Re:Wrong (Score 1)

I'd like a couple words. [i]Please elaborate. My contention is that a lack of any similarity in DNA would be a death blow to evolutionary common descent. I am interested to know why you don't think this would be the case.[/i] First of all, the very fact that every living organism contains the same genetic material (however variegated) is a mountain of support for common ancestry. And, in relation to the creationist argument, I think the fact that we share roughly 96% of the genetic material of chimps is good support. [i]You must be trolling. Are you honestly saying that you are unfamiliar with the "humans are too perfect to have evolved" argument that comes from creationists? If you are even remotely knowledgable about the evolution-creation "debate", I can fathom no circumstances under which you would not have heard this "argument." It is quite popular, albeit misinformed. [/i] This argument shows up in many forms. Most creationist proponents do not argue that humans are too "perfect" but rather are too "complex," as we are the most biochemically complex organism that we know of. And it is not a completely ridiculous argument to contest the fact that so complex a biochemical engine could come about by chance and some raw materials. [i]How about nipples on men? The point is not the appendix. The point is that if you wanted to falsify a theory of evolutionary common descent, having a world full of creatures that have "truly" perfect design and no structures in common with other creatures would pretty much do it.[/i] Well there's a biological explanation for male nipples, too. But it is kind of a moot argument because, as I've said, few creationists argue for human "perfection." Indeed, this seems very contrary to the religious view creationism is based on, as they tend to believe God is perfect, and humans are innately flawed - hence the need for the whole redemption deal. But it's an interesting point to argue, nonetheless. As Kevin Smith said, God must have a sense of humor. Look at the platypus. [i]This is obviously a trick question since anybody with a scintilla of knowledge about evolution knows that it has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life.[/i] This is completely not true. There are numerous scientists and disciplinary studies devoted to evolutionary devolopment on a systemic, cellular, and molecular level. We, as organisms, "evolve" because of changes in our genotype and its subsequent phenotype. The changes in our genetic matter is the key to evolutionary development. To say that evolutionists aren't interested in how matter went from being non-living to living is like saying they're not interested in how certain animals went from being cold-blooded to warm-blooded.