RickD wrote: hughfarey wrote:
RickD wrote:I have no problem agreeing with you that life forms can be genetically related, without believing all living things share a common ancestor. I see God using similar DNA in similar life. I don't think the evidence points to evolution from one common ancestor being the only explanation for that.
I think I understand that, although I'm not sure how two animals can be genetically related without sharing a common ancestor. I think that's what genetically related means. I agree that they could be genetically [b]similar
without sharing a common ancestor - is that what you had mind?[/b]I'm not sure how you define, "genetically related", and how it differs from genetically similar.
If so, then we can discuss why, with the same evidence, we come to different conclusions. You might say that since a frog and a rabbit both have to live in the world as we know it, it is not surprising that both have, for example, very similar respiratory chemistry, initiated by very similar DNA. That in itself would not be better evidence of common descent than individual creation. However, when we see the remarkable similarities between the frog and rabbit embryos, and how they form themselves into the adult organ systems, producing those bizarre distortions such as the wandering routes of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens, I think there the evidence points better towards common descent than individual creation.And I think similarities point to a Designer who uses efficient biological systems in different creatures. Not unlike a car designer using similar braking systems, or electrical systems, in different vehicles.
Understand, many Progressive Creationists take a "programming" approach to design. Rich does in his article on psuedogenes and how his creation beliefs account for such. And, it would appear RickD meant something like this.
So you know, when I'm coding, I choose a suitable language and framework. For a starting framework, pick a particular kind of creature. From there, I might decide that I desire it to have function A, B and C. I know there exists 'A' already, in fact, some coders have developed it to run quite well on existing platform environments. So I use what has "evolved" for 'A'. Then 'B', I see I already created code for 'B' in another "program" (life form), so I'll reuse that thanks very much. And then 'C' well nothing exists for that, so looks like I'll have to create new code for that bit.
Therefore, one life form could be genetically related to multiple
species in their "shared" genetic information mixed in with new. This is unlike Natural Evolution where we would to see genetic information ALWAYS passed on down the line one-to-one. Furthermore, with this PC view, convergent "evolution" should be seen and expected, intricate symbiotic relationships (multi-part biological and biochemical systems), and I'm sure I can think of several other distinguishing features too.
The question isn't, as many ask, why would God. Why would God create over millions of years rather than in his 6 days of creation? Certainly, the specific details of how God created isn't something we read about in Scripture, but neither does Scripture say anything against it. We also now understand that life forms have biological code and complex internal biological systems, so it may not be that case that God just created life forms, but rather also created the inner workings of biochemical systems which are often shared across any inherited by species. And indeed, Adam and Eve were themselves created directly from pre-existing matter (according to Genesis, Adam from dust of the Earth and Eve from Adam's side). So, then, the question is rather what good evidence is there for this position?