[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted:07/14/04 4:15pm In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Is he?" on 07/14/04 3:47pm
>>It's not my "uncle," no. But there is no doubt it is
>>related to me. Darwin first figured it out, and then
>>modern science, particularly DNA comparison, has
>>verified it.
>
>Has it? We've found similarities to be sure. But
>there are different interpretations of the data here.
>One alternate explanation: similar biological
>structures (as DNA) for similar functions. A TI-85
>and a TI-86 graphing calculator have numerous
>similarities. Nonetheless, that doesn't imply that
>they evolved from a common ancestor.
Here's another alternate explanation: maybe an apple fell from a tree and, when it hit the ground, instantly turned into an ape. And maybe, in another place, an orange fell, but the orange turned into a human when it hit the ground. Alternate explanations are easy to find, but science looks for the _most likely_ scenario, and tries to see where the data most obviously point. As we've gone over and over on this board, our common ancestry with apes is supported by various branches of science, and is by far the best interpretation of the evidence as a whole. Nothing else even comes close.
So you can think that an invisible creator created all these things with the _appearance_ of being related to each other when they actually aren't, and I can go on thinking that apples and oranges produce apes and humans, but meanwhile science will go on accepting what the evidence seems to say most obviously without jumping to either divine intervention or apple/orange tree intervention.
