How do you explain the emergence of.
-Speech and written language
-Abstract thought and ability to do complex system design
-Skin independent of hair
-Unique splicing codes
-Unique gene expression
-De Novo genes
Without genetic and morphological evidence of the common ancestor.
How do you explain the emergence of.
I don’t explain them. I’m a retired minister and linguist. For such explanations, I look to the experts who have devoted entire lifetimes to answering questions like those.
Likewise, I don’t explain the mathematics behind the discovery of the Higgs Boson—nor even the routine Fourier analyses which makes MRI machines so useful on a daily basis. My inability to adequately explain the complexities of such science in no way diminishes the validity of the underlying physics and the technology depending on that science.
Now, if someone needs explanations of the evolution of modern English from Latin, Anglo-Saxon, and other sources, or a great many types of Biblical exegesis complexities, I can be far more useful with those topics.
Fair enough. Lets see if the experts attempt to explain them.
By the way, that is a misleading clause. The sequenced genomes of Homo sapiens and a great many other primates provides lots of evidence for the common ancestor. Also, morphological evidence of the common ancestor has been compiled by scientists from long before either you or I were born.
So you think the evidence supports the common ancestor containing both human and chimp characteristics. How do we know which ones?
i think that its depend on a personal definition rather then objective one.
Would you pay attention and engage if any did so?
Let’s imagine for a moment—just for the sake of this discussion—that no scientist on the planet had any detailed explanation for some of those phenomenon. Are you implying that that would somehow negate the enormous piles of evidence for humans and other primates sharing a common ancestor?
I would also pose the question much more broadly: Do scientists have to answer every related question before a scientific theory is considered well-evidenced and compelling?
as i said: i think that its depend on a personal definition. unless you can show me otherwise.
Absolutely as long as the engagement contains facts and arguments and not just appeal to authority.
(1) Did you read the linked material I posted?
(2) “So you think the evidence supports the common ancestor containing both human and chimp characteristics.” is a false statement. I never made such a claim. Indeed, if you had read the linked material and had even a very rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes, you would not assume that a common ancestor somehow “contains” the characteristics of all descendant species!
Science needs to show their hypothesis is supported by a high level of confidence. The claim implies that a lot of features resulted from reproduction alone. This is not a trivial claim. It requires support.
John Harshman claims that common descent is independent of mechanism so if this is the case I cannot really challenge the claim. This is very different then the version of evolution I was taught in school (natural selection was the mechanism) and actually is not in conflict with Behe’s claims.
I have taken a brief look at it. Thanks for the citation,
I’m not sure I follow what you are saying. Michael Behe accepts the evidence for Common Descent in evolutionary biology.
I think you’re already failing.
Thats right he does. He believes it explains the similarities where design explains the differences.
That makes absolutely no sense.
What are you trying to say?
I think that you have fundamental misunderstandings about evolutionary theory and biology, and that you didn’t understand what you were taught in school.
That’s not what I would consider to be engaging with the facts.
John you may very well be right but so far your claim is just opinion.