Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[marke]

Similarities of bone structures do not prove evolution like evolutionists want to believe, especially since the rat and the elephant do not have similar bone structures yet evolutionists claim they are closely related in the evolutionary tree of life.

In this and other threads, people have been explaining at length the support for the theory, but you just keep saying things that are not even wrong. You're trying to explain away the evidentiary power of homology with a handwaving dismissal. Why specifically does homology fail as evidence for evolution?

AI Overview
Learn more
The claim that homology does not support evolution is often made by creationists who argue that the concept of homology itself assumes common ancestry, which is the very thing evolution is trying to prove, making it circular reasoning; however, the scientific consensus is that homology is a strong piece of evidence for evolution, as it indicates similar structures across different species due to shared ancestry, not just superficial similarity.

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

[Difflugia]

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

You either don't understand the underlying science or you're using "assume" differently than everybody else does.

The patterns that we see in similarities of bone structures and other characters match patterns in other, otherwise unrelated characters, including molecular genomic data. These patterns in turn match those expected by common descent through genetic mutation and natural selection, but contradict those expected by other proposals, including any rational expression of common design. None of that is assumption.

Here's a link to a paper using fossil morphology to order whales within the evolutionary history of mammals in general. The characters used are selected to be as objective as possible to avoid anything that one could reasonably call subjective, let alone assumption. The phylogenetic patterns generated from the data don't require any assumptions of common ancestry any more than mathematics requires assumptions about the rules of addition and subtraction. If the rules we use to generate the answers aren't right, then we'll get answers that aren't consistent with other computations and answers. Of course, one could claim that it's an unfounded assumption that 2+2 equals 4 independent of God because God consciously sustains addition, but that would be a short discussion supported only by blind assertions. I'm sure we can rise above that here.

"The Position of Cetacea Within Mammalia: Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data from Extinct and Extant Taxa", Systematic Biology, July 1 1999, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp. 455-490

[marke]

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

You either don't understand the underlying science or you're using "assume" differently than everybody else does.

The patterns that we see in similarities of bone structures and other characters match patterns in other, otherwise unrelated characters, including molecular genomic data. These patterns in turn match those expected by common descent through genetic mutation and natural selection, but contradict those expected by other proposals, including any rational expression of common design. None of that is assumption.

Here's a link to a paper using fossil morphology to order whales within the evolutionary history of mammals in general. The characters used are selected to be as objective as possible to avoid anything that one could reasonably call subjective, let alone assumption. The phylogenetic patterns generated from the data don't require any assumptions of common ancestry any more than mathematics requires assumptions about the rules of addition and subtraction. If the rules we use to generate the answers aren't right, then we'll get answers that aren't consistent with other computations and answers. Of course, one could claim that it's an unfounded assumption that 2+2 equals 4 independent of God because God consciously sustains addition, but that would be a short discussion supported only by blind assertions. I'm sure we can rise above that here.

"The Position of Cetacea Within Mammalia: Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data from Extinct and Extant Taxa", Systematic Biology, July 1 1999, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp. 455-490

What similar bone structures can you describe exist between elephants and mice? Ane what makes you believe it is the bone similarities that prove to you the elephant and the mouse are closely related descendants from a common ancestor?

AI Overview
Learn more
The closest evolutionary relative to the elephant is the rock hyrax (also called a dassie), a small, rodent-like mammal that shares a common ancestor with elephants, despite their vastly different appearances; both animals belong to the group "Tethytheria" which also includes manatees and dugongs.

[Diogenes]

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

You either don't understand the underlying science or you're using "assume" differently than everybody else does.

The patterns that we see in similarities of bone structures and other characters match patterns in other, otherwise unrelated characters, including molecular genomic data. These patterns in turn match those expected by common descent through genetic mutation and natural selection, but contradict those expected by other proposals, including any rational expression of common design. None of that is assumption.
....

There's a pattern on this forum. A couple times a year a Newbie shows up. He generally has no knowledge of science and the few things he "knows" are wrong. He comes in armed with the silly and contrafactual arguments we see from AIG and other creationist sites which spew utter nonsense in order to support their simplistic, and ignorant biases based on misunderstanding scripture.

Tho' I enjoy seeing good, scientific explanations of how science works, how biology and evolution actually work, there is no point in trying to help those who refuse to learn. After they are ignored, they go away or get themselves banned.

[The Barbarian]

Similarities of bone structures do not prove evolution like evolutionists want to believe, especially since the rat and the elephant do not have similar bone structures yet evolutionists claim they are closely related in the evolutionary tree of life.

In this and other threads, people have been explaining at length the support for the theory, but you just keep saying things that are not even wrong. You're trying to explain away the evidentiary power of homology with a handwaving dismissal. Why specifically does homology fail as evidence for evolution?

AI Overview
Learn more
The claim that homology does not support evolution is often made by creationists who argue that the concept of homology itself assumes common ancestry, which is the very thing evolution is trying to prove, making it circular reasoning; however, the scientific consensus is that homology is a strong piece of evidence for evolution, as it indicates similar structures across different species due to shared ancestry, not just superficial similarity.

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

It's not just structural homologies. The wings of bats are formed by the same genes that form the flippers of whales and the arms of humans. As you learned, these homologies are not conclusions; they are documented facts, showing that tetrapods have a common ancestor.

[marke]

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

You either don't understand the underlying science or you're using "assume" differently than everybody else does.

The patterns that we see in similarities of bone structures and other characters match patterns in other, otherwise unrelated characters, including molecular genomic data. These patterns in turn match those expected by common descent through genetic mutation and natural selection, but contradict those expected by other proposals, including any rational expression of common design. None of that is assumption.
....

There's a pattern on this forum. A couple times a year a Newbie shows up. He generally has no knowledge of science and the few things he "knows" are wrong. He comes in armed with the silly and contrafactual arguments we see from AIG and other creationist sites which spew utter nonsense in order to support their simplistic, and ignorant biases based on misunderstanding scripture.

Tho' I enjoy seeing good, scientific explanations of how science works, how biology and evolution actually work, there is no point in trying to help those who refuse to learn. After they are ignored, they go away or get themselves banned.

Rejecting science submitted by Christians does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

[marke]

Similarities of bone structures do not prove evolution like evolutionists want to believe, especially since the rat and the elephant do not have similar bone structures yet evolutionists claim they are closely related in the evolutionary tree of life.

In this and other threads, people have been explaining at length the support for the theory, but you just keep saying things that are not even wrong. You're trying to explain away the evidentiary power of homology with a handwaving dismissal. Why specifically does homology fail as evidence for evolution?

AI Overview
Learn more
The claim that homology does not support evolution is often made by creationists who argue that the concept of homology itself assumes common ancestry, which is the very thing evolution is trying to prove, making it circular reasoning; however, the scientific consensus is that homology is a strong piece of evidence for evolution, as it indicates similar structures across different species due to shared ancestry, not just superficial similarity.

Assuming similarities of bone structures prove common ancestry is not proven by scientific data that itself is merely interpreted by assumptions of common ancestry.

It's not just structural homologies. The wings of bats are formed by the same genes that form the flippers of whales and the arms of humans. As you learned, these homologies are not conclusions; they are documented facts, showing that tetrapods have a common ancestor.

Let's take note that there may indeed be similar genes in bats, humans, and whales. So what? Does science demand that whales descended from humans or bats? No, of course not. That would be silly.

[The Barbarian]

It's not just structural homologies. The wings of bats are formed by the same genes that form the flippers of whales and the arms of humans. As you learned, these homologies are not conclusions; they are documented facts, showing that tetrapods have a common ancestor.

Let's take note that there may indeed be similar genes in bats, humans, and whales. So what?

Marks common ancestry. And we know it does, because we can check the genes of organisms of known descent.

Does science demand that whales descended from humans or bats? No, of course not. That would be silly.

It's always surprising to be reminded how YE creationists think. If you and your cousin share a lot of genes, does that mean that science demands you descended from your cousin? It's things like this that have many Christians thinking that YE creationists are dishonest. Truth is, most of them aren't. They really don't understand how it all works. The similarities in genes between you and your cousin are due to common descent, not one of you being the ancestor of the other. Do you understand that much?

[The Barbarian]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

There are YE creationists who are knowledgeable about the science...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

In December 1981, Coffin and Ariel Roth, also employed by GRI, served as expert witnesses on behalf of the defense during the Arkansas Creation trial (McLean et al. vs State Board of Education). They referred to things like rapid fossilization and massive depth of coal beds as bases for believing in a worldwide flood. Under cross-examination, however, Coffin noted that his belief in a young earth was based on the Bible; he said the scientific evidence alone would lead him to believe the earth was very old.16 He testified that his reading of the Bible and the results of his scientific studies convinced him that the Genesis Flood had taken place five to seven thousand years ago.17 He believed the Bible’s “assertions are historically and scientifically true with the exception of minor problems.”18
Frederick Edwords, “Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath,” Creation/Evolution 3, no. 1 (Winter, 1982): 33–45.

[marke]

It's not just structural homologies. The wings of bats are formed by the same genes that form the flippers of whales and the arms of humans. As you learned, these homologies are not conclusions; they are documented facts, showing that tetrapods have a common ancestor.

Let's take note that there may indeed be similar genes in bats, humans, and whales. So what?

Marks common ancestry. And we know it does, because we can check the genes of organisms of known descent.

Does science demand that whales descended from humans or bats? No, of course not. That would be silly.

It's always surprising to be reminded how YE creationists think. If you and your cousin share a lot of genes, does that mean that science demands you descended from your cousin? It's things like this that have many Christians thinking that YE creationists are dishonest. Truth is, most of them aren't. They really don't understand how it all works. The similarities in genes between you and your cousin are due to common descent, not one of you being the ancestor of the other. Do you understand that much?

I am amazed at the secularist insistence that because humans and plants share similar genes they must be related to a common ancestor, which is a ridiculous assumption. Think how much less problematic genetic similarity research would be if biased secularists did not jump to stupid assumptions and conclusions.

AI Overview
Learn more
Humans and watermelons share a very small percentage of DNA similarity, with the vast majority of their genetic code being completely different; while both organisms share some basic cellular functions, their evolutionary paths are so far apart that their DNA is mostly distinct, with only a minuscule portion showing any significant similarity at the genetic level.
Key points to remember: