Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[hecd2]

Close. Both ray finned and lobe finned are descended from basal boney fish (as opposed to cartilaginous fish).

And Actinistia (coelcanths) and Dipnoi (lungfishes) are more closely related to tetrapods than they are to ray-finned fish. Tetrapods, Actinistia and Dipnoi are all in the clade of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes).

 

[USincognito]

And Actinistia (coelcanths) and Dipnoi (lungfishes) are more closely related to tetrapods than they are to ray-finned fish. Tetrapods, Actinistia and Dipnoi are all in the clade of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes).

Yeah, I know. How does that contradict what I wrote?

 

[hecd2]

Yeah, I know. How does that contradict what I wrote?

It doesn't. Just reinforces a fact that creationists find surprising that coelcanths and lung fishes are more closely related to tetrapods thanthey are to ray-finned fish.

 

[xianghua]

You came up with the analogy of Ferrari car designers. I pointed out how your own analogy supports the lack of an intelligent designer. As life is full of things that no human intelligent designer would put in there or leave in there. So, you need to explain why an all-powerful God would be incapable of designing life as competently as Ferrari engineers design cars.

so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror? if we have a broken gene than its just means that that gene were lost in the past because of a simple mutation. so the design scenario can explain it by a lost feature. and i dont think that any creationist has a problem with that.

 

[xianghua]

Even lungfish, which can go on land, do not have 4 legs. They use their fins; it is very easy to look at their skeletons and see that they are fins and not feet: http://www.pbmnh.org/museum-store/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lungfish.jpg

skeleton of another fish for comparison: https://www.sportfishingmag.com/sit...7/fish-skulls-12-snook-side.jpg?itok=MLWkAXV2

If you mean Tiktaalik, yes, some fish did have more tetrapod traits than others. But the defining feature of tetrapods is locomotion utilizing 4 feet/legs. If it doesn't have 4 feet/legs, it isn't a tetrapod. -_- and no, tetrapods do not stop being tetrapods if they lose a limb due to violent removal, etc.

i actually refer to the claim above, about falsifying evolution by finding a creature that is closer to other group than to its own group.

 

[xianghua]

I'm awaiting you explaining this theory with impatience.

Or is it restricted to "it looks like x, so I'm gonna say it's x"?

id simply means that some objects in nature are best explain by design rather than by a natural process. so if will find a spinning motor the best explanation for the existence of that motor is design:

(image from Discovery Safari with Mr. K.: FLAGELLUM MOTOR: world's smallest outboard)

 

[dad]

The creationist versions of evolution outright lie about what we actually know . It’s designed deliberately to confuse laymen about science facts so that they’ll accept the Bible ( or other holy book) version of creation stories. None of them, either the creationist versions or the Bible explain science facts accurately.

Perhaps they try to use their beliefs to interpret evidences, as science also does. It seems like a conspiracy theory to claim some grand 'creationist' version of evolution that was designed as a lie.

 

[Speedwell]

id simply means that some objects in nature are best explain by design rather than by a natural process. so if will find a spinning motor the best explanation for the existence of that motor is design:

(image from Discovery Safari with Mr. K.: FLAGELLUM MOTOR: world's smallest outboard)

Except that there is no evidence of design.

 

[Speedwell]

so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror?

No, we're not that stupid.

 

[DogmaHunter]

id simply means that some objects in nature are best explain by design rather than by a natural process

Then actually try and explain it. As it stands now, you're just asserting it. To explain and to assert, are not the same thing.

. so if will find a spinning motor the best explanation for the existence of that motor is design:

See? That's just an assertion, not an explanation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror?

That is not at all what he said.

Your dishonesty (or at best, lack of reading comprehension) is showing again.

if we have a broken gene than its just means that that gene were lost in the past because of a simple mutation.

And broken in the exact same way, in all species that have genetics that look exactyly like they would look if they are related through a common ancestor.

so the design scenario can explain it by a lost feature.

It can not. As @AnotherAtheist has been trying to explain to you. Seems like it is yet another exercise in futility to try and educate you and make you realise your ignorance and mistakes....

and i dont think that any creationist has a problem with that.

I agree there. Indeed, creationists tend to not be bothered by arguments against evolution - no matter how invalid they are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps they try to use their beliefs to interpret evidences, as science also does. It seems like a conspiracy theory to claim some grand 'creationist' version of evolution that was designed as a lie.

It's not a conspiracy.... as it is well known that creationists tell lie after lie in their futile attempt at demonizing science that contradicts with their dogmatic fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[Brightmoon]

As I’ve stated before creationists have their own inaccurate versions of evolution . They try to peddle this nonsense as if it’s science. Which is why you see so many creationists tell you that evolution has been disproven. And this is also why people who accept mainstream science evolution think creationists are mind bogglingly ignorant . It’s because creationists have been lied to and they also refuse to confirm their facts with real science

 

[xianghua]

The problem is that a tightly related group of animals (including humans) all have a broken GULO gene, broken in the same way. The Haplorhini are all hypoascorbemic in the same way. And the only way to explain that is that they all had a common anestor in which the mutation was present - ie, that they are a clade.

hold down for a moment. you bring up too many claims at once. i want to stay in focus here so please pick up a single claim and we will discuss about it.

 

[xianghua]

Then actually try and explain it. As it stands now, you're just asserting it. To explain and to assert, are not the same thing.



See? That's just an assertion, not an explanation.

you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design?

 

[VirOptimus]

you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design?

It really isnt, its even tried in court.

 

[Speedwell]

you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design?

Why, because some motors are designed you think they all must be?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i actually refer to the claim above, about falsifying evolution by finding a creature that is closer to other group than to its own group.

The taxonomy is defined by certain key traits when it comes to fossils, especially ones so old that DNA cannot possibly be extracted from them. While Tiktaalik physically has many traits intermediate between tetrapods and fish, without its DNA we would be unable to tell if it is more closely related to modern tetrapods or to modern fish. It might even be dead center between the two; organisms don't conform to the boxes we make for them.

This, and other reasons, contribute heavily as to why fossil taxonomy is so heavily debated, especially for transitional fossils. After all, being transitional means having traits of two different taxonomic groups, and inevitably results in some of them being organisms which don't have features that clearly place them in one or the other, so placing them can often be arbitrary or on the basis of just a few features.

Problems in taxonomy do not translate as problems with evolution. Heck, evolution even explains part of why taxonomy has these issues. We continue to use an imperfect system because despite its flaws, it has functional use. That, and we can't find a way to get around many of these problems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design?

No. Rather, it's an equivocation fallacy.

 

[xianghua]

Why, because some motors are designed you think they all must be?

its like asking why, because some cars are designed you think they all must be?