Surely you are not saying that genetic similarity proves common ancestry?
Nope, but taken in conjunction with other evidence and what we know about genetic divergence and variation amongst closely related groups, it is strong evidence for exactly that conclusion.
Are you arguing that it isn't evidence of ancestral relationships? Do you think that the 250+ monkey species are all related to one another? If yes, why; if no, why not? What about the 350,000+ beetle species? Does genetic divergence amongst these organisms tell us anything about the relationships amongst them? What about shared and unique traits? How do those inform our understanding?
Do you also believe theropods evolved into birds?
There appears to be ample evidence to support that conclusion. Of course, this is not to say that new discoveries will not cast a different light on our understanding of that evidence, but that's what science mostly does - it progresses.
Why would it - in your mind?
In my mind genetic similarity or lack of it has no consequence on the idea of an intelligent designer as the cause of either. You have suggested that genetic similarity is as much evidence for common design as common ancestry, so I am asking you what you regard lack of genetic similarity as evidence for? Why wouldn't it be evidence for a multiplicity of designers, for example?
As I have noted - genetic similarity can be used as evidence for a common designer as well as a common ancestor - thus it is not 'proof' for either.
You have yet to show how it is evidence for a common designer. What is lack of genetic similarity evidence for?
Well, there is a big diference between dogs descending from gray wolves and birds descending from dinos.
Yes, greater variation and more time in which to see it develop.
A dog did not need to magically transform it's forelegs into wings of flight
As far as I am aware no one is proposing that any descendant species of dogs have evolved into flying animals. And if they did, there would be no magic involved. You are aware that the bones that form the wings in birds, bats and pterosaurs are almost exactly the same bones as you have in your hand and arm, but simply adapted and modified for other purposes?
You are not really comparing apples to apples as you well know.
I am pointing out that the same techniques of molecular biology are used to determine relationships amongst different species as are used to establish relationships amongst individuals of the same species, techniques that are robust enough to stand the test of a court of law.
Maybe you can help Barbarian provide the required evidence that explains where all the new genetic information came from that transformed reptilian dinosaurs into birds.
What 'new genetic information' is that, then, or do you suggest that no changes in genetic coding can have morphological consequences? If so, on what grounds do you suggest any such thing?
Just that - real science without added pseudoscience.
This tells me nothing about either what you classify as 'real science' (and why) and what you classify as 'pseudoscience' (and why).
Are you saying you have molecular genetic analysis that proves dinos morphed into birds? If you do then present it on this thread and we can see what you have.
Nope, I'm saying that the techniques of molecular genetic analysis that allow conclusions to be drawn about individuals of the same species and amongst closely related species are exactly the same that allow us to draw similar conclusions about more distantly related species. Molecular genetic analysis indicates that the morphological evidence and reproductive behaviour that suggests birds may be descended from theropod dinosaurs (three-toed feet, wishbones, air-filled bones and feathers and egg-brooding) has additional substance to it.
Again, my friend - I have little problem with the ToE - as a theory I would give it a D+.
On what grounds?
The problem arises when Darwinian pseudoscience is added and passed off as 'real' science. I think you understand.
You have yet to explain what 'Darwinian pseudoscience' is and why it is, indeed, 'pseudoscience'.
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. ~ Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (former Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris)
What did Grassé mean when he said "the premises imply the conclusions"? Are you a Darwinist?
If you want to play duelling quotations, what do you imagine Pierre-Paul Grassé meant when he said in the same book that you are quoting here, 'Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world...'? And you are aware that Grassé was a champion of Lamarck, whose own theory of evolution was simply different from Darwin's. In other words, Grassé did not oppose evolutionary theory at all, but rather simply Darwin's particular version of the mechanisms and forces driving it.
