Common Ancestor an Unwarranted Assumption?

So, in this model, why are chimps and humans so much more similar than old and new world monkeys?


Ah, NoUCA is back.

Can we please get an answer to this question? Thanks!

I do not have a detailed answer right now, but I am sure it would have something to do with branching and time elapsed on the clock.

You mean you don’t know? You already made your determinations of non-relatedness and are just now trying to figure out a method?



Until we get a detailed answer, your theory is dead in the water.

Turns out that evolutionary science gives us a clear, mathematical answer that we tested with experiments. Until there is a competing theory of similar rigor, that might be the end of it.


I personally do not like birds in that order, but I may not get my wish. What troubles me about archosaurs grouping is that it seems to be based on egg-laying, ankles, and breathing.

Branching of what, exactly? Where is this accelerated clock running? Not, apparently inside the genomes of any actual populations of organisms. Why is God going to such great lengths to simulate what we would expect to see from common descent over millions of years?

I don’t think you’ve thought this through at all.


Methodological naturalism does not speak to the philosophy, the worldview, of its practitioners. Philosophical naturalists assume that science, methodological naturalism, will be able to answer questions like “What started the universe?” Christians don’t.

1 Like

So you didn’t make your determination of non-relatedness based on genetic evidence as you said earlier.

You really are just making this up as you go, aren’t you? :slightly_smiling_face:


Is there genetic relatedness in archosaurs?

Exactly. Otherwise it is not “methodological.”

About the PNs, maybe, but it depends. Some of them realize that this is begging the question.

Christians though, we should know.


Why so sharp? Are you threatened by this?

Yes. There is genetic relatedness in all life. The question is how much commonality (or lack thereof) do you require to declare relatedness or non-relatedness in your “template” hypothesis.

That’s a really important parameter, don’t you agree?


Yes, that was too sweeping a generalization on my part.

1 Like

Critical peer review is a part of any hypothesis testing. So far your “template” idea isn’t doing well at all.


Please tell me where you have seen anything that even come close to bringing creationism into focus overlaying an evolutionistic worldview?

We can add 2+2 without God.
However, our ability to add, think logically etc is a gift from God.
The question is whether Science can study these abilities by ignoring God.

Edit: If scientists do study these phenomenon. The result would be a biased/incomplete understanding. I have no problem acknowledging that.

Not threatened at all. Sharp thinking is a virtue.

As I said:

I still haven’t heard from you about the GAE. This seems to do it.


Emphatically agreed.

Not if they limit their conclusions to the bare science. Of course, worldview and philosophical assumptions are easily intertwined with scientific conclusions.

That sentence is very hard to parse. What is the question?

1 Like