ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Nor does it mean we did not. Possible joint ancestor: Pedigree chart entry for 1,000,000 years back. Harvey Banana.
ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 You are judging entirely by external appearance not being 50% similar. A lot of genetics is DNA telling our cells how to live and survive which is remarkably similar in all life. Yes but it does not mean common ancestor.
Ahab Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Pedigree chart entry for 1,000,000 years back. Harvey Banana.You can put him in your pedigree chart if you want to but he isn't going in mine.Nor is anyone who is a monkey's uncle.
ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 You can put him in your pedigree chart if you want to but he isn't going in mine.Nor is anyone who is a monkey's uncle. You evidently did not see my tongue in cheek?
Ahab Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Yes but it does not mean common ancestor.Who came up with the idea that 2 different kinds of beings that are a lot like each other must be related to each other? Do you know?Seems to be that we could have stopped the dissemination of that false information if we had all told him that he was wrong about that from the get go.It just makes sense that out of all of the kinds of beings there are that there should be some kinds that are like sone other kinds, rather than each kind being totally different than every other kind.
Ahab Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 You evidently did not see my tongue in cheek?Yes I did. You evidently did not see mine.
ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Who came up with the idea that 2 different kinds of beings that are a lot like each other must be related to each other? Do you know?Seems to be that we could have stopped the dissemination of that false information if we had all told him that he was wrong about that from the get go.It just makes sense that out of all of the kinds of beings there are that there should be some kinds that are like sone other kinds, rather than each kind being totally different than every other kind. Environment adjustments (micro-evolution) makes some similarities inevitable.
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Explanation #4 God created, or caused to continue the pre-existing seeds, of all the different kinds of species and that the reason why we share similarities in DNA is because we share a common designer who understands biology and how important it is for all life forms to use the same program.I have no problem with that, but like the others, good luck proving it. For me, that swim upstream is too difficult for a view that can't be proven anyway. I don't see that the argument, since it doesn't affect my salvation, is worth the effort. God could have done it a zillion ways, all I care about is that he did.
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Where do you get the idea that Darwinian evolution makes more sense than the idea that God brought the ancestors for every kind of being to this planet, including 2 of our kind, and that every kind simply reproduced after its own kind?That is the most straightforward way to do it, and the way I will do it when it's my turn to create a planet. Why wait millions of years when you could do it in just a few days?Think of each day's events as different periods of creation.I think it helps to know that God didn't need to start from scratch, or nothing, when creating this planet.Each kind reproducing or perpetuating its own kind is enough for us to understand at this point, I think. And knowing that plants and animals can't transport themselves through outer space kinda helps us to know they need some help getting from planet to planet if they are ever going to be spread out from planet to planet.Yeppers. We each can only do the best we can with what we have to work with.Actually no arguments with any of this, but science won't buy it, and ultimately even science will change. The argument is not worth the energy since none- including yours- can be absolutely proven anyway.
ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 I have no problem with that, but like the others, good luck proving it. For me, that swim upstream is too difficult for a view that can't be proven anyway. I don't see that the argument, since it doesn't affect my salvation, is worth the effort. God could have done it a zillion ways, all I care about is that he did. None of the others can be proven either. It is all about interpretation of the evidence.
ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) Actually no arguments with any of this, but science won't buy it, and ultimately even science will change. The argument is not worth the energy since none- including yours- can be absolutely proven anyway. It seems to me that science is short sighted in the refusal to consider some form of ID. Edited April 28, 2014 by ERayR
Ahab Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 It seems to me that science is short sighted in the refusal to consider some form of ID.That's not science. Science is a process, or a method of discovery, and I have no problem with any of it. The short-sightedness comes from scientists who don't correctly understand the evidence they observe.
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 None of the others can be proven either. It is all about interpretation of the evidence.Yep.
The Nehor Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 So then, why do they use the same comparison with Chimps and Humans showing external similarities? Ummm....they don't. They talk about genetic similarities. I'm sure somewhere someone (probably an idiot) used external appearance as a supporting argument but the real argument is genetic.
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) It seems to me that science is short sighted in the refusal to consider some form of ID.It is philosophically incompatible with their prejudices. That is exactly the problem. They are still caught up in Enlightenment philosophy where science is able to answer all questions. Some philosophers have been saying that for years. The same .......stuff..... you see on this board, confusing "truth" without understanding that it is all interpretation of human experience. Here again is Rorty, page 5 of Contingency Irony and Solidarity. I quote Rorty because he completely understands this problem.We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there. To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot. In short, science needs to understand that truth is not "out there" to be discovered, but to be created and literally defined in languages. We actually do that- think of "quarks" for example- a made-up word do define a previously unknown human observation- or interpretation of an observation. All we have are human experiences. Yes, science augments these with phenomenal instruments to make our senses "see" smaller things, farther away things, and invisible forces which are nevertheless measurable. But what holds it together is interpretation of the evidence, the "stories" which are constructed out of the evidence as "explanations" and "hypotheses". Those automatically do not include "intelligence" because it does not fit with their parameters of definitions. What is needed is a paradigm shift to a view more like Rorty's. It will happen- give it a couple of hundred years or so. In the mean time we are stuck with a world which believes in alchemy. (by analogy) We are still stuck with Cartesian dualism and the correspondence theory of truth. We'll get over it. The only thing we can do until this happens is to understand it ourselves and keep pointing out the error. Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Yes but it does not mean common ancestor. It does mean if there was another creation whoever did it was copying DNA from other creations. Some of the similarities would be helpful. But why copy the junk DNA? And if man is a literal physical descendant of God.......does God have junk DNA?
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 That's not science. Science is a process, or a method of discovery, and I have no problem with any of it. The short-sightedness comes from scientists who don't correctly understand the evidence they observe.Dangit anyway! I find myself agreeing with you more and more. That must mean I am in serious trouble.
Ahab Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 It does mean if there was another creation whoever did it was copying DNA from other creations. Some of the similarities would be helpful. But why copy the junk DNA? And if man is a literal physical descendant of God.......does God have junk DNA?One of these days, when I can travel through outer space, I'm going to go in a field trip and see if I can see sone kind of being for every permutation of the DNA code, and yes I mean "the" DNA code, and not just ours, since right now it appears that every being we know of has a code similar to ours.And then I'll wonder if we created every being from our own code or is that just the way it appears? And then I'll ask around to see how different people answer that question before I settle on the answer I will have from our Father.
Rob Osborn Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Ummm....they don't. They talk about genetic similarities. I'm sure somewhere someone (probably an idiot) used external appearance as a supporting argument but the real argument is genetic. These guys must be idiots then- "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament... "If you look at two species of frogs over 10 million years, you probably won't see a lot of the morphological or behavioral differences that you see between humans and chimps," http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
The Nehor Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) These guys must be idiots then-"We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament..."If you look at two species of frogs over 10 million years, you probably won't see a lot of the morphological or behavioral differences that you see between humans and chimps," http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html If you want to quote pick. Note I said that it was used as a supporting argument or in this case to help explain genetics to a lay audience. About 80% of the article is about genetics not morphology. Nice try at throwing them under the bus though. Edited April 29, 2014 by The Nehor
cdowis Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) It does mean if there was another creation whoever did it was copying DNA from other creations. Some of the similarities would be helpful. But why copy the junk DNA? Do your homework.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/ Check out google for other articles on yet another myth by the evolutionists which "prove" evoution. Just curious, do you still think that the human fetus has gills? This is still taught in university classes, such as Early in development, mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches (Gilbert 1997, pp. 380, 382). This evolutionary relic reflects the fact that mammalian ancestors were once aquatic gill-breathing vertebrates. The pharyngeal pouches of modern fish embryos eventually become perforated to form gills. Mammalian pharyngeal pouches of course do not develop into gills, but rather give rise to structures that evolved from gills, such as the eustachian tube, middle ear, tonsils, parathyroid, and thymus. http://courses.bio.indiana.edu/L104-Bonner/F10/imagesF10/L30/HumanGills.html Of course, these "pouches" or wrinkles in the skin develop into something completely different but they definitely prove evolution to those who are faithful adherents to that belief. Edited April 29, 2014 by cdowis
The Nehor Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Do your homework.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/ I have. All this say is that there is less junk DNA then was thought a while ago. It's interesting but it still begs the question why would we have any at all.
cdowis Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I have. All this say is that there is less junk DNA then was thought a while ago. It's interesting but it still begs the question why would we have any at all. 1. "Junk DNA" means that we have yet to find a purpose for that DNA. 2. Even assuming that such a thing exists in reality, I have read somewhere that it could serve a purpose to stabilize the DNA strand from damage from "fraying". Edited April 29, 2014 by cdowis
halconero Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Ummm....they don't. They talk about genetic similarities. I'm sure somewhere someone (probably an idiot) used external appearance as a supporting argument but the real argument is genetic. Ummmmmm....well, in my humble, but extensive experience, morphology gets talked about a reasonable amount when discussing evolutionary principles, along with genetic information Also, as cdowis state, junk info isn't so junky anymore. We're finding more and more purposes behind each, and the term is being increasingly shelved.
The Nehor Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 1. "Junk DNA" means that we have yet to find a purpose for that DNA. 2. Even assuming that such a thing exists in reality, I have read somewhere that it could serve a purpose to stabilize the DNA strand from damage from "fraying".1. Or that it does not have one.2. I remember reading that but it has been a while.
Recommended Posts