|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Origin of Novelty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Again, are we supposedly most related to chimps because of dna or because of shared features?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
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.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
You could try answering the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
You could try answering the question. Not to a petulant little troll. You and I both know you are not looking for any answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Are you saying we are most related to chimps because of our dna or because of our shared features? Its not clear what you are getting at here? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
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? 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.
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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: If following the evidence is just a "trick", what alternative do you have to offer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
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.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
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.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry buddy, you've never shown any such thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Oh? Lay out your argument and I'll show that it fails. Again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
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:
Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, pg. 179 Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.Bones, Molecules or Both?, Nature, Vol. 406:230-233 Carl Woese, from the University of Illinois, admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. "The Universel Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854 Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture" When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well 304 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305 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:
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends. The authors base their conclusion on a close physical resemblance between orangutans and humans, which they say has been overshadowed by genetic evidence linking us to chimps. What's more, the study authors argue, the genetic evidence itself is flawed. (Get a genetics overview.) John Grehan, of the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York State, and Jeffrey Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, say that the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes. What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals. By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say. Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024