http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/03/evolution-is-out-of-time.html
Vox Day continues his deconstruction of the TENS (theory of evolution by natural selection). Today’s notes: The presumption of similarity between chimpanzee and human DNA is questionable.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
For someone who doesn’t know the difference between nucleotide and high tide, I cannot begin to speculate on the veracity of the Vox blog.
Whether we have a common ancestry with apes or not is probably not yet considered “settled”. Or at least not until the next series of discoveries as our ability to understand genetics improves.
The goal should be to make the narrative fit the science. And not the anti-evolutionist view of making the science fit the narrative.
So we might not have evolved from some kind of earlier, common primate. Maybe we evolved from an artichoke.
The key world is “evolve”.
IMHO
LikeLike
RE: “The goal should be to make the narrative fit the science. And not the anti-evolutionist view of making the science fit the narrative.”
Well put. The challenge, of course, is to avoid assuming biological progress, or evolution, in the first place. That would be the same mistake of assumption the anti-evolutionists make.
LikeLike
I may be wrong, as I often am.
But I believe that among the scientists, evolution is a fact and has been proven empirically.
What is in debate is the mechanism.
Kind of like gravity. A fact, but how it actually works is still being hashed out at levels of math and physics that just boggles most minds.
LikeLike
These people you link to make the Tobacco-is-good-for-you “scientists” look like models of intellectual and scientific probity. Please explain why you think such patently ridiculous garbage is worthy of the slightest attention.
LikeLike
RE: “Please explain why you think such patently ridiculous garbage is worthy of the slightest attention.”
Because of people who claim, as you do, that it is “patently ridiculous garbage,” apparently without reason.
LikeLike
Without reason? Except for about 200 years of science. You are welcome to your theology but science is for grown-ups.
LikeLike
“200 years of science” doesn’t mean a thing if it turns out to have been wrong.
LikeLike
Yes, that is a tautology. But there is absolutely no evidence that the theory is wrong and even less evidence of a Divine Creator as postulated by Creation “science.”
LikeLike
RE: “But there is absolutely no evidence that the theory is wrong…”
The link that started this thread suggests otherwise. I have posted others which make similar points. Why you make an issue of Creation “science” is beyond me, since I do not.
LikeLike
I make an issue of creation “science” because it is hokum and should not be spread. The sites you link to are beyond jokes – thinly disguised theological centers without an ounce of scientific validity.
LikeLike
RE: “it is hokum and should not be spread”
Says you, on the basis of you only, as if that were credible. For myself, I see no particular reason to suppose that robust, empirical science cannot emerge from any given philosophy.
LikeLike
“Robust empirical science” cannot emerge from ANY philosophy that puts greater weight on its Dogma than it does on the evidence. The entire foundation of Creation “science” is the postulated existence of a Creator and that is a metaphysical claim with ZERO empirical support.
LikeLike
RE: “‘Robust empirical science’ cannot emerge from ANY philosophy that puts greater weight on its Dogma than it does on the evidence.”
I suppose believing in God means you can’t prove that red lights promote plant growth more than blue lights, or some such thing.
LikeLike
There are many Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. scientists who are able to study the world we live in without polluting their work with theology. So, yes, you can believe in God, Allah and/or a complete pantheon of gods, angels and demons and still do science. Creation “scientists” however are not among those able to separate scientific work from their metaphysical postulates.
LikeLike
RE: “Creation ‘scientists’ however are not among those able to separate scientific work from their metaphysical postulates.”
You haven’t established that any metaphysical postulates are at issue here. You merely claim that they are. And in fact, one of the two scientists cited at the link which started this discussion is a traditional, non-religious biologist with no metaphysical axe to grind.
Your bigotry against people of faith has clearly blinded you to the possibility that a creationist can perform good science that even a non-creationist can accept.
LikeLike
I don’t buy the notion that there has been too much change for natural selection to have accomplished so much in the time available.
Consider that UNnatural selection has produced poodles and pit bulls from a common ancestor in only a few hundred years.
LikeLike
RE: “Consider that UNnatural selection has produced poodles and pit bulls from a common ancestor in only a few hundred years.”
I couldn’t argue the point one way or the other, but I do understand the rate of change, or fixation, that you mention is central to the argument. My interest in this subject is more focused on cultural appropriation of science, which tends to produce very strange outcomes.
I assume there are many different ways it could turn out that natural selection doesn’t work as advertised. Sexual selection or epigenetic factors, for example, may play a greater role than we currently appreciate. Or, there may, indeed, be some feature of the cosmos that produces whole species almost instantaneously when the conditions are right.
I favor remaining open-minded about such things, if only because the prejudice against them is so strong.
LikeLike