You are correct, Chris. And given the theological objections to evolution, whether a lot of horizontal transfer occurred billions of years ago, metaphorically a bush with several trunks, is irrelevant to those concerned with whether humans and chimps had a common ancestor.
And the common ancestor is not an individual, but a population.
I guess I cannot help myself - an “ancestor” as a population? 
I had better prepare myself for the inevitable tirade 
My video clip shows that birds evolved from humans. Pa-pa-pa-pa-geno!
Nick…
My faith has grown in every way since the time that ID led me to the cross. It will not be shaken.
But more than that, why on earth do you insist on holding to the fear of some imagined future revelation rather than embracing the reality of the strong evidence that is right before your eyes? We know a lot about what natural processes can and cannot do, and we know with a great deal of confidence how to distinguish physical effects that are the result of purely natural processes from physical effects that are the deliberate result of intelligent agency. If we were to discover a geodesic dome on Mars, we would not think for a second to attribute such a phenomenon to purely physical processes, and we would be supremely confident in doing so. The simplest single cell organism is vastly superior in terms of technology than a geodesic dome.
Life is based on information. Information is not a material thing at all. It is immaterial. The material world is (at the entangled macroscopic level) constrained by physical law. Immaterial information is a system of arbitrarily agreed upon symbols and meanings. It is rule based, not law based. Indeed, it is a law of information that completely unconstrained choice contingency must exist at each decision node.
The evidence from life will never point to any causal explanation other than intelligent agency. And while you wait in fearful expectation for some future revelation that will never come, the exodus from the Church continues apace.
they indeed the same genes. read the papers i gave here.
no. i said that according to evolution human evolved from a reptile. so according to this we can say that human also evolved from bird. very simple.
Go watch my video clip again. It shows that bird evolve from human. I’ve seen The Magic Flute at the Met several times. I’ve been on the backstage tour. It’s simple–singers go in dressing room, come out as Papageno and Papagena. So birds evolve from humans.
James…
I am glad that you are willing to engage me, especially considering that you harbor a good amount of disdain against all three propositions I have been defending.
Your argument against my claim that it is logically impossible to believe that both the Bible and the TOE are true, is - no offense - a simplistic presumption, allowing you the luxury of arguing against a pathetic strawman. It is all of Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, that teaches us that God has deliberately and intentionally Created all life (1), especially mankind. The TOE, on the other hand, teaches that life is the result of purely natural processes. Any teleological element is expressly forbidden. Thus we come to the logical incoherence of holding a position that both the Bible and the TOE are true: A purposeless process cannot produce an intended result.
Now let’s talk about the evidence: To be clear, I am talking about the grand claims of the TOE; that every novel genetic feature (wings, for example) has ultimately arisen from an ancestor which did not possess that feature. Now if this grand claim is true, it follows that each of these novel features has been achieved through the mutation/selection process via a quantifiable, functional, adaptive continuum.
As you can imagine, you are by no means the first person to call me out on my second claim. I have offered a challenge to each of them and I will offer the same challenge to you: there is no shortage of novel features in the living world. Please provide a single empirical example of one such adaptive continuum.
In the meantime, it has been known since Crick’s sequence hypothesis that all life is based on functional prescriptive information. Functional, prescriptive information always proceeds from a mind. It cannot be the product of purely natural processes. As far as your claim that a design inference is not a function of science, please understand that the origin and evolution of life is largely an historical science. If a design inference is not a “function of science” as you claim, then what do you do with other historical sciences such as archaeology and forensics? Or what about cryptography?
Nonetheless, whether a design inference can be said to be a function of science is really not the interesting question. The interesting question is, is it true? And whether or not you wish to say it is a function of science, the evidence points to intelligent agency.
Concerning my claim that darwinism turns believers into atheists, it is easy for you to resolve for yourself with the smallest amount of research effort. It is empirically undeniable.
(1). If you take the time to perform a Strong’s search on the words “Created,” “Made,” and “Formed,” you will quickly realize that throughout Sciptures, it is clearly and consistently maintained that God Created mankind deliberately, with a specific plan. To attempt to argue that this conclusion arises wholly out of a single (presumably incorrect) view of Genesis is silly.
Hi dcs,
You are confounding different types of evidence. The genetic evidence points only to common ancestry. You have to go to the fossil record for evidence of which came first, the reptile or the mammal.
You are also ignoring the widespread distribution of the similar genes that code for placodes. Your contention is that the gene for feathers is similar to the gene for hair, therefore humans evolved from birds. Again I point out that such a line of reasoning is nonsense, and is most definitely not evolutionary logic.
Look, here’s the result if I apply the dcs line of reasoning:
The gene for cobra scales is similar to the gene for human hair. Therefore humans evolved from cobras.
The gene for cobra scales is similar to the gene for human hair. Therefore cobras evolved from humans.
The gene for chicken feathers is similar to the gene for cobra scales. Therefore chickens evolved from cobras.
The gene for chicken feathers is similar to the gene for cobra scales. Therefore cobras evolved from chickens.
The gene for chicken feathers is similar to the gene for human hair. Therefore chickens evolved from humans.
The gene for chicken feathers is similar to the gene for human hair. Therefore humans evolved from chickens.
I could go on and on like this, dcs. There are literally millions of species that possess genetic code for placodes. The mathematics behind pair wise operations shows that if there are, for example, 210^9 species being compared in pairwise fashion, then I can make 210^18 comparisons.
So biologists avoid this line of reasoning. Instead, they say that the existence of a similar gene for placodes across millions of species is evidence that they share a common ancestor. Chickens, cobras, and humans did not evolve from each other; instead, the all evolved from a very ancient common ancestor.
I am trying to find a way to say this graciously, dcs, because you are my friend and brother in faith. And I have made plenty of mistakes in my life, and will continue to do so. Here’s my best attempt:
Your imagination, dcs, is not always the same thing as reality. You imagine that biologists think a certain way about genetic evidence. They do not. And they have very good reasons for thinking the way they do.
Cheers,
Chris
its not my logic but evolution one. thank you to proving my point chris.
“The gene for cobra scales is similar to the gene for human hair. Therefore humans evolved from cobras.”-
the same logic as this: "the gene for making yolk in reptiles is similar to the same pseudogene in human. therefore human evolved from reptiles).
"THE THROW OF DICE IS - -
A] “without structure” (i.e. random)
OR
B] “Predictable” (non-random).
Thanks!"
But from your perspective it is not a random event. You are in control over what number you pick. You could choose deliberately not to pick the number 7 because you know that I might be likely to guess that. If you don’t like the number 28 because it has some sort of special significance to you, then you may choose not to pick that number either. If you are trying to prevent me from guessing your choice correctly, you could evaluate the methods I might use to make such a guess and choose a number I would be unlikely to guess. And if you happen to be able to see the future or read my mind then there is no way that I will ever get the answer right unless you let me.
Randomness is something that I don’t have control over. It is something that I am unable to predict. Either because of my own limitations, lack of knowledge, or even willful ignorance. A dice throw is technically predictable based on the initial conditions. But we cannot predict it if we intentionally do not try.
There are many things which are also technically predictable but we have no hope of ever assembling the necessary information to do so.
Just like if I cannot read your mind I cannot predict which number you’re going to choose. I would have to regard your choice as random, but from your perspective there could be nothing random about it.
Chris was pointing out how ridiculous it would be to claim that humans evolved from cobras, not citing it as an example of evolutionary logic. He was trying to show that the logic that led to your statement “the gene for making yolk in reptiles…” is a ridiculous, illogical assertion that nobody is making except you.
Hello my brother dcs,
Your reply is the perfect example of how a small quote, taken out of context, can be extremely misleading.
Here’s what I actually said:
Is my English really so difficult to understand that you think I said the exact opposite of what I actually said?
Or are you just playing a game in which you don’t really try to understand what someone is writing, but instead you are just looking for quotes that you can use in your own favor? I hope you are not really doing this, but I will leave it to you to answer as you see fit.
Cheers,
[quote=“deliberateresult, post:569, topic:4944”]
The TOE, on the other hand, teaches that life is the result of purely natural processes. Any teleological element is expressly forbidden. Thus we come to the logical incoherence of holding a position that both the Bible and the TOE are true: A purposeless process cannot produce an intended result.
[/quote] [my emphasis]
You know, Joe, you are being incredibly persistent about completely ignoring what everyone else is saying, and simply repeating the same assertion over and over again. I rather admire your “message discipline.”
But I know how to be persistent, too.
But I will not repeat this any more. If you simply do not want to hear what I and others are trying to tell you, what can I say? The Lord’s blessings on your journey.
I concur!
That is why it is so important for people to acknowledge THREE categories of events:
Lawful behavior that is confidently seen as non-random.
Appearance of randomness, but still guided by natural lawfulness.
Appearance of randomness … but not random to God.
I have yet to meet someone who believes that there is something with the appearance of randomness that is ALSO random to God.
Hi Joe, I understand you took on conversations with many people simultaneously here (which is obviously a bit overwhelming), but I’m still curious to hear your thoughts on my reply from a while back. Here’s a partial quote from my previous reply:
chris. let me put this this way- do you agree that if some species have genes for feathers it cant be evidence that it have feathers? if so- then the vit gene in human cant be evidence that his ancestor produce yolk.
How about the discipline of biomimicry? Mankind is earnestly engaged in studying the molecular machinery of living organisms in the pursuit of improving on our current level of technological sophistication. We are studying everything from spiders to prunes to balsa wood, seeking to mimic technologies that are currently beyond our own advanced abilities. We seek to improve our navigation technology, adhesive technologies, sensor technologies, and many other technologies by endeavoring to understand how living organisms accomplish what we cannot. We are studying the designs of living systems because currently, the technologies of these living systems are far more advanced than we are at our current levels.
Now I don’t think that anyone here doubts that intelligent agents could be capable of producing molecular machinery that manifests technological sophistication beyond what we are currently able to achieve. I further think it is prima facie common sense and empirically verifiable that intelligent agency alone is a causally sufficient explanation for such sophistication. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. But I am willing to bet that you have no evidential argument whatsoever for any other possible candidate.
Unless you do, it stands that life requires a Creator.
Thanks for the challenge!
I think you found your niche, Joe. It seems you have finally found an obscure enough argument that most of us have no idea whether to even comment on your position. So I’ll be brave and join @glipsnort with a response.
This is BioLogos. So BioLogos supporters would AGREE with you that we think God was involved in the creation of life on this planet.
But now you bring in SNOWFLAKES … in hopes of triggering members of the PRO-GOD-INVOLVEMENT audience into disputing with you … and making them look and sound like ATHEISTS in the process.
That’s a low blow my dear sir.
So it seems we have finally found “your motivation”. You are one of the breed of INTELLIGENT DESIGN folks who have so few people with whom to discuss your theories that you even seek out disputes with people who AGREE with you that God is involved in creation!
MOST BioLogos supporters DO agree with you about God’s involvement.
And MANY (maybe MOST?) BioLogos supporters do NOT agree with you that this can be proved by any analysis of the natural world.
Christians who believe God used Evolution to create humans do so because of their faith;
and/or because of their perceived sense of divine order;
and/or because the absence of God makes even LESS sense to us than how God could exist.
You should accept the limitations of the differences between “Intelligent Design” communities and the BioLogos positions:
A) believing that God was involved in evolution over millions of years is not going to trigger Atheism.
and
B) believing that science or nature CANNOT prove God’s existence is also not going to trigger Atheism.
I don’t find your efforts to stir up disputes with fellow Christians to be any more praiseworthy than Methodists who insist on disputing whether or not John Wesley would approve of BioLogos. In the long run, it doesn’t really matter whether Wesley would have sent money to BioLogos.
The gene is not “for feathers”. In birds, it is a gene in a developmental pathway that regulates the expression of feathers. It is homologous with genes in reptiles and mammals that regulate similar pathways for the expression of scales and hair, respectively. This discovery further elucidates the evolutionary relationships between reptiles, birds and mammals, i.e. that birds and mammals shared common ancestry via reptiles.
vit: You’ve brought up this subject repeatedly but don’t seem to acknowledge any responses. Most of human (and mammalian) vit is now a heavily mutated pseudogene. It has been dead for a very long time but still has enough remaining sequence similarity to reveal reptilian origins.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.