Evidence for God from Science

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14045413/?GT1=8307

Do common genes require the conclusion of common ancestor?

Is there any room for recognizing a common creator for similarities in morphology and Genetic material?

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14045413/?GT1=8307

Do common genes require the conclusion of common ancestor?

Is there any room for recognizing a common creator for similarities in morphology and Genetic material?

Yes and no, genes regulating the formation of body parts may be present even though they no longer activate at the correct times. For instance teeth regulating genes in modern birds. The interruption of a single pathway results in the absence of these teeth.

Many of these faulty regulatory pathways have been identified and it would be difficult to explain outside the context of common descent.

In some cases defects in ancestral systems seem to have been patched up through the course of time resulting in congenital defects which one would think would not be the case had the system been better designed or designed from the ground up. For instance Ventricular Septal Defect's in which the wall which separates the ventricals does not fully form. Which is a mammilian "improvement" on the reptillian heart.

These cases are also easily explained under the framework of common descent.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14045413/?GT1=8307

Do common genes require the conclusion of common ancestor?

Is there any room for recognizing a common creator for similarities in morphology and Genetic material?

Yes and no, genes regulating the formation of body parts may be present even though they no longer activate at the correct times. For instance teeth regulating genes in modern birds. The interruption of a single pathway results in the absence of these teeth.

Many of these faulty regulatory pathways have been identified and it would be difficult to explain outside the context of common descent.

In some cases defects in ancestral systems seem to have been patched up through the course of time resulting in congenital defects which one would think would not be the case had the system been better designed or designed from the ground up. For instance Ventricular Septal Defect's in which the wall which separates the ventricals does not fully form. Which is a mammilian "improvement" on the reptillian heart.

These cases are also easily explained under the framework of common descent.

Seems a bit of stretch to me when putting it in the context of corralating sharks and humans. Aren't you generally speaking here about variations or differences on a much narrower scope than what is suggested in this article?

Canuckster1127 wrote: Seems a bit of stretch to me when putting it in the context of corralating sharks and humans. Aren't you generally speaking here about variations or differences on a much narrower scope than what is suggested in this article?

What do you mean?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: Seems a bit of stretch to me when putting it in the context of corralating sharks and humans. Aren't you generally speaking here about variations or differences on a much narrower scope than what is suggested in this article?

What do you mean?

Would you state that such observations hold true in terms of tracing changes between, as the article does, sharks and humans or that it is more in terms of changes within kinds, as in the loss of teeth in some birds you cite etc.

Seems to me to be a pretty strong leap deductively without a clear trail, is what I am questioning.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: Seems a bit of stretch to me when putting it in the context of corralating sharks and humans. Aren't you generally speaking here about variations or differences on a much narrower scope than what is suggested in this article?

What do you mean?

Would you state that such observations hold true in terms of tracing changes between, as the article does, sharks and humans or that it is more in terms of changes within kinds, as in the loss of teeth in some birds you cite etc.

Seems to me to be a pretty strong leap deductively without a clear trail, is what I am questioning.

The same pathway for governing teeth in fish, reptiles and mammals exists in birds. Why have this pathway in birds at all?

The formation of the septum in mammals would not be necessary if the heart did not develop the way it did.
Reptile Heart .............................Mammal Heart


Tell me if I misunderstood you, you seem to be stating that a deductive leap is based on the similarity of the shark gene and those of other vertebrates.

This is not what is occuring here.

Common descent is based on observations outside of this discovery. For example from the types of observations I used as examples among other observations from a variety of disciplines.

It is after common descent is estabilished as the most likely explanation based on observation that we in turn analyze the genetic similarity between the regulation pathway of shark fin formation and appendage regulation in mammals. From this perspective we can then ascertain when this regulatory pathway must have developed. This study only discusses the origins of limb formation in terrrestrial vertebrates.

Perhaps this study can also help to explain how disruptions in this pathway can lead to such deformaties as below (caused by parasites).


In other words the conclusion of common descent precedes this discovery.