The code that is DNA

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, the problem isn't your word choice John..the problem is that you're plain and simply wrong.

Heredity is not an assumption, inference or a hypothesis. You could pick ten thousand words that don't have anything to do with what heredity is, use those words properly, and still be wrong about heredity.

Common descent is a hypothesis, but it doesn't rest on any assumption of relatedness. It rests on the observation that genetic content is inherited, and on the observation that this genetic content has...somehow.......been inherited by all known forms of life. We know of no other way that two given organisms can share inherited genetic content beyond their having a shared genetic lineage. Genetics, you see, fundamentally changed what we knew about life (as opposed to what we previously assumed or inferred, no less) - which is why the theory of evolution is called the modern synthesis. It's the unifying theory of biology. If a god "did it" - genetics is how that god did it. It didn't create pairs of any existent species. If we're being incredibly generous to the notion of meat fairies.....then the meat fairy laidd down a general framework far beneath the level of any given representative, and let life do exactly what life does from that point on.

Whether it had always hoped or intended to end up with a creature like you, John...I leave you to wonder for yourself. We'll revisit this in a moment.

Now, in Darwins time..the time that creationists are forever stuck in a loop on, evolution itself was a hypothesis, and common descent an inference based on an assumption. This was due to the fact that even though the laws of heredity were being worked out and described contemporaneously with his own work - he was simply unaware of it (though gregor mendel, a monk, had a well worn copy of Origin that he'd scribbled all over the margins of). Mendel didn't need to imagine a pea fairy that made the genetic content of every disparate lineage of pea, he knew that those peas got their "whatever" from their parents, and it was through manipulating that brute fact that he discovered the laws that are fundamental to genetics. You'll find the following in the very first chapter of the first edition of Origin.

The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown

That's Darwin himself, acknowledging even as he proposed common descent, that he had absolutely no idea what it was, or how it was, that these traits he was studying were propagated at the level of mechanics. No clue - total black box. He assumed there must be a way, he inferrred that whatever this way was it would account for the disposition of living creatures.....but beyond that, nada. That, to my mind, is the thing that was truly impressive about his work. He'd figured out how biology worked, without understanding the first thing about the engine that -did- the work. We've learned a great deal about that, since then, and some of the most important pieces of information in the puzzle have come from very devout people who do not seem to have the same difficulty that you do trying to make their faith and that body of knowledge concordant.

So I ask again..did god hope or intend to end up with a creature like you...John? I suspect not. Who knows, though, if there are gods, and gods "did it"..... maybe it does like to whip out it's own peen and stomp the living shit out of it. Maybe it likes it when creationists come here and do that, too. Maybe it's like porn for a god. Like Darwin, I don't have the slightest clue about how that works, but just like darwin (or any other thinking human being) I can still work out that if that's the case, then god is an even bigger fuckup than it's followers.

So here we are a second time, with me wondering why long discarded notions of valid claims to property are so important to your version of christianity that you will do damage to the character and reputation of your god by denying the factual glory of it's creation? It's not a requirement of christianity, is it? If there really is such a thing as god's truth, genetics must be firmly in that wheelhouse. What is it, exactly... that you imagine yourself to be doing by rejecting that truth?

While you mull that over, and fail to be humble and faithful, as you must fail to be a creationist, I'll let you ponder another question more specific to these boards. What value could dna have, as evidence for a god, if you're rejecting genetics out of hand? You're telling us that the very thing creationists point to as evidence of god...is wrong. If there is not a "design" that is inherited by living things so that they express themselves as we see them...then what, honestly, what are you cretins even mumbling about? Genetics is either true and wonderful and proves god -warts and all-, or it's wrong..and it doesn't.