[creation_evolution_debate] Common
decent or common design

On 27 Mar 2004 at 12:04, jabriol wrote:

To:
From:"Dave Oldridge" >


On 21 Mar 2004 at 7:53, jabriol wrote:

--- Dave Oldridge <doldridg@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 20 Mar 2004 at 14:54, jabriol wrote:

Sniped for brevity

the theory is based on speculation.

Nonsense. The theory that chimps and humans

have

a

common genetic
ancestor immediately brings to mind certain
predictions.

such as.. manpanzee?

Humans have a 50% genetic match with a banana,

you

can

bsicly predict anything with that wide of a

number.

No you cannot. And humans have a common genetic
ancestor with
bananas, too. It's just a lot further back than

the

one

with
chimps.

Let me ask you this.. would a Designer use the same
workable material for different constructions?

I see no reason why a designer would not do this.

But

would a
designer include a car differential in a washing
machine, hooked up
only at one end and turning nothing?

Do you have any example in nature to illustrate your
point?

Leonardo DaVinci, use the same style of creativity,
and thus you can recognize his style. Look at the

Mona

Lisa and St Jean DE Baptiste.

No, Leonardo was not in the habit of painting the

same

blemish into
two different paintings.

You would be surprised.. look at the two paintings.

Glen Larson as a producer of various shows, used

the

same depiction of technology in any of his sci-fi
show.
By just looking for 2 minutes of any of his shows,

you

would can Identify a Larson production..

So? And you can tell late Larson from early Larson

(the

special
effects people got better at doing what he wanted).

is there any new Larson productions?

But
again this
does not address the question of why a

NON-functioning

system
exists in two species, related, according to

scientists,

by
evolution. Nor does it explain why that system
non-functions fon
the same reason in both. Evolution DOES explain this

as

an
artifact of the evolutionary history of the two

species.

A
designer, purposing to not include the system would
simply not
include it.

why? there a many manufactures that will build on a
design with obselete functionability, It one of my
fustration, when do R&D on newer system.. I look at
the power matrix and design and "what the..." well you
get the idea. I even query about them, and some
replies are just down right ridiculous. It comes to: "
it wont help, but it does not hinder" it really not
much of an issue, if from the designer point of view
the new construct won't be affected.

If there was an Alien Extra-Terrestrial being,
terraform a planet, would he not use the same

workable

material.
Even from the Bible, you can see this, and I wonder
why has a creationist pick this up yet.

In the "creation" of Eve, you will notice that Eve

was

not an independent separate creation. It is

mentioned

that Genetic material was removed from Adam to form
and construct Eve. The fact that you do not read

the

details, diminish this account, if taken in a

proper

scientific mindset.

We all know automobiles are made in manufacturing
factories. But how many know the actual details of
building a car?

Have you ever run across a car with a wash basin

built

into the
trunk, with the taps broken?

I think they are called RV's... :-)

what you call common decent or nested hierarchies,

I

call common building materials. So I do not find it

Building what? I'm talking about non-functional

systems

and viral
insertions.

surprising that a prediction of a life form for a
certain time period may have existed based on the
fossil record. As I said the I do the same in
R&D of communication systems and their power

supplies.

Example, I received a PS, that nobody have ever

seen

before from Siemens. Nobody knows in what telco it
should work in. All I did
is open the PS, look at the parts And I can predict
that it is a current-sharing PS for 7 foot system.

I could be absolutely wrong, but everything else

I've

seen points in this direction. Common decent?

Nested

Hierarchies? or just a common way to build a power
supply?

You clearly missed the point of my question. What
designer,
purposing to produce creatures lacking a certain
function found in
others would include the entire system for the

function

and then
turn it off by damaging one part? Why not remove

the

entire
system for that function? It would be more

streamlined,

more
efficient, more INTELLIGENT.

ahhh back to Genesis.. and it simplistic view for us
to understand. It indicates, Adam, could function
idefinite if he remain within certain guidelines. He
did not. so let say his creator turn of a few
biological systems until he died.

On the other hand, evolution explains these visible
features as
simply being artifacts of the common descent of the
species in
question.

again an assumptiON