Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?

John Harshman wrote:
r norman wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:58:12 -0800 (PST), James Goetz
<james.goetz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Comparative genetics and population genetics provide compelling
evidence for common genetic ancestry. All genome differences in all
extant biological life can be broken down to population isolation and
microevolution, where microevolution is the processes of mutation and
drift and selection. And mutations include point substitutions,
indels, conversions, and chromosome aberrations. Can anybody show me
an extant genome that cannot be explained by population isolation and
microevolution?

Can anybody show me an extant genome that cannot be explained by
special creation?

Your demand has validity only if you accept the materialistic world
view that has dominated most of western civilization for the last few
centuries. Reject that and it is meaningless.

Taking up part-time creationism? I'll toss out the usual response,
because it's a dandy response.

Sure, you can "explain" anything at all by special creation.
>
I don't defend special creationism, but one can say the same thing
about evolution. It can explain anything.
>
But it's an
odd sort of explanation. If you assume an omnipotent creator, anything
can happen. So nothing at all can be evidence in favor of such a
creator, or evidence against either. It belongs to a family of
explanations that also includes omphalism and Last-Tuesdayism.

Then again, common descent with modifications from microevolutionary
mutations has quite definite expectations. If we see them, we have good
evidence for common descent. If we don't see them, that's a problem for
common descent. And so common descent is a useful hypothesis. And one
that turns out to have lots of support.
>
Most living organisms are finely tuned "machines", not too differently
to lines of code in a complicated computer program. Randomly
altering a line of code does not improve function? Most mutations
are neutral or detrimental, often leading to severe mental/physical handicaps or even death. When neutral or detrimental mutations do
not cause death they become a genetic burden which tens towards
a decline in the overall fitness of the species. A benefical
mutation if not accompanied by an array of cooperative and supportive mutations facilitating a new function or behavior, a point mutation has no survival value.

If we can be Popperian for a moment, common descent is a bold
hypothesis, while separate creation is not.

Danwood

.

Relevant Pages