No one thinks behaviors have to be inherited through common descent. Nested hierarchies are based on physical characteristics and genetic sequences, not vague behaviors. For example, no one thinks that dragonflies, bats, and birds inherited the behavior of flying through common descent.
That hunch is wrong. You could have very different DNA sequences and still have identical morphology.
I don’t mean behaivors but the, minor, ability to use the ears to form a good image. Its not the same as bats/whales.
No I know they don’t say bugs, bats, birds show common descent from flying.
Yet a creationist would say flying abilities does show common design . t
For this creationist bats are only a post flood adaptation. so they got wings due to a common design innate ability.
Actually why wouldn’t common descent concept be invoked for wings amongst many? Just because they already don’t believe that I think.
Hearing better is not a morphological feature.
Then you really need to look at those species because they have different designs.
Common descent is not invoked because they are different adaptations which indicates flight evolved independently in each lineage.
AHA. thats another issue. Another creationist complaint. When like results in biology cannot work from common design THEY invoke convergent evolution etc
if things evolved independently, that are very alike, then the whole presumption behind common descent, its claims to evidence, is nullified.
Its like wiggling out of a illogical result.
Evolving independently means common descent trails are suspect or plain not evidence.
Under analysis evolutionism never works if you think about it.
They aren’t like results. The bat, bird, and dragonfly wings are all different. They are demonstrably different.
The use of wings is the same thing. (I meant when they can’t work from common descent they invoke…"
Reaching the level of flight from wings they would have to invoke convergent evolution until missing a few deatails.
Common descent claims are not used because they know it isn;t so already.
So convergent evolution is used.
The use of wings is not a morphological feature. Phylogenies are based on morphological features.
Robert, there are new medical treatment now available for cancer and some genetic disorders BECAUSE or evolutionary theory. To save that evolution (theory of) doesn’t work is simply is not true. TOE works very well, and we are going to be seeing more direct applications in our lives in the very near future.
You would do well to first acknowledge the very real things we do know from and about evolution BEFORE you make criticisms. There are some valid criticisms to be made, but I don’t think you understand what those are.
I understand it well. Fighting cancer is very important as we all know so many who suffer/suffered from it.
yet I deny evolution helps fight cancer.
Instead its simple natural selection concepts working within species.
Creationists easily could research/develop cancer treatments from selection concepts on the disease.
This has nothing to do with evolutionary biology conclusions on the origins or mechanisms for biology’s story.
So what are you doing to help in the fight against cancer?
They could but they’re not. Creationists are not on the front lines researching/developing cancer treatments.
They are too busy claiming that cancer isn’t explained by evolution. It is secular medical science that is making all the breakthroughs. Remember that when you and someone from your family has cancer. The care and expert treatment is going to come from scientists and medical professionals who studied evolutionary science and made a difference in the lives of millions. These medical professions may or may not have spiritual beliefs. But I don’t see any YECs doing anything for people lives regarding cancer. Maybe you can tell us about what YECs are doing now in cancer research/treatment.