Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy
if it wasn’t for God how we would understand the mechanism of our own understanding
We understand literally millions of scientific facts that in the pre-enlightenment world were ascribed to supernatural causes.
We know what causes thunder - no god is required to account for how we know this.
We know many things about how the diversity of living things evolved from a common ancestor - no god required to account for how we know these things.
You don't get to squeeze Iron Age stories into science via epistemology.
Cofty, to my first post today you replied:
“I literally have not got a clue what you mean . . .”
So did you understand it or not?
How can we understand any of it without God as an objective guide? Or to put it another way, if there is no God then how can we be confident that any of our perceptions are accurate?
The topic is Protein Functional Redundancy NOT bullshit epistemology.
I appreciate the protein and all the other angles on proof. But let’s not forget the main point that evolution is a fact. I agree that evolution is probably a fact. That’s what I’m talking about.
This is good epistemology because evolution is one of the best reasons for believing in God.
The brief point about something in the OP that I made today was simple and factually accurate.
There is nothing difficult to understand, nor does it misunderstand the topic.
Actually your 'brief point' made no sense at all.
Okay Hooby I've been giving this some thought today to try to work out what your objection is. I think it is simple - you don't like the metaphor of a 'tree' and you are confusing the metaphor with the reality.
Let me put it this way. Forget the tree and nothing is lost from the OP. Imagine that Darwin had never lived and nobody had every thought about evolution. Imagine there were no fossils and nobody had observed homologies or comparative embryology or biogeography or any of the other many many lines of evidence.
Imagine that scientists had simply been studying ubiquitous proteins like Cytochrome C to learn more about their structure and function.
They found that every cell in every living thing from the yeast used to make your beer to elephants all rely on this protein. They find that in every case it is structurally identical - so identical that you can swap them around from any species to any other species and it works perfectly.
They do the sums and work out that there are more ways to create this specific shape than there are stars in the known universe, so they look in detail at the DNA code of this protein in various species. They discover something amazing. The code for cytochrome C in humans is almost identical to that in chimps, a little less similar in apes and a little less similar in new world monkeys. The same pattern is seen in every species and yet all of them work interchangeably.
Comparative genetics DOES NOT depend on an assumption of common ancestry it proves common ancestry. It is the smoking gun. It is the same sort of technique used to prove paternity in legal battles.
Now we can compare the relationships previously discovered using fossils and comparative anatomy with the evidence from DNA and use that to confirm or improve what was known previously.
I hope that helps. If you have any questions feel free to ask but don't leave it ten months and then ignore this answer.