1. Common ancestry is assumed on the back of evolution hence your "evidence" is circular reasoning....
Common ancestry isn't assumed. We know from DNA evidence that we share ancestors. Take for instance our ancestry with Chimpanzees. We share 98.6% of our genetic code with them, you may say "this can be assumed if we were designed". Well, fine, you can say that, although we can make predictions on how much of our genetic code we will share with other primates and by extension other mammals. We find the more distantly related we are to other species, the more our genetic similarities disappear. This is what we would assume to find if we were related based on heredity (traits being passed on down each line of decent).
My question still remains unanswered, what predictions have been made by intelligent design?
2. Ah so first it was that non-coding had no purpose now there is some purpose... You do realise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because people haven't yet found a purpose for 100% of the non-coding DNA doesn't mean that it won't happen... Yet right now it is a big thing in genetics and something people are researching heavily- how do I know this? My genetics lecturer had given some lectures on this... Perhaps research snoRNA, siRNA, rRNA etc since these come from non-coding regions since RNA is not a protein.
Furthermore how does "junk" DNA have anything to do with proving evolution correct?
No, some junk DNA does have function, most really don't. The most obvious one is GLO or L-gulono-y-lactone oxidase, an enzyme which is used to make vitamin C from glucose. Nearly the entire animal kingdom still produces this enzyme except for? You guessed it, primates, and also guinea pigs. Now, it turns out making vitamin C from glucose requires 4 steps, primates and guinea pigs have the right coding for the first 3 steps, however we don't have it for the 4th step. Now why would that be? Is it because our diets changed and we were able to get most of our vitamin C from the food we were eating? Or was it just so we would contract scurvy when we went on long boat trips?
Why is Junk DNA relative to evolution? I'm glad you asked. When certain phenotypes lost use or function in our ancestors, the genes don't disappear from the DNA, instead they are just inactivated. In other words, genes that are still there but are no longer expressed. This is what we would expect to find if evolution had taken place, and it's exactly what we do find. In Humans alone we have over 2,000 pseudogenes or non-coding DNA and as we have only 30,000 genes, that's a huge hunk of junk.
If we had been made from scratch it makes no sense to commit 15% of our genetic make-up to the scrap heap without even a fighting chance of having any use.
3. And? Again I ask... How does this advocate evolution?
Well, maybe not that sentence itself (as you can see so far, I'm trying not to answer by one sentence alone). Embryology and the development of a Human from single cell to new born is fascinating. It again has more evidence of our lowly origins (bit of a Darwin paraphrase there). For example, would you expect a human fetus to have a tail? No? Well it does. In the first few weeks the fetus has a tail which is about 1/6th of it's size, as the fetus grows it absorbs the tail but not always, sometimes a child is born with a tail. If we had been created, would any designer have bothered to give us a tail during our infant stages? I doubt it. If we had evolved from an ancestor that did have a tail would we still have the genetic coding for one? You bet your giddy aunt we would, and we do.
Another interesting thing to look at, (if like me your male) is the development of the testicles which originally form internally before dropping down a small canal called the inguinal canal after about 6 or 7 months of development. This canal is small and prone to hernias (painful ones I assume) so it would have been far better if the gonads would form externally, which is their destination after all. However, our fish-like ancestors developed and kept their gonads in the abdomen. This is an example of natural selection tinkering too. It would be better if our testicles formed externally, but natural selection has to act with what it's got, so we're stuck with it.
4. And? How does your response rebut the claim and evidence that Religion doesn't need a supernatural deity... Therefore naturalism, (taken to the extreme... like Dawkins), IS a Religion.
I suppose it's what definition of religion you go for. I would class it as number 1 (http://dictionary.re...browse/religion
). How would you class Dawkins as religious?
5. Ah so first it was Germ theory now it is medicine... You're doing alot of back-tracking for someone so confident....
I am sure we could give cancer to people, just that it is unethical to do so. Furthermore your response has done nothing to claim that medicine is based on evolution. If it were we would only ever use chimps... (not mice) as test subjects... Consider the fact that pigs are also used since their internal biology is very much similar to humans...
Your articles focus on variation... (something which has nothing to do with evolution)... Variation within a kind / species is not being debated here... The idea that something can slowly change into something else over time... fish to amphibians etc is what is being debated. Hence your articles attempt to blur the line between evolution and variation, (this is called equivocation).
I admit I overstated Germ Theory (one of those things where I knew what I meant but there was no way for you to know unless I actually wrote it). I did mean that clearly you couldn't give cancer to humans for ethical reasons, I have no doubt that practically it can be done (well, cigarettes for one).
Ah, I see, (I'm on your second point). So it's speciation that is the problem here. Well geographical barriers between species can cause that. When species have different selection pressures acting on them they are forced to adapt of die. Those that die do not pass on those traits, those that survive do pass on those traits. If you have one group that due to, oh I don't know, let's say a heat wave lowered the river next to them and half of the group split off, their environment would be different. These different pressures would force different adaptations. Over time this once same group would have changed into two completely different species.
"but that's just a story, we can't actual see speciation" I hear you shout (I'm being light hearted)
Well, yes, we have http://www.csus.edu/..._expts_1993.pdf
and it concludes that the major force of speciation is in fact geography.
I do have a question for you, if you accept that species vary in their kind and adapting to their environment, what mechanism do you know of that would stop this change continuing?
6. It is a false analogy since the question you ask was if there was a beginning to the particle, this is self evident since it exists. The same is said for DNA... I assume you are a naturalist in that you believe that only material things exist... Therefore how would a naturalist explain the beginning of a particle or the beginning of DNA... Both are unanswerable to the naturalist. This is where evolution breaks down since evolution is the naturalists idea on how life's variety came about... IF there is no naturalist explanation for the beginning then why on Earth would anyone believe the naturalist explanations that follow.
I disagree, you said because we didn't know how DNA originated we couldn't talk about evolution which has a lot to do with DNA, I said it was the same as not being able to conduct particle physics with knowing the origin of the particle
To your second point, I believe that without evidence we should not consider the supernatural, so by extension, yes, I believe in the natural order of things but I am open to evidence of all nature, even that of the supernatural.
The origin of particles is fascinating but I am not physicist so I won't comment too much on that. I have read some interesting ideas about virtual particles, quantum tunnelling and other such explanations, but like I said, I am no physicist.
I am also not a chemist, so I don't know the origin of DNA, what I have read has been fascinating, it probably started with a basic RNA, something that was both a replicator and a catalyst, but again, I'm not a chemist.
What evolution sets out to do, is answer the question on the variety of life since the first replicating molecule, how that molecule came about, again,we don't know yet, but we do know that evolution occurred, and we know the mechanism which drives it.
Furthermore if you look at Darwin's book it is claimed the ORIGIN of the species... Not the variation of the species. Hence the topic of ORIGINS certainly is valid in a discussion on evolution, whether you disagree or not.
No one who has read that book, or understands the definition of evolution could have made that statement.
7. Lol the claim you were responding to was saying that evolution made improvements from millions of little mistakes, (implying millions of little mutations)... You then said that evolution is nothing but a mistake... Hence either you are claiming that mutations are not mistakes or you just didn't understand what was being said.
I have explained this clearly, you are now being dishonest. I said genetic mutations are mistakes, natural selection is NOT a mistake. The original question was NOT only asking about genetic mutations, but evolution in more general terms. That being natural selection which, again, is not a mistake. Please do not make me comment on this point again.
8. Yes and mutations only occur in DNA... Hence the origin of DNA is a big issue since if you cannot explain where DNA came from... then you have no evolution since there is no DNA with which to select for mutations...
Do you have to know the origin to understand how it acts? Really? Is that what you are really suggesting? That is incredibly rediculous
9. I do know those concepts.. But as I said natural selection SHOULD still select against these things... If it cannot select against diseases that cause a significant decrease in fitness then how can you claim it to select for slight changes that give an extremely slight increase in fitness.... Can you see that it makes no sense
I knew you did! Right, please explain how natural selection can act on traits that are not expressed. If you can answer that then I shall withdraw my point.
10. As I said how do you know what a designer would and wouldn't do hence your claim is nonsensical... Yet my claim is logical since we already know what natural selection is claimed to do hence we should be able to see it demonstrated in life, refer to point 9 to see how this is not so.
If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his design should look like? Because I am told a lot that we are made in his image (always a him, never a her).