Post by angel
I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity
between chimp and bono species to make your point,
why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as
Darwinism >are concerned?
I know that Orlando does not believe what he is
writing in this thread, unless he has had a recent
conversion that I don't know about. He is merely
playing the devil's advocate, or more correctly, a
creator/designer god's advocate here.
The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness between
individuals through direct or common descent. It is
used to establish paternity, maternity, ancestry and
geneology in medicine and the courtroom. It is also
shown to be the basis of the observed homology at the
anatomical, embryological, physiological and cellular
An established scientific principle is a complete
rational explanation for which the evidence is
overwhelming. The theory of evolution by natural
selection satisfies this definition in all respects.
First, it is a complete rational explanation because
it provides a specific plausible mechanism that
explains the diversity and complexity of the living
world, and the apparent structural and functional
similarities between different species. It is a
scientific theory because it is testable, and because
it is consistent with all other established scientific
principles such as the laws of Physics and Chemistry.
A testable theory is one which makes specific
predictions that can be verified or falsified by
observation and experiment. The following predictions
of the theory of evolution have been irrefutably
1. Living species have changed in complexity and
diversity in a graded manner over the last 4 billion
2. Organisms show random variations in structure and
function in each generation.
3. The variations are inherited.
4. A specific common molecular genetic mechanism
explains both the variations and their inheritance.
5. The inherited variations that offer an advantage in
a given environment become more common in each
successive generation as long as the environment
remains similar. Those that offer a disadvantage are
eliminated. They may be preserved in a different
environment, however. Those variations that are
indifferent do not change in frequency in the general
population. However, they may become common or
disappear if a small population became geographically
6. The molecular genetic differences between any two
species depend precisely on when in the history of
this planet their lineages separated from each other
(the lineages and point of divergence determined
independently by fossil evidence). The greater the
amount of difference the longer is the temporal
distance of separation.
7. The structures and mechanisms found in all species
are merely functional under a given environment. They
are not optimally efficient in many cases. There are
also many useless or non-functional structures and
8. Structures and mechanisms used for one purpose in
an organism is used in an intermediate or incomplete
form in another organism sharing a common ancestral
lineage. There are non-functional eyes, components of
the bacterial flagellum, steps in the blood clotting
mechanisms, etc used for other purposes in other
Yes, there are incomplete mouse traps in biology. The
creationist Michael Behe has simply written a book
full of factual errors. So have the others. For an
exposition of the factual misinformation and erroneous
speculations in their writings, please read the books
and articles of evolutionary biologists Ken Miller and
Massimo Pigliuci, the Nobel laureate Russell Doolittle
(who discovered the blood clotting mechanism) and the
evolutionary theorist Robert Pennock.
The religious concept of creationism and its modern
version, intelligent design, do not provide a specific
plausible mechanism to explain all the features of
Biology listed above. The undefined concept of a
creator or designer is not a testable hypothesis. Its
only semblance of a prediction, namely that there is a
such a creator/designer cannot be objectively verified
or falsified. It only raises more unanswered
What is the physical nature of this creator/designer?
How did it come into being fully formed with the
ability to design and create?
What is the specific mechanism that it uses to design
Why and how does it make mistakes in designing and
Why did it not design and create all species at once?
Why did it have to stagger them over 4 billion years?
Why did it not create humans before creating
So before proposing common design as an explanation
for the 98% similarity between chimp and human DNA,
all of the above questions need to be answered, and
objective evidence obtained in support of at least
some of those answers.
Now regarding the abstract legal and philosophical
arguments of religious creationists cited below,
please see the following link for the most recent
comprehensive court ruling that points out the gaping
flaws and falsehoods in them, and determines that
intelligent design is an unscientific belief:
Post by angel
My take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is
sad when one has to take the stand that 'it has all
been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply
I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in
favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in
genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we
are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing
difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes
we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called
body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with
COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.
To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just
discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's
incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at
Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A.
Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are
interested in the debate to
look these authors up.