Mazzy wrote:Please don't confuse 'evidence' with an hypothesized support.
Indeed what has been found does support creation. For example if biblical creation were true creationists need data to support modern mankind being related to one male and female ancestor. Guess what? It does. That's too bad for evolutionists.
That's cherry picking your evidence, in my opinion. Evolutionists don't deny that DNA comparisons lead to a single male and female ancestor. However, the same evidence also suggests that that they lived thousands of years apart, and other evidence suggests that they were not alone.
Now evolutionists have to add a story line. eg That data really doesn't mean what it indicates because there were other people about as well and all other ancestral lines since then died how.
No. Different evidence leads to different conclusions, neither of which conflict.
Sure we can falsify creationism. eg dna indicates mankind is related to multiple ancestral lines, but it doesn't.
Establishing that humans do not have a common ancestor would be a bit of a blow for evolution too!
God would not need to make useless dna. The saga of 'junk' dna once upon a time sounded like great support for TOE being the useless remnant. Creationists maintained that God would have no need to create useless dna in a creation event. I shouldn't need to tell you that is exactly what we researchers are finding. eg expression switch, essential for chromosome structure, the function of centromeres and play a role in cell division (meiosis). Some noncoding DNA sequences also determine the location where transcription factors can attach and control transcription of the genetic code from DNA to mRNA.
I think it's difficult to claim what God would or wouldn't do, and then say that the evidence supports the claim, because God can do whatever he likes. It is a bit more rigorous to claim what evolution could or couldn't do, and to see if observations refute it. Redundant DNA, absurd designs such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and vestiges of former characteristics with minimal current importance are suggested by evolution. No doubt some functional relevance can be found for many of them, but as a whole, I think these support at least the appearance of evolution, even if they do not refute creationism.
Some organism had to be more similar to mankind than the others. How does one come up with a percentage when huge chunks of DNA are missing, or when the Y chromosome is hugely divergent in comparison, deletions insertions, etc You can't! If you would like to critique the paper on "the myth of 1%" I would welcome it.
I didn't bring up the percentage game, and I agree that it is not a very satisfactory way of comparing the similarity of DNA. However, that doesn't mean that the DNA of humans and chimps is not vastly more similar than that of either of them and chickens.
I'd say the long line of papers on dna first, rna first, proteins first, heaps of experiments in controlled labs, and coming up with zilch is a failure to date.
To date. Exactly. The search is far from over. There are plenty of unexplored avenues, and plenty of partly explored avenues which are worth exploring further. Scientists are more patient than creationists, it seems.
Creationists actually do research. John Sanford invented the gene gun and has published numerous papers. Regardless, it's fine to let evolutionists do it for us. So far they are doing a great job at supporting creationism.
Yes. Creationist web-sites love to list the various eminent mainstream scientists who are also creationists. However, it turns out that none of their mainstream papers actually research the evidence for creation, whatever they may publish in creationist literature. Andrew Snelling, for example, who claims to be a Young Earth creationist, has published numerous geological papers referring to millions of years. The gene-gun is a wonderful thing, but far from refuting evolution, it encourages research that tends to confirm it.
You do realize don't you that algorithmic magic uses unknown speciation dates as insertion values? [...] Even at half the mutation rate a 'story' will be invented to keep the TOE timeline from totally falling apart, and falsifying a plethora of published papers.
It has long been recognised that mutation rates are not like half-lives, which are fairly rigorously predictable, and there is plenty more research to be done to enable us to calibrate accurate mutation number/age relationships for all the various germ-lines in which we are interested.
Additionally much data does appear to better support a creationist paradigm and challenge an evolutionary one.
I dispute that, but it gets to the core of the discussion. It's not that this or that piece of evidence proves creation or evolution, but that it can be interpreted as better supporting one than the other. It seems that the DNA evidence can be interpreted as supporting either. What evidence do you think definitely suggests creation better than evolution?