The Origin of Novelty

Again, are we supposedly most related to chimps because of dna or because of shared features?

It's amazing how you get away with this over and over and over. You never have to answer with any substance, just insinuate that your opponent is wrong or call us names. What magic do you possess Dr. A that you get a free pass on this?Again, the ToE in actual fact has nothing but similarity, homology, the ability to classify living organisms according to structural similarities, which of course includes fossils, from which you ASSUME genetic relatedness but have never proved it and cannot prove it.Not at all hard to understand, really, it's just a mental trick that you pull on yourselves as well as the rest of us and everybody has fallen for it.(Bolder, it can't possibly matter if DNA or shared features is intended, it's the same thing, why are you making an issue of it? Where you find physical similarity you also find DNA similarity. The structural design is of course reflected in the DNA design).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is like waving red meat in front of a lion. Oh the explanations I could give!Alas, I have Admin's admonitions and will acquiesce.

You could try answering the question.

Not to a petulant little troll. You and I both know you are not looking for any answers.

Well, as actual physical features come from our DNA then at the most fundamental level we are most related to chimps because of our shared 99% DNA - it just so happens that that DNA will translate to actual physical features as well.The issue that creationist have to answer (and never ever address) is that life on earth IS arranged in a nested hierarchal pattern. And the ToE explains this perfectly whereas an omnipotent God hypothesis doesn't. Worse, you have to explain why engineering balls-ups would be the work of an almighty God - the cat has defective optic nerve entry ports into the photoreceptors yet also have the tapetum - the equivalent of car manufactures giving some cars airbags but then only giving spongy vests to the drivers of others (since the cephalopods DO have ‘correctly’ wired eyes).Face it - if God did engineer life on earth he is an utter engineering incompetent (why would you worship a being with less competence than that of a qualified human engineer?).The evidence (nested hierarchal species, DNA, fossils, population demography etc ALL point to a progression of species whose adaptations are limited to whatever mutations come along, acted on by natural selection, and crucially, having to take what's come before - no wiping of slates - no fresh starts.Presumably God only had one slate did he?Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

I would hazard a guess that Dr. A is using a variation of Jefferson's statement of "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions."Since we have laid out the ToE in all it's theory, application, predications and ways to falsify - and because ALL of the above fits in with ALL the evidence of life on earth, then to still kick against it and postulate a God for which there is not the slightest evidence, using omnipotence - which is clearly not mandated for in the myriad of real evidence on earth (see my previous two posts to boulder-dash on God's engineering incompetence - like to answer that please as BD hasn't tried?) - Then I'm afraid you are using an 'unintelligible proposition'.So unfortunately, Dr A is left with only ridicule - seen has he, along with others, have tried so very hard to help you see how evolution works and why it is supported by the vast, vast majority of the worlds scientists (for this read learned intelligent people).The fact that Dr A is rather good at ridicule is by and by.....and makes me very envious for his economic and witty use of words. How long have you been on this site? Have you not yet learned that you cannot 'prove' anything? It's not about proof (which is impossible to obtain for anything) it is about 'best fit for the evidence'. The ToE is easily the best fit for the evidence that has ever been proposed. Unless and until some other theory comes along that BETTER fits the evidence then the ToE is the accepted theory for how life on earth has got to its current position.The God theory is nonsense - again my posts to BD above MUST be addressed successfully to even try to compete with the ToE - why, Faith, does God appear to be an engineering incompetent? Why can't he have lines all over the place (fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian). Why can't he use good ideas at will to switch into different lines (cephalopods eyes being used in mammals). Why are there huge engineering fuck-ups (recurrent laryngeal nerve, appendix in man, shared food and wind-pipe allowing a choking option) - the ToE explains all of these whereas an omnipotent God theory merely makes your ‘master’ look a dork!

quote:

---

It's amazing how you get away with this over and over and over. You never have to answer with any substance, just insinuate that your opponent is wrong or call us names. What magic do you possess Dr. A that you get a free pass on this?

---

Well perhaps you could offer some substance to reply to, rather than the bald assertion that you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong, at best.Providing a reasonable alternative explanation for the data would be a start.

quote:

---

Again, the ToE in actual fact has nothing but similarity, homology, the ability to classify living organisms according to structural similarities, which of course includes fossils, from which you ASSUME genetic relatedness but have never proved it and cannot prove it.

---

If genes and structure were related as strongly as you say (and it isn't), the structural similarities would prove genetic similarity. Aside from that an conclusion based on evidence is not an assumption, and genetic classification of living organisms also supports evolution.

quote:

---

Not at all hard to understand, really, it's just a mental trick that you pull on yourselves as well as the rest of us and everybody has fallen for it.

---

If following the evidence is just a "trick", what alternative do you have to offer?

MERE ridiculule is supposedly NOT an acceptable answer according to EvC rules and yet Dr. A gets away with it and I'd guess some sort of clever put down constitutes over 50% of his posts. If ridicule is now accepted instead of anything with substance please announce it so we can have complete pandemonium instead of selective pandemonium.I DID give SOME substance he COULD have answered rather than just resorting to saying I'm wrong.And get off that sophomoric refrain about "proof," it's a stupid pedantic point and the word is good English that means what I intended it to mean.I haven't mentioned God here so get off that too.

The fact that shows evolution to be wrong is that the development of varieties or breeds (otherwise known as MICROEVOLUTION) requires the reduction of genetic diversity. That's a FACT. To be true evolution would require the opposite, the increase in genetic diversity. But you can't get a true-breed Hereford if its DNA -- gene pool -- contains Black Angus alleles, you can't get a chihuahua if its DNA contains Great Dane alleles and so on and so forth. The farther out in a true-bred line the less genetic diversity you get. THAT's MICROEVOLUTION. Therefore MACROEVOLUTION couldn't possibly EVER occur. I've argued this many times here, it utterly utterly defeats evolution but forget anybody ever recognizing that fact. So there's your substance and now you can bring on your stupid answers as usual. Ho hum.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked. And no, your fact doesn't refute evolution, as has been shown again and again.And might I point out that if you can't even keep your arguments consistent within a single post the stupidity is unlikely to be on the part of those who disagree with your opinions.

Sorry buddy, you've never shown any such thing.

Oh? Lay out your argument and I'll show that it fails. Again.

If I read this right you think "true" evolution would have hereford with angus alleles, chihuahuas with dane alleles? And further that this diversity from some standard "bovine" alleles is a decrease in genetic diversity?So, having more types of alleles, diversity in alleles, is a decrease in genetic diversity.How does an increase in allele diversity decrease genetic diversity? How does that work?

I sort of thought that you claimed to be knowledgeable about evolution? If I remember you said it was so simple, that even a nitwit could understand it, or something equally colorful and humorous.So yes, I have to say I agree with you-it is obvious that morphological phylogeny would of course go hand in hand with molecular phylogeny. I mean why wouldn't they, of course animals that appear to be most related physically are also most related molecularly. What appears most related is most related in our DNA-so making a tree out of all of this congruence is so simple-even for nitwits.If Darwinism were true that is.If it weren't we might expect results like this though: And how much DNA did you say we share with chimps? 99% is that what you said? Wow, its 99%. We are almost identical! 99 freaking percent!!Ok, so you figures are wrong, so what. You never said you were an expert. But still. Wow! So we would never expect this: So who are we must closely related to? Well, there is only one thing we can say for sure. You don't have a ******* -->******* clue who, that's who. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.