Rob Osborn Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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. You are the one throwing them under the bus. You said only idiots would use morphology to show similarities and they do just that. Im not sayng they are idiots or nothing. Its all you.
thesometimesaint Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Please point out why we see no real transitional fossils. All we see in the fossil record are either fossils that are pretty much identical to their living ones (such as crocodiles and not to forget the famous Caelocanth) or ones that are long extinct.SEE Evolution of the crocodilehttp://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm
thesometimesaint Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 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 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.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02
cdowis Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 1. Or that it does not have one. Which involves proving a negative -- a very difficult task indeed.
thesometimesaint Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 1. Or that it does not have one.2. I remember reading that but it has been a while. True, but knowledge of lack is not the same thing as no knowledge to be gained. Occam's Razor is useful but of limited applicability in genetics.
The Nehor Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 You are the one throwing them under the bus. You said only idiots would use morphology to show similarities and they do just that. Im not sayng they are idiots or nothing. Its all you. No. I said if they focused on it alone they were idiots and that it was fine to use it as supporting evidence or to use it to explain something. They did the latter which I am fine with and made it clear I am fine with. So really it's all you either not reading my post or not understanding it.
ERayR 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? It seems to me that junk DNA is designation for DNA whose purpose and value is not yet understood. I can't answer that question as I, as of yet, have not been able to study Gods DNA. I strongly suspect, though, that God has no junk anything and that when DNA is better understood there will not be any junk DNA.
ERayR Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) 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. The parameters of the process called science are determined by someone called a scientist. Now call it science or not it is a short sighted approach to exclude valuable avenues of inquiry. Edited April 29, 2014 by ERayR
Rob Osborn Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 No. I said if they focused on it alone they were idiots and that it was fine to use it as supporting evidence or to use it to explain something. They did the latter which I am fine with and made it clear I am fine with. So really it's all you either not reading my post or not understanding it. So, its okay for them to use supporting evidence in similar looks between an ape and man in support of the 90% similrity statement but yet when it coes to the banana it would be idiotic. Gotcha.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 So, its okay for them to use supporting evidence in similar looks between an ape and man in support of the 90% similrity statement but yet when it coes to the banana it would be idiotic. Gotcha. 1% is a lot in DNA, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Please explain this
The Nehor Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 So, its okay for them to use supporting evidence in similar looks between an ape and man in support of the 90% similrity statement but yet when it coes to the banana it would be idiotic. Gotcha. Not what I said.
Rob Osborn Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 1% is a lot in DNA, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Please explain this I guess there are always 2 sides to a coin- http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/
Rob Osborn Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Not what I said. You were all in favor of the similarities between chimps and humans but when it comes to the banana you shy away. I dont blame you, we dont really share that much with a banana.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) I guess there are always 2 sides to a coin-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/ True, it is extremely easy to make up explanations, but it is not easy to publish a paper in a respected scientific journal.Miller got the evidence from a study published in the Nature Journal, what about author of that ID article? Edited April 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 True, it is extremely easy to make up explanations, but it is not easy to publish a paper in a respected scientific journal. Miller got the evidence from a study published in the Nature Journal, what about author of that ID article? Its easy if you play on their side and play to their theories. I am done with the whole "peer reviewed" as an argument. Facts are fact regardless of where they are published.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Its easy if you play on their side and play to their theories. I am done with the whole "peer reviewed" as an argument. Facts are fact regardless of where they are published. What do 9/11 Truthers, Young Earth, AIDS deniers, anti-mormons, Bigfoot researchers, climate change deniers have in common? All of them claim to have evidence, but their evidence has not been accepted in a respected peer-reviewed journal. 99.9% of Biologists and Paleontologists (both religious and secular) believe that Evolution is a fact. Only a small fraction of scientists (they are fundamentalists) refuse to see the evidence.
The Nehor Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) You were all in favor of the similarities between chimps and humans but when it comes to the banana you shy away. I dont blame you, we dont really share that much with a banana. Actually we have quite a bit in common with a banana or probably more correctly a banana tree. I do not shy away from this fact. Edited April 30, 2014 by The Nehor
Rob Osborn Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Actually we have quite a bit in common with a banana or probably more correctly a banana tree. I do not shy away from this fact. but 50%?
Tiki Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 1% is a lot in DNA, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Please explain thisThis is good news. Cheetah can now be part of a forever family.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Here is a nice video Edited April 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 The skulls of a chimpanzee, Australopithecus afarensis, and Homo erectus. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-the-evidence/morphology/hominid-skulls/ The Foramen magnum of a modern human is located in the center of the skull, the Foramen magnum of a chimp is not in the center. See the difference? The Foramen magnum in the center allowed the homo sapien, Australopithecus, and Homo erectus to be bipedal. Chimp Australopithecus Homo erectus Modern Human 1
cdowis Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) What do 9/11 Truthers, Young Earth, AIDS deniers, anti-mormons, Bigfoot researchers, climate change deniers have in common? All of them claim to have evidence, but their evidence has not been accepted in a respected peer-reviewed journal. 99.9% of Biologists and Paleontologists (both religious and secular) believe that Evolution is a fact. Only a small fraction of scientists (they are fundamentalists) refuse to see the evidence. Of course almost everyone agrees that evolution is a fact, even the advocates for ID. Of course "creation by poof" or magic is rejected by scientific journals. And there are extremists on both sides of the debate. Now what? Edited April 30, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 You were all in favor of the similarities between chimps and humans but when it comes to the banana you shy away. I dont blame you, we dont really share that much with a banana.More than you think. About 80% of all DNA is concerned with the functioning of a single cell. We metabolize sugars the exact same way.
Recommended Posts