More on Darwinism: Homology and DNA

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/7/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

This is the third in a continuing series of posts on the evils and errors of Darwinism. My first post pointed out that the fossil record showed exactly the opposite of what Darwin had proposed – which was a single “tree of life” (Universal Common Descent) in which every living organism descended on branches from an original, single celled being (LUCA), and that we all descended from LUCA and are the product of random changes. Instead the fossil record clearly shows an orchard with many trees that have some branches and many trees that look like telephone poles because a life form often appears suddenly and then later disappears with no apparent evolutionary changes over its lifespan.

My second post dealt with the harm that Darwinism has done to mankind by providing a rationale for everything from eugenics and unlimited abortion to the starvation of Russian peasants and the slaughter of Germany’s Jews.

[wendy1946]

Evolution is garbage science and as garbage science goes, a spectacularly harmful and dangerous variety.

[tbw2]

If many of those on the dole cannot be expected to support themselves (as many Democrats state), then the reasonable next step is Eugenics.
Do liberals really want to blame the person’s biology? It’s a very slippery slope.

[LetMarch]

Amen! You are right on target!
In his book; “Inspiration VS Evolution” (by: W.B. Riley;
copy 1923) he pointed out Darwin stated “We may assume” hundreds of times. While the Holy Scriptures stat: “Thus saith the LORD.”
Mr Riley also predicted the results of teaching evolution in our schools, such as: It tends to socialism, communism, atheism, and anarchy!
And we have about arrived!

[Inappropriate Laughter]

This reads like someone put every junky Creationist talking-point in a bag and plucked them out at random. From the blog post: An honest skeptic of Darwinism could no longer maintain that the available evidence disproved descent with modification, it only proved that the single “tree of life” proposed by Darwin and steadfastly defended by Darwinists was in error; however the evidence that we are all somehow related, whether on a branch of trees in the orchard or connected to the telephone poles there is conclusive.

Huh? Whatever that was supposed to mean, the comparing the DNA of related species conclusively demonstrates their evolutionary tree. See, from the Talk Origins archive, how the DNA evidence shows common ancestry.

And then the post has this little bit of Creationist quote-mining:

Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the massive project that successfully decoded the human genome, and formerly an atheist, said that in defining the human genome he had “Seen the mind of God”. He went on to write a book, "The Language of God”, in which he writes of his experience and his new faith.

We are apparently supposed to think that Dr. Collins supports the blogger and has rejected evolution. But Dr. Collins has does not reject evolution, on the contrary:

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

[PurpleMountains]

Your insults aside, I also believed that macroevolution was God’s plan until I studied the fossil record and learned of Dr. Behe’s research.

[js1138]

Your insults aside, I also believed that macroevolution was God’s plan until I studied the fossil record and learned of Dr. Behe’s research.

You realize, of course, that Behe accepts common descent.

[PurpleMountains]

You realize, of course, that Behe accepts common descent.

Yes, I do, and so do I, but his main contribution to our body of knowledge is that there are limits to what random mutation and natural selection can accomplish, and those limits fall far short of attaining new forms and new body styles. Where we disagree on is what the fossil record actually shows regarding how descent actually occurred. Dr. Behe is one of my heroes.

[js1138]

...but his main contribution to our body of knowledge is that there are limits to what random mutation and natural selection can accomplish...

That's a rather dubious contribution, since every specific claim he's made on the subject has been refuted by observation.

Most recently his claim that two or more step adaptations are impossible. The ink on his book was barely dry before experimental observation of three step adaptations was published.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

In his book; “Inspiration VS Evolution” (by: W.B. Riley; copy 1923) he pointed out Darwin stated “We may assume” hundreds of times.

The classic along that theme is this 1882 book:

Articles of the Darwin Faith

You'll need the little WinDjvu program to read it.

[tacticalogic]

Are you Russell Wilcox?