Captain Canuck
New member
I will try to simplify it into three points:
- If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence.
- More closely-related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and will have shared substitutions when compared to more distantly-related species
- This is exactly what we find when we look at the DNA of all animals and plants. There is clear, unmistakably arranged hierarchy. For example, our DNA is close to chimpanzees’ (99% similar!), slightly more distant from gorillas, slightly more distant from Orangutans, and slightly more distant from monkeys, etc..
It is just like a family tree, and these predictions were made before the DNA was even discovered, but with the discovery of DNA, the hypothesis of evolution was confirmed beyond doubt and became a proven scientific theory. What do you say to this piece of evidence?
@ "Common Designer" Argument:
Phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. This demonstrates that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function.
@ "Common Designer" Argument:
Phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. This demonstrates that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function.
@ Jewel: We did not descent from monkeys, but we both share a common ancestor. We are not descendants from each other, but cousins.
- If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence.
- More closely-related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and will have shared substitutions when compared to more distantly-related species
- This is exactly what we find when we look at the DNA of all animals and plants. There is clear, unmistakably arranged hierarchy. For example, our DNA is close to chimpanzees’ (99% similar!), slightly more distant from gorillas, slightly more distant from Orangutans, and slightly more distant from monkeys, etc..
It is just like a family tree, and these predictions were made before the DNA was even discovered, but with the discovery of DNA, the hypothesis of evolution was confirmed beyond doubt and became a proven scientific theory. What do you say to this piece of evidence?
@ "Common Designer" Argument:
Phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. This demonstrates that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function.
@ "Common Designer" Argument:
Phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. This demonstrates that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function.
@ Jewel: We did not descent from monkeys, but we both share a common ancestor. We are not descendants from each other, but cousins.