Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

So, you don't believe that DNA tests can substantiate paternity? You think that it's just coincidence that a son has his father's DNA, or you think that's due to the fact that they live in the same house? We've known that DNA is the molecule of inheritance for almost a hundred years. Of course, it's been the molecule of inheritance for billions of years. I wouldn't exactly call it "a new thing."

There is no claim in the Theory of Evolution that we do not exist, or that the natural world does not exist.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-30-2004 04:00 PM

I'm not 100% sure dogs/bears are the same. As I said its just observation and fossil overlapping I've read about. Thats all I've got.
I understand your saying that humans and apes difference is no greater then bears/dogs.However People are different from apes in our identity. Our similarity in form (as far as it goes) is not evidence of heritage. We have another revealation. Dogs/bears probably the same kind has evidence (I think) in the fossil record. We don't.
Rob

quote:

---

Creation is a sef evident thing. We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.

---

Evolution is self evident. We exist and so do the natural laws of which evolution is part of. It is creationists who say that there are other laws and they have yet to demonstrate them.

quote:

---

Yes hoever all that is talked about in Toe is interpretation of bones and flesh. Surely our observation of the world now trumps interpretations of scanty data that changes with every new graduation class in small circles.

---

Yes, however, all that is talked about in creationism is that the bible has to be correct. Surely our observations of the world now trump a book written 2500 years ago by scientifically illiterate goat herders that has spawned thousands of different interpretations, such as catholicism, gnosticism, and protestantism.

You don't get to keep making statments about things that you know absolutely nothing about.and then we have this little twist: and now: This is a very common creationist bit of behaviour. That is why we ask for a definition of kind and some concrete examples. If (and that's a big if) they are given as soon as one doesn't like the outcome the definition starts to shift around.Another thing you don't know is just what a "kind" is. And you won't find a safe, useful definition from creationist sources.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-30-2004 05:00 PM

And for the fourth time. What observations? What are the criteria that you are using to place dogs and bears in the same "kind"? Why do you keep dodging this question? What does this mean? What is our identity? As does the ape/human relationship. How do you explain the numerous specimens of early Homo? or those of Homo neaderthalensis/Homo sapiens neaderthalensis?

What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted. Perhaps its just a special case of our family connections and not to be extended further back then that. I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Rob

What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted. Perhaps its just a special case of our family connections and not to be extended further back then that. I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Rob

Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.
Rob

Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.
Rob

Your right. we don't and shouldn't define a kind.
For example the snake. It fist was leggy. Is it still the same kind. We say yes.
I myself have and I hope in the future creationism will liberize what a KIND is.
Natural selection (which seems in a limited way true) has created much speciation to such an extent as to make me think the created kinds are today nowhere to be found although thier offspring are.
Rob

Your right. we don't and shouldn't define a kind.
For example the snake. It fist was leggy. Is it still the same kind. We say yes.
I myself have and I hope in the future creationism will liberize what a KIND is.
Natural selection (which seems in a limited way true) has created much speciation to such an extent as to make me think the created kinds are today nowhere to be found although thier offspring are.
Rob

Our Identity is what it is and not like apes at all beyong looks.
Anyways creationists would say there are no fossils showing our descent. There are just obscure pieces of bone where interpretation goes wild to connect us to them.
To hold such a position as descent from Apes etc one neede weighty evidence and instead today what there is could be stored in a fridge.
Good example of extreme conclusions drawn from limited data.
Rob

What is our "Identity" if you're using it determine what human is you should be able to define it. And creationists would be wrong. We have over 500 specimens of Homo Neaderthalensis alone, do you have any proof as to how much space they take up? Or are you jsut propagating a falsehood?

---

*not an actual doctor

So you said. But you ignored that we've known that DNA is the molecule of heredity for 100 years. That's not "infancy".Furthermore you've ignored the fact that molecular phylogenetics is based entirely on the same principles as DNA paternity testing, which has been used over and over again as evidence in court.If it's good enough for the courtroom, there's no way you can say that its in it's "infancy". You don't get to say that the conclusions aren't "warranted" simply because you don't like them.The technology is not "in it's infancy." It's a well-developed science and the focus of billions in research dollars and corporate research. You can buy a DNA sequencing machine via mail-order. It fits on your desktop. We're way beyond infancy here, except for the infancy of your arguments. This is disproved by the existence of animals like the Tazmanian wolf, who are very similar in form to placental wolves, but whose DNA is radically different.Furthermore, the regions of DNA that we use to substantiate phylogeny are regions that have nothing to do with form. Not in the least. The existence of new evidence doesn't mean the old evidence wasn't sufficient. Of course, no evidence could be sufficient for you.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 03:18 PM