Your terms are broad. Too broad. What common descent in specific are you referring to in @stcordova 's post? If you are seeing “common descent” in anything it is because you are likely looking at a kind. Any common descent outside of the boundaries established by God using kinds is in your imagination and is something you have forced on the data.
What in specific are you seeing and referring to?
Is this correlation imagined?
Ok then. Canidae is a kind or kinds? How can you validate your answer?
I specifically asked what the poster meant by his use of language regarding @stcordova. I would like to keep it at that.
(As for your graph, we have already discussed that elsewhere. You believe it is one thing, I believe another.)
That presentation would make Duane Gish extremely proud.
Why is it a problem that I’m speaking broadly here? The evidence for common descent is widespread - and no, I’m not going to bother delving into the specifics here - and it admits a simple, unified explanation (namely, that common descent is real and not merely apparent). @stcordova’s alternative explanation (that similarities are there to help us better understand biology) doesn’t cover all the facts, and in fact is inferior to common descent on its own merit (the fact of common descent also helps us better understand biology, even more so than similarities that are contingently implemented by divine fiat, because then the similarities themselves are intelligible).
For example, the post linked by @T_aquaticus gives a great example of a pattern that can’t be explained by @stcordova’s hypothesis: it only helps us better understand biology if common descent is true and Cordova’s hypothesis false.
YEC believes in common descent within kinds, so it should still be possible for Creation Scientists (and lay people) to formulate a nested hierarchy within kinds. For example, AIG accepts that Canidae (dog kind) is comprised of “13 genera and 35 species of canids (Wilson and Reeder 2005)”.
I wonder what scd or r_speir have a problem with that?
This is what I wanted you to admit. I was pretty sure you were just defaulting to your usual broad terms of common ancestry belief and evangelism, for lack of a better description.
All his article has done - and I have told him this previously - is to finally and genetically prove that God created the human kind and the great ape kind in very close similarity (and temporal proximity). Because of this, they have so many things in common - shared homologous features/structures, shared emotions and drives - sensual, dominance, aggression, passion, compassion. Societal pressures relating to family and groups, child bearing/nurturing and a long list that I have not included. Given so many physical and emotional similarities, it only would stand to reason that allele frequency and mutations would be found exactly as his article descibes! Back in the 2000s when they first mapped the genome, human then chimp, someone could have predicated this later genetic finding and won a Nobel prize. It is absolutely no surprise and absolutely not indicative of common ancestry. It only confirms a creation hierarchy. In the OT, God said
“I have created man a little lower than the angels”, and now we can confirm that he likewise created the great apes a little lower than Man.
Every one agrees there is evidence of common descent even Sal. What is different about your claim here?
In Summary:
We find that shared homologies, drives, and emotions between two closely created kinds results in shared experiences which results in shared histories of genetic frequencies and signaling. All that remains is to bring your starting assumptions and conclusions into conformity with biblical creation and you have a nice little research project here.
I know I speak for many creationists when I say thank you for your contribution to creation science.
Are you going to jump on the YEC “kinds” bandwagon too Bill?
No. That is a totally unbiblical claim—as well as logically absurd. The Bible never claims that God has already or will ever fill every gap in our knowledge.
As the Apostle Paul said, “We see through a glass but darkly.” He was speaking of just one kind of gap in our knowledge but we obviously have many others.
Who’s quoting from the Bible? Not me. And you misunderstand because you think I was trying to say “God presently in the here and now fills every gap in our knowledge”. No, so let me elaborate more clearly. God is the ever-present “filler” of all gaps in knowledge - even the knowledge we do not yet possess - because frankly, he is the very source of knowledge.
Try that on.
@colewd this is just categorically false.
It shows patterns of differences. The differences correlate with empirically observed rates of change, just as we expect from neutral evolution. This is a study of the patterns in the differnces, not the degree of similarity.
You did not understand @evograd’s article. Did you even read the article?
That is not true at all. Please show us the mathematical formula that explains why the pattern of similarities and differences is as we find it? The only such formula is the one form neutral evolution.
I urge you to seek understanding first. Reject common descent if you must, but at least demonstrate basic understanding of what you are being shown. Seek understanding. There is no harm in it.
No. Read my sentence again. I even used italics. But you apparently didn’t complete the sentence.
Once again: . . . or will ever fill every gap in our knowledge.
Great! Now here’s where it gets tricky. Creation Scientists don’t know what makes a kind or how many of them there were. As a result, there’s arguments over Creationist groupings (Baraminology) such as which ancient hominids are apes and which are human.
Well, since we all agree on common descent within “kinds”, then we ought to be able to use the concept of nested hierarchies to figure out these “kinds” of problems (pun intended)
My usual? I don’t recall ever writing about common descent on these forums, so I’m not sure how you can know what “my usual” is. Still not sure what your point is.
No, it doesn’t. What “common design” reason is there for the distribution of genetic differences between chimps and humans to match the distribution of variations arising from mutations? The functional differences between them can be accomplished with other genetic differences that do not match the pattern of mutations, because of the flexibility of the amino acid transcription code.
Where is the model for innovation and new features? Why in the world would neutral mutations on their own be innovative? This does not make sense and no one I know who is agnostic on the theory and knows the structure of DNA and proteins believes that neutral mutation can be innovative. Until a model is developed Steve’s data does not matter. It can simply be a result of redundancy in DNA codes.
It’s called evolutionary theory. You should read up on it sometime.
Neutral mutations can become beneficial when the environment changes. They can also combine with later mutations to become part of a beneficial change.
Oh, sorry Bill. I keep forgetting you think there’s no such thing as natural selection in evolution, only mutations.
Aside from the fact that this:
is nothing but a huge non-sequitur, your question here is entirely answerable:
I’ll give you a hint: it follows from the “mutation” part of “neutral mutation”. A mutation is a change. This implies the possibility of a change into something it has not been before, i.e. something new, i.e. an innovation.
I can’t say that the known mechanisms for evolution has been demonstrated to be sufficient - I have no idea on that count - but it is quite reasonable to believe that they can work in principle.
