What we see is an overlap in the variability of genetic expression in a created biological matrix. It is a fallacy to assume that things with hair simply share common ancestry, even if they have similar genetic coding for hair. No, this is not the same as testing for heredity, because that is testing a species against itself. Cross-checking DNA sequences for human to chimpanzee similarity, for example, must make an assumption about the mechanisms in biology that WE DO NOT OBSERVE. This is all confirmed by the fact that there is absolutely no case in the natural world that can be pointed to that shows the type of changes to get hair in the first place, or an arm or an eye. Mutations are a problem for evolutionary thinking, not a solution. If you are convinced that is the answer, you should look into mutational load per generation for any species. There isn't enough time for any theoretical evolution before everything would start dying off from bad mutations, because bad mutations outnumber the "good" by orders of magnitude (like a million, so good luck with that "riddle"). This is a sin cursed world, and frankly, that's what we observe.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
My question is..
Science will at some point create Non evolution genetically Intelligence designed species....
How would you determine or test something to see in its naturally evolved or intelligently designed?
If no knows how to do that now.. no one can make and absolutely flat assertion now
That not denied of nature evolution..its just Acceptance of the fact you can not assertion its absolutely...Species can and will arise from more then one mechanisms
You frame this in a way that you think helps neither side over the other, but you also apparently think it justifies holding to an evolutionary belief, which means you don't understand your own question I think. Aside from your question requiring some hefty hypotheticals, not only requiring science to achieve this (fine, let's allow that), but also someone having to be looking at this blind with no knowledge of the science-made species. So, it's like the AI Turing test, that if we can't tell one way or the other than we simply don't have the knowledge to say ultimately. Fine, let's allow that too. But then you assert that since, and if, this were the case that it somehow means, by our ignorance apparently, that we can say evolution happens. Doesn't work like that. Or that belief in evolution is therefore, at least, justified? Well, then so is ID and equally so (this is why I say you don't understand your question - sorry to sound like a condescending prick). And more equally than you realize, because if there is still no known mechanism for evolution, which is predicated on the machinations of the natural world alone, but it is still held to as a fact, then it is no different than any belief. In this context, and with the given observations and knowledge of history, ID would still be a stronger case, because it does not exclude design.