you're reading...
Creation/Evolution, science

Does evidence speak for itself – part 2

Think of your favorite music artist.  Think of all their albums.  Are there common musical or thematic elements across them?  More than likely there are, that’s why you like them, cause you like that style.  I’m a musician myself, and I recognize that many of my songs share similar musical styles or references.  That’s because I can only write from my own mind.  They are my creations, they show my signature in each one. 

Now think about evolution.  In my previous post here I talked about fossil evidence and how lining up certain fossils in a particular order can give the appearance of decent, but that’s not proof as it can be incorrectly done as well.  The number one complaint I got from evolutionists was that we don’t come to evolution through fossil evidence alone, take DNA evidence.  We can track the evolutionary line through the similarities in DNA. 

Alright then, let me address that.  I believe similarities in DNA no more show common decent than they show common design.  Just as my songs, or the songs of your favorite artist share similar qualities, so does DNA in many creatures on the earth.  Again we can line up certain creatures in a particular way and get a proposed lineage, but to “prove” that you have to ignore the possibility of a common designer.


About Tim



3 thoughts on “Does evidence speak for itself – part 2

  1. In order to use genetic similarity as an argument for common descent, they have to support a tree-like topology, or even close to one–which they don’t. The sequencing of DNA from the last decade has shown that in a large number of cases, genetic markers are insufficient to show what evolved from what and many organisms share a piecemeal asortment of genetic code from many others in patterns that would make it impossible for them to have shared common ancestry with all of them. Convergence and horizontal gene transfer are oft-invoked to explain these many surprises, but when half an organism’s genome would have had to be built by viral transfers (as is the case with the sea squirt), common descent is no longer falsifiable.

    Posted by joecoder7 | August 20, 2012, 9:03 pm
  2. I think the main use of DNA evidence is to add another type of support for how phylogenetically related creatures are similar.

    Posted by EquationForLife | August 21, 2012, 4:19 am

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: