|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp Genomes | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
i dont want anyone to get mad at me here The cut 'n' paste isn't going to help you with that.
If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning. Really? I don't think so. These animals (of the ones that were randomly created from various mutations) were the best suited to survive. They weren't necessarily the best they could be, but just the best out of the population that was around. However, had a Creator made such creatures, you would certainly expect Him to have made them perfect. So, if a Creator did create the animals, shouldn't they be perfect anyway? Next, DNA is a sequence of paired AGTC... Don't ask me what pairs to what, 'cause I can't remember that sort of stuff AG? TC? Who knows. Anyway... when in a certain order they make animal one, in a different order they make animal two, etc. With the insane amount of these pairs, there are an insane number of combinations. So in a sense, you could say that it is in the DNA, only depending on the order and grouping, and of course more complicated stuff that I only assume is there but don't really understand. Now... that's for that. I'll respond more to what you think when you actually post something in your own words. Until then, I have to wonder how you can do it, when the article you quoted couldn't even pull it off--disprove evolution that is  . J0N In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
Because even if it was evolving its nose into a blow hole slowly over millions of years, the animal would have become extinct before the blow hole every had time to fully evolve, since a dolphins blow hole is not connected to its throat it has no problem using it, but a land mammal evolving a blow hole would drown before it every had time to fully evolve it. Would've it? Aligators and crocadiles don't have blow holes, they still spend time in the water. Hippos also don't have blow holes, yet they can go in the water... I mean, isn't that where they spend most of their time? Oh, and not to mention humans... do you have a blow hole? (well, YOU probably do) but most humans don't, and they can still go in the water . Unless... Wisconsin Dells is for looks?
And y is there no fossil evidence showing dolphins ever evolving. Maybe its because they were always there? Were they? Really? I don't remember Dolphinaurus Rex, the dolphin that existed in the days of the dinasours... oiy... he no exist!  They haven't always been around .
Also dolphins r completely hairless and have and oily skin to protect them. And hippos? They're covered in hair, right? Oh... they aren't? That's right... "hippos are virtually hairless, with bristles only on their noses, ears, and tails." Nile Hippotamus*
I don't like how people act like evolution is a scientific fact when it is only a theory. You don't seem to understand the definition of a scientific theory. Now, this mistake's been made numurous times on the board, so I won't repeat the rebuttal .
How could this be true if reptiles do not have the DNA to make feathers. Really? I was under the impression that the difference between scales and feathers lay in one gene... that bird fella' will be here to back me up on this... I hope  . J0N * - Notice, how I actually provided a source for my information 
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
I think this is a slight misrepresentation. Blocking BMP signalling in a chickens leg will lead to some of the scutes on the leg developing as feathers (Zou and Niswander, 1996). This means that feathers and scutes are very closely related but scutes are distinct from reptilian scales. It has also been suggested that feathers are in fact the primitive structure from which scutes have evolved rather than, as had previously been proposed, the other way round. CRAP! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
i mean it all sounds good but its not in the bible so it can not be true Neither is the internal combustion engine, electronic computers, space shuttles, aeroplanes. Are those equally as untrue as you claim evolution to be? Not to mention the Americas, Antarctica, soda pop, Johnny Cash! Don't say he's fake! J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
If evolution is true then how come there are not any other smart creatures? I mean it is a well proven fact that dolphins have mucn bigger and HIGHERLY developed brains than humans. Every part of the brain that has to do with intelligence such as memmory,emotions,etc is more highley developed in a dolphins brain then in a humans. Then why arent dolphins smart, in comparison to humans,(sure there smart but on the level of chimps,apes,parrots,etc) but they are cleary not even comparably to human intelligence. Maybe there not as smart because animals simply can not become as smart as humans. A dolphin is at the peak of animal intelligence. Humans are the chosen species and there for are much smarter then any animal. And if chimps evolved from a common ancestor as humans then how come chimps never became as smart, we both would have had the same amount of time of evolution. In fact no other primate is even remotly as smart as humans. Sure they can use very simple(and i stress very) tools like twigs and rocks to fish out bugs or crack nuts, but this is mearly monkey see monkey do, or natural instinct. we have never see any of these creatures actually develop a new tool to solve a problem that it didnt see someone else do. I don't know what to say... but this post and the grammar used within makes me wonder if all humans actually are as "higherly" intelligent as you claim  J0N Edited by Jon of the Future, : Added Quoted Message
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
stop bringin that quote up. i said i was wrong, wat more do u want? Right. However, you keep arguing against evolution using the same Creationist crap as before. Now you said:
i mean it all sounds good but its not in the bible so it can not be true You retracted the second part, so all we have is "it all sounds good." If it all sounds good, then why do you keep arguing it? I mean, you must realize that the anthill of crap that you've been taught about the natural world by Bible-toatin' instructors doesn't stand a chance against the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution. Now, I don't think anyone here's blaming you for the misunderstanding, so there's no need to be defensive. I just feel that you should stop looking to the same old sources for your information. Those sources are put out there by the people who think that it cannot be true if it isn't in the Bible. And since you are no longer one of thost people, maybe you could come aboard and look at the world through the eyes of logic and science . J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
