The needle on my Baloney Detector is back in the danger zone. This goes back to the totally unproven statement made some decades ago by scientists who said that if a planet had water and “the building blocks of life,” poof, life.
They’re not trying to prove that if you mix a bunch of random elements into a warm glass of water, shake or stir, that a worm jumps out… or maybe not to that absurd degree… maybe an amoeba is what you wanna see? Is that the proof you want them to show is that it works like Chocolate Quick? Because that’s not what this is about.
Well it depends on the kind of genetic similarity.
I agree. The fusion evidence does not provide evidence for common descent (which should be clear to one who understands inductive reasoning and Bayes’ theorem), but there’s much more than that in the genome. The right question to ask is the likelihood of what we see in the genome when the hypothesis of common descent is compared with that of common design. So, while the chromosomal fusion is an unlikely event (to occur and to get fixed in the genome), it’s no more unlikely if humans were created with 48 chromosomes than if they were descended from chimps.
The chromosomal fusion is not a shared functional similarity, it’s a difference.
Well this is exaggerated just a bit here. AREs might not be as strong evidence as ERVs and pseudogenes but still. Why would a creator choose “tandem repeats” for that function if any sequence would do vs. it being an evolutionary “artifact” of “parasitic DNA” that becomes inserted into our genomes with that precise sequence, because the sequence the parasite has. It’s not as much of a slam dunk as ERVs but still it does provide some support.
Nope. Species aren’t rigid typological categories in “Darwinism”. It’s assumed that if a male of a new species arose it wouldn’t be able to breed with the other females around. That assumption is incorrect. This might be an argument against saltationism.
Randomness imposes some restraints on predictability. We cannot predict what number will show next when we roll a truly random die. We can predict reasonably accurately what numbers we will see if we roll that die 60,000 times. With randomness our predictions move towards the statistical.
dementia,disease,death, dust cannot be evolution,nor can dust to dust - twinc
You should really read up on the subject to avoid putting forward such ridiculous arguments against it.
That is precisely what this is about. When a scientist appears on TV and says: “If we find planets with liquid water and the building blocks of life (amino acids) then we should expect to find life there.”
Well, yes, for a TV show. They don’t really have time to explain things it took them years of study to understand, so I see it as more of a way to capture attention and spark interest by giving a brief run-down.
I don’t have a problem with believing that it’s possible (or suspending my disbelief that it’s not) that scientists are right to the extent that life just “seemingly happened” in they way they want to try to explain and describe, if given the perfect conditions for it to happen, because, to me, figuring out how things work is part of the fun of living.
I’d say science is about deducing what you can from material evidence, personally.
They have plenty of time to explain things, but my point is, they have nothing. When the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science publishes something that tells the world that nothing conscious made us, they are committing two errors: one, they cannot demonstrate that is true, and two, they are misinforming and misleading the public by providing blatantly nonfactual information.
Everything came from nothing don’t ya know.
Only if one makes God a liar; he created the heavens and the earth and all they contain in six literal days. He did not change diapers or nurse Adam and Eve, He built “time” into all He created.
And we know know with recent discoveries that DNA fights to prevent changes. So now evo has a blocker in its path.
