Progress after the Royal Society conference?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

But no one who holds to separate creation says that the different proteins were created by chance! “Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10−19 and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10^-132.” But that’s the first I’ve heard of that view, I expect nobody subscribes to that.

Then why would separate creation predict ancestral convergence, the exact result expected on evolution?

But there are more than just two alternatives, randomness (which I don’t think anyone subscribes to), evolution, and special, intentional creation for which there is evidence that argues against evolution. Such as the various explosions of life forms (Cambrian, Avalon, etc.), such as the problems with the tree of life (e.g. orphan genes), such as the concerns some biologists have now about the origin of phenotypic complexity, and so on.

So what is the reason on special creation for forcing exactly the result (ancestral convergence) expected on common descent?

I mean, I assume you don’t think God is being intentionally deceptive by making the evidence look like common descent happened. So why does the evidence exhibit exactly the result expected on common descent?

Where is your model of the creation process that predicts ancestral convergence should result from it?