Why Evolution is True (3)

[dad]

Oh yes.

Lol, well, no the resemblance is less obvious until one becomes more familiar with creationists.

OK so you admit to being relatives with the beast, and also a potato. Great, now one final admission before you slink off, will you admit you think flatworms having sex are why mankind is here and exists??

 

[dad]

I am saying that human beings (Late Pliocene and Pleistocene) came from immediate (Miocene) ancestors that were primates but were not human....

Crazy fable you have there. You think this why?

 

[createdtoworship]

And you still can't find legitimate sources. If you want clarification on homologous genes you should be talking to sfs.

I know that he would be able to explain the concept to you.

go ahead and explain the similiaries of homologous genes with chimps and humans then. I doubt you will find it.

we are less similiar to chimp *(given the study belows accuracy) than cats are to dogs (81.9% shared homologous genes)

so if you can prove that cats evolved from dogs using these methods than you can prove humans evolved from chimpanzees.

(see following table 1 for the cats genetic charts-)
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full

(I usually open figure 1 in a new window to compare it)


so anyway, here is another post on the problems of genetic similiarities:

here is a stack of references to that support this importance in ordering:



"Jachowicz et al., "Heterochromatin establishment at pericentromeres depends on nuclear position," Genes & Development, 27: 2427-2432 (2013); Verdaasdonk et al., "Centromere Tethering Confines Chromosome Domains," Molecular Cell, 52: 1-13 (December 26, 2013); Filion et al., "Systematic Protein Location Mapping Reveals Five Principal Chromatin Types in Drosophila Cells," Cell, 143: 212-224 (October 15, 2010); Giacomo Cavalli, "From Linear Genes to Epigenetic Inheritance of Three-dimensional Epigenomes," Journal of Molecular Biology (2011); Justin M. O'Sullivan, "Chromosome Organizaton in Simple and Complex Unicellular Organisms," Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 13: 37-42 (2011); Dirar Homouz and Andrzej S. Kudlicki, "The 3D Organization of the Yeast Genome Correlates with Co-Expression and Reflects Functional Relations between Genes," PLoS One, 8: e54699 (January, 2013); Stephen A. Hoang and Stefan Bekiranov, "The Network Architecture of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome," PLoS One, 8: e81972 (December, 2013)."



the above and dozens more references found

on evolutionnews.org

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views



now granted homologous genes may or may not be the same caliber of study.



Cats share 90% with humans.



does this mean we evolved from cats?



You see how genetic similiarity can be misleading.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you even understand why all of the fossil evidence supports evolution and only evolution?

um, for this to be true, there would be evidence. And in ten years none has been provided on these threads, so go ahead and break the losing streak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

um, for this to be true, there would be evidence. And in ten years none has been provided on these threads, so go ahead and break the losing streak.

gradyll, you do not understand what evidence is. That is proved by this last statement of yours. I can help you learn.

 

[justlookinla]

gradyll, you do not understand what evidence is. That is proved by this last statement of yours. I can help you learn.

Grady, believe me when I say that SZ isn't going to give you anything. He claims to have this special knowledge but nobody's seen it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Grady, believe me when I say that SZ isn't going to give you anything. He claims to have this special knowledge but nobody's seen it.

You have only yourself to blame for that and you know it.

You have been running away from the evidence since you first showed up here:

 

[justlookinla]

You have only yourself to blame for that and you know it.

You have been running away from the evidence since you first showed up here:

No evidenco mi amigo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No evidenco mi amigo.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I have offered to help you. You have denied evidence when it has been presented. You proved you did not know what evidence is by denying it.

 

[createdtoworship]

"1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ...

"Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."

above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.

Avian feathers are one example of irreducible complexity and more specifically specified complexity:

a peer review article details it for us:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

 

[justlookinla]

You don't know what you are talking about.

I have offered to help you. You have denied evidence when it has been presented. You proved you did not know what evidence is by denying it.

You've offered no evidence to deny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

gradyll, gradyll, gradyll, more bogus sources. Feather evolution is fairly well understood. The appearance of feathers did not mean the end of scales. That is a silly assumption to make. Feathers existed long before flight. Feathers had the original purpose of insulation and then display purposes. Flight was a much later use. You can read more about it here:

Feather evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've offered no evidence to deny.

You know better than that. I have done so many many times. Usually in the form of links. It does not matter if you don't do links, they are still evidence. And the image of one fossil is evidence. But then, you do not know what qualifies as evidence.


ETA: Ooh, look at my former post.

What do you know? Evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

You know better than that. I have done so many many times. Usually in the form of links. It does not matter if you don't do links, they are still evidence. And the image of one fossil is evidence. But then, you do not know what qualifies as evidence.

You've offered not one smidgen of evidence that all of life is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've offered not one smidgen of evidence that all of life is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

And you continue to prove that you are incredibly dishonest. I have offered many times to help you learn what qualifies as evidence. Until you have learned you are in no position to make such a claim.

Again, one single fossil is evidence. I have provided much more than that.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, gradyll, gradyll, more bogus sources. Feather evolution is fairly well understood. The appearance of feathers did not mean the end of scales. That is a silly assumption to make. Feathers existed long before flight. Feathers had the original purpose of insulation and then display purposes. Flight was a much later use. You can read more about it here:

Feather evolution

last time I ckecked scales didnt fly very well. that is unless your link proves the existence of puff the magic dragon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

last time I ckecked scales didnt fly very well. that is unless your link proves the existence of puff the magic dragon.

Please try to make a post that makes sense.

The first feathers were incredibly simple. They were a single filament. In fact there are still quite a few different feather types today:

I already told you that feathers were not originally for flight. Flight evolved much later.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, you do not understand what evidence is. That is proved by this last statement of yours. I can help you learn.

then try to find an article proving the percentage of homologous genes that are similiar between humans and chimpanzees. I know they exist but I couldn't find any. I bet you cant either. so no I dont think you can help.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please try to make a post that makes sense.

The first feathers were incredibly simple. They were a single filament. In fact there are still quite a few different feather types today:

I already told you that feathers were not originally for flight. Flight evolved much later.

those are presuppositions that beg the question as to the validity of evolution. you must prove feathers evolved from scales. I already proved that impossible with the peer review that you never downloaded and read.

seeing you dont read what is presented why should I read your posts or links?

again I could be wrong that you downloaded the article and read how there is design in aviary feathers but I seriosly doubt it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

then try to find an article proving the percentage of homologous genes that are similiar between humans and chimpanzees. I know they exist but I couldn't find any. I bet you cant either. so no I dont think you can help.

No, I am not going to do that. That is too far outside my area of expertise. Ask sfs for help. I already pointed out how you incorrectly compared different measurements.

I was talking about helping you understand the nature of evidence. What makes evidence valid or not. Then you could answer when people claim that you are using poor sources.