What is the functional difference?
So there was one “common genetic template” for all mammalian carnivores? Canines, felines, ursines, pinnipeds, etc. all came from the same template? How did that work?
BTW evolution posits birds, bats, insects, and pterosaurs all shared a common ancestor albeit around 800 MYA. How did they all end up with different wings from the same template?
So your “common genetic creation template” idea isn’t science and can’t be falsified. Got it.
Let’s be clear. I was dealt a paper by C Falter. I went no further than the empirical data supplied in that paper. I went no farther forward in time and none so backward in time. I am not prepared to answer anything beyond the present substitution I have made and the data looking at us all in that paper.
NoUCA, how does “common genetic creation template” explain the temporal sequences of transitional fossils known from the fossil record?
How does a common ancestor explain it?
Explain the temporal distribution of transitional fossil series? Lineages evolved through common descent and produced the branching nested hierarchy evidenced by the morphological changes over time in the transitional fossil series.
How does “common genetic creation template” explain the observed patterns?
How does a common ancestor explain the observed patterns?
Yep. In order to square his creationism with the evidence for common descent, he has been forced to make up a creation mechanism that effectively reproduces the mechanism of common descent.
A common genetic creation template(the last universal common ancestor of all cellular life) is used to produce two more common genetic creation templates(the common ancestor of all archaea, and the common ancestor of all bacteria), both of which are again split into four new common genetic creation templates, and so on and so forth through the entire tree of life, until we arrive at all the extant species on Earth.
In other words, God made absolutely sure to create the species on Earth in a way that would look exactly like it was common descent, by deriving all species progressively from common ancestral genetic templates.
LOL
I just told you. Lineages evolved through common descent and produced the branching nested hierarchy evidenced by the morphological changes over time in the transitional fossil series.
You seem to be ducking the tough questions already.
I know you may feel you’re getting dog piled but I’d really appreciate an answer to these questions, thanks.
Absolutely false. I do not believe in a UCA. But I do believe that what you think was a common ancestor of primates and humans was actually a common genetic template employed for both species by God at their creation.
His position is just a vacuous ad-hoc rationalization. It doesn’t make sense. What reason would a God have for creating Earth’s biodiversity through progressively deriving “common genetic templates”? None whatsoever.
It’s just a really bad attempt to try to square creationism with common descent.
False, God and his written creation were here long before you or yours concocted the idea of common descent…edit: “and left God out”
Then why does so much physical evidence support common descent and directly contradict your “common genetic template” hypothesis?
Certainly seems that way.
It doesn’t.
You’re still ducking these questions regarding your earlier claims.
If every species of animal had its own unique genetic template what was “common” about them all?
I know you don’t. But the rationalization you’ve come up with to square your creationism with evidence for common descent is, in principle, the very same mechanism. Otherwise you’re not explaining the same evidence. So in your attempt to explain the same evidence, you are effectuating common descent. but rather than have descendants evolve from common ancestors, you just have God somehow deriving genetic and other forms of hiearchical datasets progressively from some universally shared ancestor template.
But I do believe that what you think was a common ancestor of primates and humans was actually a common genetic template employed for both species by God at their creation.You don't have to keep telling me what you believe, I already know that because that's what you started by saying. The problem is you don't seem to have really thought about the implications of what you're saying.
Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, you think they don’t but instead humans and chimps were derived from some common genetic template. But the ancestor of humans and chimps, also shares an ancestor with gorillas. So now you need to posit that God derived gorillas, and the human-chimp ancestor, from some prior human-chimp-gorilla template even further back. And this ancestor of all three, shares an ancestor with Orangutans, so now you need to posit that this human-chimp-gorilla ancestor was derived, together with Orangutans, from an even more prior common genetic template.
And so on and so forth through all the ancestors of all life, you now have to invent a huge progression of hierarchically arranged templates going back to the last universal common ancestor, which you would instead just call the “last universal common genetic creation template”.
But it’s not false, because the creation story says nothing about deriving anything from common genetic creation templates. That’s the thing that is your ad-hoc rationalization.
Sure, creation myths predate evolution. But the “common genetic creation templates” idea doesn’t. It’s very new, probably invented in the last few years by you or some other creationist you’ve read to try to explain why all the evidence looks like it was common descent but is actually just some strange progressive creationism instead. Unfortunately you don’t understand the evidence you’re trying to explain with your “common genetic creation template” rationalization.