61
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 690:
Line 690: +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 18:09, December 13, 2009
, 18:09, December 13, 2009→The Greatest show on earth
The gene-based arguments for evolution have been a complete failure. I'm surprised Dawkins makes another run at it. For example, gene sequences appear, disappear, and then reappear in the alleged evolutionary path, which suggests a common designer rather than an evolutionary process. I'll add this to our accompanying list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 13 December 2009 (EST)
The gene-based arguments for evolution have been a complete failure. I'm surprised Dawkins makes another run at it. For example, gene sequences appear, disappear, and then reappear in the alleged evolutionary path, which suggests a common designer rather than an evolutionary process. I'll add this to our accompanying list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::My in-law lent me his copy (he's an evolutionist) so I did not have to give money to further Dawkins' agenda. Thanks for your suggestions, I have been introduced to these subjects by our wonderful pastor and I find them fascinating. I still have a problem though (if we suppose the evidence hasn't been fabricated, for the sake of the discussion). I will try to expose briefly what Dawkins says in his book, because it is different than what I have seen so far. From what I understand, some scientists took eleven species (from different baramins) and studied five genes that can be found in these species. For each of the genes, they compared the eleven versions (one for each of the species) and they extracted the handful of family trees which would require the least modifications. The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form. My problem is that I have to admit that the argument makes sense, and I have to resort to arguing that the evidence must have been fabricated. I personally think that the evidence is correct, and that there is a perfectly sensible creationist explanation that eludes me. Would you have any ideas on what that explanation is, or know someone who has? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)