its wheels in the mud throwing. So here is where we can move forward. --->Provide an example of evidence for common ancestory that doesn't rely at all on the similarity arguments. Period!
RE--But creationists do not predict the pattern of similarities. They "explain" them, as you say, by saying goddidit that way (and even then that's using the term "explain" rather loosely) --- but there is nothing whatsoever in creationism that would predict them.--
Again Doc. you are welcome to believe what you want. That's not what I see though. I see creationists saying as you said "goddidit" and then predicting you could support that claim by the fact that many organisms appear to have a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor. But in the end its only a different interpretation of the exact same evidence. What I think is needed here to propell common ancestory out of this stale tie, and up into first place, is evidence to support it that doesn't rely at all on a similarity argument.
RE--You don't need me come up with examples, but the entire fossil record, including for example, the lack of rabbits or lizards in the pre-Cambrian period is entirely inconsistent with the idea that all animals except humans were created in a one day period.--
Oh real-hhill-ly? When the fossils don't support it why can't creationists just claim "imperfection of the fossil record," like so many evolutionists love to do? Seems like a good a case of "whats good for the goose"... to me.
RE--Again, this topic is about the last common ancestor between man and ape. Diversions onto other topics such as intelligent design should be taken to other threads--
Are you implying that my discussions are not on topic? Because if you are I am not understanding why not considering the context of how this thread was framed.
The comments by Tram Law (the author) were:"If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found? If not, doesn't that call into question the existence of common ancestors?"
He seems to be calling into doubt the existence of a common ancestor to me, which is to the point I have been making here. I'm questioning the evidence presented for a common ancestor. The usual evidence presented is based on the similarity argument which creationists claim could merely be the result of a common creator. Therefore to truly propel common ancestry premises to the forefront we would need to see evidence that does...not...rely on similarity arguments.
So I'm basically asking the same question as Tram Law but with the additional need for that evidence to be supported by something other than similarities. I'm not seeing how this is deviating from topic at all?