Posted on 02/27/2004 5:55:40 PM PST by Coleus
No, it's because it is so boldfaced obvious that it would be a waste of time. Most creationists spend time researching things that will help society. Believing genetics will provide anything but that we have an awesome Creator can be better found spending time holding our children's faces.
They are not going to find life on Mars, unless God decides to begin a new work there this coming week and create all of the millions of systems with all their tolerances necessary to support life.
P.S. I saw "The Passion of the Christ" today, and felt the things that Mel chose to have Jesus say was just as impacting as the suffering He withstood.
I am not completely, dogmatically against the idea that chimps and man have a common ancestor. I'm just open-minded to the possibility we don't.
DNA paternity tests, however, don't establish that we do.
Now, where would be the geographical separation between chimps and man? How great would it have to be? How long would it last? How about horses and cattle or deer or pigs or cats and dogs all of which often share the same environment?
It is more logical to believe a creator is involved than all this occurring by chance.
You ask why creation scientists refrain from investigating DNA sequencing. It's good that you recognize the species exists. :-)
FC: The "existence" of these things should not cause the least alarm as far as the inquiring mind is concerned. It becomes an issue when one attempts to define the cause, or lack thereof, when/where they occur.
It's the distribution of these mutations that is so interesting.
1) They are inherited.
2) The odds are small (1 in a few million or so) against the same point mutation happening twice. Not impossible, but unlikely.
So let's say that a mutation is found in species A, B, and C, but not D and E. The obvious hypothesis is that the mutation occurred in a common ancestor of A,B, and C that wasn't ancestral to D and E. And, by an amazing coincidence, biologists already knew that there was such a species.
This is exactly the pattern seen over and over in genetic studies: the distribution of mutations is as though they had occurred once and been inherited, and the phylogenetic tree already defined the species the mutation occurred in.
Creationists and ID-ists have a problem: the data show that their postulated "intelligence" is constrained to act in a way consistent with standard biology. So the hypothesis of intelligence doesn't add anything, and is rejected by Occam's Razor.
It is possible to claim that the hypothetical designer is responsible for the mutations in the first place, I guess, but what's the point? They certainly look like random copying errors, and the great bulk of them seem to have no effect on the functionality of the protein they code for - in fact, a lot are silent (a DNA mutation that doesn't alter the protein at all)
You already have taken the lowest road in your posts by blaming people who don't believe like you do for abortion and all other ills in society and then when you are challenged on it you pull the Elitist Liberal manuever of playing victim.
As for not reading my whole post, Amazing how you still managed to quote (Out of context as it may be)from all parts of it. Of course you read it and because the facts in it show that many Christian nations have a higher abortion rate than many non-Christian ones falls in the face of your worldview you pretend you didn't see it.
I will leave you with a quote from the Bible.
Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
I would keep that in mind because I can't seem to find the part where God instructs Christians to run around blaming all the worst vile ills of society on people who don't believe. You just might end up with all us Evilutionist.
Why does consistency necessarily point away from intelligence? For that matter, why does constraint?
Now.....just relax. I didn't blame you for abortion, so you can stop being so defensive about it.
I blamed the meaninglessness of life on the removal of God from our culture.......and that includes Godless evolution (which is the topic of this thread). It also includes philosophers and (liberal) theologians who have tried to do the same thing.
btw, I would no sooner believe that an atheistic evolutionist professor (even with accompanying texts) was telling me the truth about how the world began, than I would trust a liberal political science professor (even with accompanying texts) to tell me the truth about America's history. Both have an agenda, and I am, by nature, a skeptic.
Now PLEASE, do what your virtual cohort, young Patrick Henry does, and IGNORE me.
You missed the point.
Answer the question: Why would the designer fuse two chimp chromosomes together to make a human?
Wrong. There presently is no other way to explain the tight knit relationship between all life on the planet (mistakes and all). You wouldnt be able to do any study on cellular or molecular biology without appreciating the theory of evolution.
Well, I thought you acribed "indifference" to a designer who would do such a thing, so that is what I addressed in response.
Why would the designer fuse two chimp chromosomes together to make a human?
One can never reach the very bottom of any question that begins with the word "why." In this case the operative factor could be as simple as free will; at least for a start.
The chimps are fine. No one is complaining about the chimps for crying out loud.
All I want to know is why did the designer give me two fused chimp chromosomes?
The huge dilemma for ID is that common descent explains observations like this simply,elegantly and consistently with no problems whatsoever.
ID proponents are left looking foolish. So the designer just felt lazy that day? Or maybe an incompetent graduate stuednt in the lab of the designer forgot to add telomeres to the ends of the chimp chromosomes? Maybe its all just a test!
Well if I was all powerful and all knowing I would build one from scratch I suppose without any of the limitations built into existing species.
But if I was impatient and lazy about it, I suppose I could throw together mostly (96% or so) monkey parts. Yet that human chromosome 2 does look a bit sloppy even for me. I think I would either have just kept them seperate or at least joined them together to make it a bit more presentable. I mean it looks like it was fused in a random fashion for pete's sake!
I'll think about this, but my immediate thought is, "at least you have something fused to look at." If all of existence were due to pure randomness we would have nothing to talk about.
I completely agree with you. The more I learn about nature, the more in awe of God I become.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.