Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:32:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
556 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request:
>
> > Here's an example. Every living thing on Earth has DNA which works in pretty
> > much the same way. From the way the DNA is structured we can infer
> > relationships between all living things. To my mind, the evidence supports
> > the theory that there was a single common ancestor to all life on earth,
> > including the bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants and animals, the last
> > including humans. If a living thing was discovered that had different system
> > (call it XNA), or it was shown that humans were qualitatively different from
> > chimpanzees, that discovery would cause me to radically rethink my theory.
> >
> > Two questions:
> > 1. How do you explain the similarity of the DNA of all living things?
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
Leaving out the "we're not really monkeys, honest" pseudo-analysis[1], which
is incidental to the question, the answer seems to boil down to "The unity
of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all." For my
money this is a good explanation, IF you accept that (a) there is a One True
God who made it all, and (b) that God is directly responsible for life on
earth. In other words, the explanation is religious, and makes no sense
beyond a religious perspective. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > 2. What evidence would cause you to look for another explanation?
>
> This question is rather meaningless. Why look for evidence in the first
> place?
It was poorly phrased I guess: I meant to say "Under what circumstances
would you look for another explanation of this phenomenon?" I gave examples
of evidence that would make me re-examine my explanation, I'm interested in
your response.
--DaveL
[1] These "answers" do not provide any evidence of significant biological
differences between chimps and humans. The author admits that "of all the
animals chimps are most like humans": he fails to discuss why that might be
the case, which is surely an important question. I leave aside the errors
and distortions in his molecular biology.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request: (...) (URL) (sorry to keep using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on saying "that source isn't (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
