This is how you know that modern science

16and18

Orange Blooded [2058]

TigerPulse: 97%

Posts: 2990

Joined: 2022

Re: It does crack me up that something so easily provable with

May 27, 2023, 11:48 AM

> The typical rebuttal to this is that it could be a sign of a common creator.

If all scientists were saying was that there are similarities between animal physiology and DNA, then I would think that was a reasonable statement. Indeed, just because humans and dogs have hips, femurs, and mandibles, and they share some DNA doesn't, on its own, mean that we have a common ancestor or evolved at all. No scientist is building their case on those alone, there is way more to that creationist will conveniently leave out (either through ignorance or just straight up lying).

That field of biology is called homology and says much more than the fact that animals are similar. Sure, a creator could re-use structures, but would he give whales hips with vestigial legs or certain species of manatees toenails? Would he give the blind mole rat eyes and then completely cover them in a layer of skin, rendering them useless? These vestigial structures are homologous with structures that are still functioning in other closely related animals. So either they share a common ancestor or they were created to appear that they did.

That is just one tiny piece of the puzzle. As I mentioned, the fossil record on its own is extremely compelling evidence for evolution/common ancestry. First, fossils are a rare occurrence, quite rare in fact (I looked it up, and it's about 0.001% of animals that get fossilized). So we are lucky to have them at all. However, since billions and billions of organisms have existed, that small percentage still gives us a ton of data. And guess what? The older the sediment is, the more simple the animals are. That is a testable hypothesis that has never been disproven. That, on its own, is enough to prove evolution.

Then we get to DNA. Similar to the fossil record, we have instances of homology. That is, different species will share sequences of DNA. Again, if that's all we had, sure, a creator could have just reused DNA, but it's not. Why would there be homologous genes that are activated in one species but not another? i.e. why does a chicken need genes to grow teeth when it doesn't?

The DNA does not just show that there are similarities, if you compare the DNA of different species, you don't just see that they share bits of DNA. If you map out these differences, you get a phylogenetic tree. This clearly shows the relationship between animals and where they share a common ancestor. It's really not that complicated: https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/how-build-phylogenetic-tree

The point is, if they just had some similarities, it would not map out neatly into a branching tree like this. It would have a flatter, more random structure.

None of this proves that God doesn't exist, it does however render religious creation stories as either myth or just wrong.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

And the lord god formed man of the

Genetic similarities with Bananas explains a lot!***

Fruit Flies too!

If you combine the fruit flies and bananas, you get

It might explain them

Wait, you don't "believe" we share DNA with bananas?***

ACGT, it ain't that hard to prove.***

It does crack me up that something so easily provable with

Re: It does crack me up that something so easily provable with

Re: It does crack me up that something so easily provable with

Re: It does crack me up that something so easily provable with

Re: And the lord god formed man of the

Re: And the lord god formed man of the

Re: And the lord god formed man of the

Mushrooms and humans are very similar.

Hey, smarty pants!

TigerBoard POTD