Common Ancestor an Unwarranted Assumption?

Answer: Because God is an orderly Creator, he uses existing species as a prototype on which to construct new species.

Follow-up question: why are old world and new world monkeys so much more similar than chimps and humans?

Potential answer: Because God is an orderly Creator, he uses existing species as a prototype on which to construct new species.

1 Like

No, you must mean he used a common template to construct two new species. He can’t be using an existing species to create new ones, that would not explain why there is nesting hierarchical structure in the data.

But if he used a common template to derive species from, God deliberately faked the evidence for common descent by coming up with a strange progessive method of creation that perfectly replicates the evidence produced by a branching genealogical process. Fantastic!

1 Like

You have it backwards. You absconded God’s methodology and overlaid naturalism.

No, I don’t have it backwards at all. In actual history, the real world, what truly happened is that first creationists thought every species was independently created by God. Allakazam style. Poof! “According to their kind”. In six literal 24 hour days, consisting of mornings and evenings(as days do).

Then centuries later what happened is scientists discovered the evidence expected from a branching genealogical process(the chronology of the fossil record, evidence of deep time, extinct and radically different ancient biospheres, transitional forms etc. etc.) and realized it doesn’t make sense from the 24hour-day POOF creationist standpoint.

Of course, we even SEE organisms reproduce and leave behind the evidence of their genealogical and incremental change from their ancestors. In anything from the family trees of breeds of livestock and ourselves, to the methods by which populations of cells grow by dividing.

Then later still, more scientists discovered the molecular basis for inheritance and the genetic evidence confirmed the same branching genealogical process exhibited by the fossil record.

And now only very recently, Christian creationists in the last few years felt forced to came up with the hilarious rationalization that God progressively derived organisms in a tree-like fashion from “common genetic templates”. A completely absurd idea, and provably a rationalization done historically after the fact, which makes zero logical sense, because there’d be no functional or “orderly” reason to create anything like that. Particularly because it would mean God has deliberately used a method of creating that looks exactly like extant living organisms evolved through branching genealogies over incredibly long periods of time.

1 Like

I see that noUCA’s hypothesis is evolving. Or perhaps he’s using his previous hypothesis as a prototype on which to construct new hypotheses. Who knows where it will end up? Currently, we seem to have a close simulation of common descent, in which every branching is a new multiple creation event using an unknown but supposed ancestral species as a prototype. This of course creates a great number of holes in the theory which noUCA will either ignore (most likely) or attempt to patch with further ad hoc assumptions.

Currently we are at progressive creation with accelerated molecular evolution, all in six days a few thousand years ago. This, I think, is a new and unique perspective. But that’s not a compliment.


What happened to your “genetic template” hypothesis?

You’re still making it up as you go I see. :slightly_smiling_face:

Where would this idea be without the template hypothesis? The genetic template is the very thing that ties and bring relatedness to the whole order of primates! It is what naturalists would call the common ancestor of the order, a mysterious and unknown creature that you by the way are still looking for. This idea in a more sublime manner says that God prepared a genetic template on which to build the entire order.

Did God think up a nested series of uninstantiated templates leading up to current species, or did he create species from templates, use those species as templates for current species, and then erase the template species? That is, were extinct species the templates for modern species? And did this all happen in 6 days?

1 Like

One template. Variations on that template occur as species erupt over time (whether in a 24 hour period or a span of millions of years). Variations on the original template become the origin point for new species.

How exactly do those variations occur? How do species erupt every few minutes?

You aren’t aware of the differences, apparently, and that was not a ‘claim’ meant to be ‘convincing’ (obviously) – it was meant for other Christians and not directed to denialists.

Sorry, dude, but variations on a template are new templates. As Roy has implied, you aren’t making a lot of sense here. Why should these variations on a template “erupt” in a nested hierarchy? Why should you be unable to distinguish between where a new template happens and where species are variations on a previous template? Why did you say that God uses previous species as models for new ones, which seems to get rid of the template idea?

Perhaps you could lay back for a while and try to construct a coherent, consistent hypothesis of creation that fits the data.

Variations do not erupt. New species erupt based on existing variations on the original template. New species erupt because God gave the command to do so at the top of creation day six.

There are no new templates. Do you want to rephrase the question? It is confusing.

Existing species are variations on the original template and become the prototypes for new species. This does not “get rid of the template idea”.

It isn’t clear what any of that means. Could you explain?

I could rephrase it as “Whaaa?”. I can’t fit anything you say into a coherent hypothesis of creation. How can you recognize a template, or the species proceeding from a single template? How can you distinguish the nested variations arising from a single template from different templates? Are mammals the result of one template? Are primates the result of one template? If the answer is yes in both cases, how can there be templates within templates? If mammals are not the result of one template, how do you explain their shared features?

How do “prototypes” differ from “templates”? Again, I urge you to come up with a coherent hypothesis and try to explain it clearly.

1 Like

You are hung up on templates. Clear the air of templates for a moment. In evolution, do new species branch from existing species?

Don’t make it complicated.

Sort of. One species splits into two (or more) species. We may or may not retain the same name for one of the branches. Still, close enough. Now, what happens in creation to produce the same treelike pattern?

That’s not my goal. I’m trying to make it coherent.

1 Like

That is precisely what is happening in this model.

Please stop with the one-liners and actually explain what you’re talking about. If in your model one species splits into two or more species, isn’t that common descent? If this “variation based on a template” you’re talking about is actually speciation, it’s not separate creation. Try again. Try harder.

1 Like