Well, if it has no predictive value or a basis in anything other than a simplistic, child's notion of what 'kinds' of things are related, then is is simply a fun thing to believe, but nothing more than that.
quote:
I was speaking metaphorically about commmon knowledge.
Great. So what does this have to do with Biology?
It's a story you tell but is otherwise not useful.
quote:
Metaphors can be useful if you figure it out. It saves a lot of complicated explanation that, other than the point, is usually not necesary.
Science does not proceed through the use of methaphor and simplistic explanations.
Science deals in predictions, evidence, testing, and very, very detailed-oriented, meticulous work.
So, should we stop using Chimps and other primates in medical testing because we have no way of determining how closely related various species are?
quote:
No. I never even remotely indicated that.
Yes, you most definitely did when you said in message 13 of this thread:
quote:
What you're talking about is micro-evolution, the only testable, observable, and proven aspect of evolution (also known as a variation). When fish, or insects inter-breed it may form a new species but it's still a fish, it's still an insect, it's still the same kind of animal. Science is observable and testable. Macro-evolution is not.
If you are denying the reality of macro evolution, and you declare that Humans and chimps are separate "kinds" and I am guessing you also claim they are not closely related, then you are most definitely suggesting that using chimps and other primates in medical research is useless.
If humans and chimps aren't the same "kind", then the research should be useless. At least, using primates shouldn't be regarded as being the next closest thing to testing humans.
Right?
quote:
Actually I was agreeing that humans and animals, some animals more than others, have similarities but they are not the same species,
Well, no, of course we aren't the same species, but remember, you are the one who said that there was no such thing as macroevolution.
If there's no such thing as macroevolution, then you need to reject the entire field of genetics, because it certainly does point to macroevolution having happened.
Anyway, maybe you should provide a definition of the following; "kind", "macroevolution", and "microevolution".
For good measure, why not throw in a definition of "descent with modification", too.
quote:
and until a reptile gives birth to a bird,
...which the ToE never, ever predicts.
quote:
or a hyrax gives birth to a suvivng mutation that looks like a horse
...which the ToE never, ever predicts.
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that this is how evolution works? You have some rather major misconceptions that a little information should rectify.
Please, read this
basic overview of how evolution actually works.
BTW, I suspect that you are thinking of
hyracotherium, the oldest known ancestor of the horse. The
hyrax is not closely related to the horse lineage, but to elephants.
quote:
I will not believe evolution.
You clearly have a very distorted idea of what evolution actually is.
Perhaps, before you handwave away the underpinning Theory of most of modern life science, including Biology, Paleontology, Genetics (including Population Genetics), and much of the science that modern medicine, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry is based upon, perhaps you might consider making an effort to understand what it is you are rejecting.
You know, just to be safe.
quote:
Furthermore I will believe the oldest document until it is proven wrong. That document is the Bible.
The oldest document is not the Bible.
link
Sumerian, the oldest known written language in human history, was spoken in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and peripheral regions) throughout the third millennium BC.
The Code of Hammourabi is probably the oldest known document.
quote:
It is the only document that says the earth is round way before Colombus figured it out.
1) Columbus didn't "figure out" that the Earth was a sphere. This was known by the Greeks through Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Ptolemy.
Unfortunately, once the anti-intellectual, Church-led Dark Ages settled into Europe, the strides in science and learning the Greeks had made were discarded in favor of superstition. (This thankfully did not happen in the Arab world, which is where Europe rediscovered the Greek texts during the Age of Enlightenment which followed the Dark Ages. Sadly, it seems that much of the Arab world is now repeating the same mistakes of anti-intellectualism and religious extremism that the Europeans made 1000 years ago.)
2) The Bible clearly says that the Earth is round, yes, but like a disc, with a dome-shaped firmament over it into which the stars are permenantly "set". Indeed, this Biblical view is exactly why it was thought that one would be in danger of sailing "off the edge of the Earth" if one ventured too far out to sea.
Finally, I notice that you didn't answer one of my questions, so perhaps you missed it.
Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are reliable and accurate?
Why or why not?
™ Version 4.2
