Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?

In message <fvp5j.11967$_m.10905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danwood <noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
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.

You are incorrect. Evolution cannot explain any possible thing. It's just that we've only observed (in the relevant domains) things which are explicable by evolution. As there are billions of such observations this is powerful support for the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of natural science and other processes.

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.

The analogy to computer programs is dodgy - living organisms are less brittle than computer programs. And some of the facts are wrong: randomly altering a line of code in a computer program can improve function - this is the basis of a-life and evolutionary programming projects; the statement about declining fitness neglects the countervailing effect of selection; and point mutations with survival value have been observed.

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

Danwood


--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... evidence for common genetic ancestry. ... microevolution, where microevolution is the processes of mutation and ... And mutations include point substitutions, ... common descent with modifications from microevolutionary ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear ... The "supporting evidence" is ... But there was no worldwide flood. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear ... I thought the simplest of minds would assume the wives in the ... The "supporting evidence" is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean loses interest
    ... earth without being to point to any evidence of its age, ... of the ToL requires that one have additional evidence to support the ... theory of common descent beyond the pattern itself. ... There's the biogeographic distribution of species, which is clearly non-random with respect to phylogeny, including the convergent evolution of similar adaptations on isolated continents. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear DNA? ... I thought the simplest of minds would assume the wives in the ... The "supporting evidence" is ...
    (talk.origins)