What I am suggesting is that the theory of evolution is so well supported by mountains of evidence that there is no serious debate on the issue. At most, there are arguments about the very fine details of how evolution works, such as the impact of niche construction or the impact of methylation patterns on selection of specific sequences, but the major parts of the theory are so well supported that scientists don’t waste their energy on debating them. In the same way, no one debates the Germ Theory of Disease because there is so much evidence demonstrating that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms.
I think we all enjoy your enthusiasm and you seem like a wonderful person. However, I don’t think you realize just how much science you are arguing against. When you say that evolution is speculative and not testable . . . well, it just isn’t true. It sounds really foolish, and I mean that in the most friendly manner possible. It’s a bit like someone jumping on a forum with NASA engineers and telling them how the moon landings were faked.
If you are interested, I would suggest that you read this essay:
It was written by Dr. Francis Collins who headed the human genome project, is the current head of the NIH, and is also a devout christian. That essay was written by a christian for christians, and I think there is a lot in there that you would benefit from.
This is merely an assertion. I can also assert that the pattern of mutation only shows sequential differences and no evidence how new anatomical features are formed.
Mutation is much more likely to break down a sequence then improve it. Mutation alone as a creative force is a very weak claim.
How do you account for genes that are common to humans and Zebra fish but do not exist in mice? How do you account for genes that exist in rats and chimps but not in humans and mice.
I should also add that @colewd has been uncommonly respectful, compared some of the others that have pressed this case. He has also conceded points. He is not merely a polemicist. He appears to be giving an honest effort to engage this, even if we think he is wrong.
No, it is a scientifically measurable fact. We can see this pattern forming through the mechanisms of evolution in known populations, such as lab mice:
Moreover, it is one of the most logical and obvious outcomes of evolutionary outcomes. Due to the lack of gene flow between species there will be an accumulation of different mutations in each species. This causes lineages to diverge. You also have vertical inheritance which passes down common DNA that lineages will share. So you have shared DNA and lineage specific mutations that form a tree like pattern. This is the unavoidable consequence of evolutionary mechanisms.
Then how do you account for the physical differences between chimps and humans? What causes those physical differences? In biology, we have concluded that it is the differences in the DNA sequence of our genomes. Do you have a different conclusion?
Genes can be lost through deletion in any lineage. What we shouldn’t see is a gene shared by chimps, humans and mice where humans and mice have 100% similarity between their genes while the same functional chimp gene differs by 50%. If species were separately designed/created this could certainly be one of the outcomes, but evolution can’t do that.
You have not come close to supporting your claim that mutations can create new anatomical features. The reality is you cannot.
You maybe able to support a lessor claim but that is not the Grand claim of evolution that random genetic changes along with selection pressure is responsible for the diversity of life.
You are throwing out words like fact which shows an attempt to sell an unsupported claim.
Human evolution is a different question and I have had discussions with Josh on this subject. I think one of the big challenges is reconciling the splicing code and gene expression pattern differences.
You are ignoring contradictory evidence. This is a pattern I see with evolutionists which only adds to my skepticism. Common descent only explains similarities at the mutation level it does not explain large gene and morphological changes.
Functional information is a real issue that needs to be dealt with.
It explains the mutation-level similarities and differences so well that it is sufficiently strong evidence for me. It does not explain everything, but it explains a lot.
I have yet to see any contradictory evidence. Gaps in knowledge are not evidence against common descent.
I’m very well aware that the data does not fit a tree. This is exactly what we expect in common descent, for data to only imperfectly fit a tree. This is not evidence against common descent. Rather it is evidence against a cartoon version of common descent. I reject the cartoon, and see no real challenge in that data to which you refer.
I see that Biologos is now selling Christian Textbooks. As a Southern Baptist Christian, I ask that you keep up this ground mission. I would even like to read some of your grand text. It has been a pleasure to write to you. May God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit bless you. I should have called you Dr. Applegate. My apologies.
They follow ancestral patterns just fine. I don’t know why you think they don’t. We would expect gene deletions to result in lineages lacking genes that other lineages have if evolution is true.
The prediction that evolution makes is about the pattern of similarities and differences in genes that are shared.
Mutation (including deletion mutations), neutral drift, and selection are also important mechanisms in producing nested hierarchies.
There is no expectation of how many genes will be deleted in any given lineage. It is largely due to the specific environment that the species is in. For example, gene deletion of odor receptors in cetacean lineages is quite high because there is no longer any selective pressures to keep them in place.