Kinds and diversification through microevolution and hybridization

I think that in a sense you are right.Any evidence for common descent is evidence for common
design.Because you accept speciation common design is just one
possibile scenario for common descent. It still has a common
ancestor for each kind, it's just that for you that ancestor
was designed.So what about man and the rest of the primates?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter

​

I agree except . . .

​

Genomically I think we are starting to see some problems for 'monophyletic' evoltuion, and not just due to horzontal tranfer. The 'mosaic' nature of genomes, including 'convergent' rehappenings at some point may show that (i) evolution is wrong and (ii) God's blueprints were a bit non-monophyletic. I think we have seen hints of this recently in wing genes in unrelated taxa (birds and flies) being 'too' convergent.

​

Man is certianly most similar to primates. Man is biologically a very special primate from a creationit POV.

---

Sorry, what do you mean by 'mosaic' nature of genomes (I know
what a mosaic is ... just not heard it in relation to genomes
before).As for convergence, and being 'too' convergent I find that an
argument from incredulity again. Just because it seems unlikely
doesn't mean it couldn't happen ... I'd need a little more than
that to see it as a real problem.If a particular protein is beneficial to an organism, and that
protein leads an organism to be capable of producing a particular
kind of phenotypic feature then that could recurr in vastly
different taxa.Not knowing exactly how geno- and phenotypes are related is a
bit of a problem ... but equally with the wing thing, someone mentioned
that the genes were protrusion genes, and that they could be
considered stronger evidence for common descent because they
are evident across all limbed critters.Equally could indicate common design I guess.Is there any evidence, that if it existed, would lead you
to favour common descent in the evolutionary sense, rather
than common design in the creationist sense?

quote:

---

5.(ii) "Unlikelihood is not evidence".
If we are talking about God vs nature then the unlikeliness of nature doing it is evidence of God.

---

Do you really want to say that?An argument from incredulity is evidence of God?Because something may seem unlikely in the current state of
knowledge means very little.150 years ago people most likely thought that it would be
impossible to travel from Europe to America in less than
a few months ... unliklihood just shows a lack of imagination

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter

​

It is an issue of extent. I think our bodies, our eyesight, our consciousness is incrdible evidence that God created. How the sun works? You're right we understand that now - but I still think how we got here is qualitatively differnet.

---

In what way different, and why do you think that?A problem that I have come across once or twice (on various
issues not just CvsE) is that a certain portion of humanity
find it hard to take that mankind (forgive the un-pc expression)
is nothing special, just another animal doing what animals
do. Similarly life, fundamentally, is just an emergent property
of a chemical system.I know that causes problems for some people, but using that
'unbelievability' in a discussion should be discouraged.