The Common Ancestry Thread

by cantleave 271 Replies latest members adult

• 

  cofty

  I don't know how anyone could look at embryonic development and deny common ancestry - Lisa Rose

  In 1860 Charles Darwin wrote the following to the American botanist Asa Gray...

  "Embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favour of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has alluded to this."

  The problem was that in Darwin's day and up until recently, it was impossible to know how embryos evolve. This was Darwin's so-called "black box" that has now been opened to reveal a fascinating world of genetic switches.

  Only within the past 20 years or so has it been possible to describe in detail how genes control the development of an embryo.

  Fate maps of early stage embryos can be constructed to show what cells will become particular structures. Even more amazingly the expression of specific "tool-kit" genes can be observed in the developing embryo.

  Lots and lots more information on this to come soon.

  
• 

  LisaRose

  There was an interesting article in the July National Geographic on the Denisovans, another type of humanoid, closely related to the Neanderthals. They share a common ancester with both Neanderthals and modern humans. All that was found of them was a bone chip from an eight year old girl, from a pinkie finger, and two teeth from a different person. This was found in a cave in Russia, along with both Neanderthal and human remains. 250,000 to 500,00 years ago the Denisovans split with Neanderthals with the Neanderthals going to Europe and the Denisovans to Asia. Eventually the Neanderthals spread east and overlapped the territory of the Denisovans. They were able to map the genome from that tiny bone fragment and prove they were different from either modern humans or Neanderthals.
• 

  konceptual99

  @lisarose... Very interesting reading. I don't know how anyone could look at embryonic development and deny common ancestry.

  I've had this conversation with ones still very much in and they have all suggested that there is nothing conclusive in this at all. Their view, and one that I had more than a nodding agreement with, is that it makes perfect sense for creation to share building blocks. Just because we all look like fish embryos does not prove evolution - if anything it atests to a wonderful designer. Common ancestry just suggests common design.

  When I read Dawkins, Coyne etc. this aspect of evolutionary theory was not faith shaking. Far more faith shaking is to avoid the cogdis around human development. Once you refuse to accept the account of Adam and Eve then you really do find it impossible to make everything add up.
• 

  LisaRose

  Well, sure you could say God used common building blocks, but there are many species with a huge amount of redundant DNA, why would God put way more DNA into a lily than a human? It would be like building a car using the wheels of a bicycle, but throwing on the bike seat and handlebar that is functionally useless to the car. The only explanation is that it was not designed, it evolved, that DNA code was a leftover.

  The only reason you would not accept the obvious embryonic evidence, is that you are coming at it as a believer, and are not going to accept anything that would challenge your belief in God. And how do you explain the vestigial tailbone and appendix? A tailbone in a human serves no purpose and is subject to injury. Why would God give us a tailbone? He must have a wicked sense of humor, and is laughing every time we fall on our bum.
• 

  konceptual99

  @lisarose - you are absolutely right with one exception. I think there are two reasons why it's so hard to accept the obvious. One is that you are coming at it as a believer and the second is that virtually no witnesses have ever really studied evolutionary science. I don't even mean at some kind of degree level - not even by simply taking time to read books by people such as Dawkins and Coyne.

  When I was mentally in I read The Greatest Show on Earth. I found nothing in there that my cogdis could not reconcille with creation. I also got alot of stick from fellow witnesses as if I was reading something apostate. Of course, when I read it now it has very different meaning however I only started breaking through the cogdis once I had deceided that the evidence for human existance way beyond 6000 years is overwhelming - that was the key to accepting other things that to most of the rest of world are obvious.
• 

  besty

  would be a neat project to create a short pdf summary of this thread for a downloadable or general article on jwfacts
• 

  LisaRose

  se - you are absolutely right with one exception. I think there are two reasons why it's so hard to accept the obvious. One is that you are coming at it as a believer and the second is that virtually no witnesses have ever really studied evolutionary science. I don't even mean at some kind of degree level - not even by simply taking time to read books by people such as Dawkins and Coyne.

  Well, I have never read Dawkins or Coyne, and I imagine most dubs would probably not be comfortable reading them, so you are probably right. It was not something I studied, it's just that over the years I picked up things here and there. I didn't leave the dubs over it, but I think it did contribute to my cognitive dissonance, as soon as I left, I realized I had already accepted that evolution was true. I think if you spent time studying DNA, you would become a believer in evolution, there is just too much evidence there. I have learned a lot about it just from reading National Geographic. It's amazing what you can pick up just from that, the articles are short and understandable, and there are a lot of pictures. It's baby steps for those who didn't go to college, but want to expand their knowledge of science.
• 

  A Ha

  Just because we all look like fish embryos does not prove evolution - if anything it atests to a wonderful designer. Common ancestry just suggests common design.

  If they want to keep "common design" they have to drop "wonderfully made."
• 

  cofty

  Common ancestry just suggests common design

  There is more than enough facts in this thread to thoroughly refute that.
• 

  dorayakii

  Fascinating thread. Cantleave directed me here and asked if I could provide links to the blog that I write

  My blog is found at: http://aperimentis.wordpress.com and features articles on various topics that interest me including biology, evolution, science, humanism, rationality, design, world history, biblical history and linguistics.