Boy, that took a long time to come to its bogus point. Now, what was your point in posting that link?
Not all synonymous mutations are completely synonymous(in terms of their phenotypic effect), therefore God. Dichotomous thinking again.
Just posted the link for layman Christians because it is easy to understand and for a possible theistic interpertation. Also, where does the author state “all synonymous mutations are completely synonymous”?
I didn’t say he did.
He’s pointing out that because all synonymous mutations aren’t completely synonymous in their phenotypic effects, this is somehow an argument against inferring evolutionary relationships using synonymous mutations.
This is a black/white, all-or-nothing argument, and in this sense exhibits prototypical creationistic dichotomous thinking. He’s effectively saying that the fact that some synonymous mutations aren’t completely equal in terms of their phenotypic effects, this must somehow undermine the inference of common descent.
But he does no work to show this, and seems to have got the impression that it must be all or nothing. That if there is ANY synonymous mutation with ANY phenotypic difference, then this completely undermines the inference of common descent.
But that simply isn’t true.
Thanks for your comments. I cannot speak to the intention of F Rana, but speaking for myself I do not see it as a black and white, all or nothing. I have no problem with common descent. I think both common descent and common design can coexist as interpretations. But understand as a non theist you disagree.
Also, again was posting this for the laymen Christian/Theist. Although I like Science, I am not a Scientist.