Bible and science?

[The Barbarian]

For Barbarian:

I wrongly attributed the word biologically to you.

Well, let's take a look...

Barbarian, earlier:
That excuse won't work for you. You see, the fact is, scutes and feathers are alike genetically, biochemically, and anatomically, that a single mutation can reverse the process.

nolidad's false attribution...

I call falsehood to your claim that feathers and scutes are genetically, anatomically and biologically identical.

Did you think no one would notice the difference?

Barbarian observes:
No. Gas bladders in fish are vestigial lungs (many fish still retain functional lungs, and lack gas bladders, which are merely lungs that no longer do respiration, but maintain bouyancy)."

Close enough to be synonymous with biologically alike (inherited)

Yep...

New research that uses computed tomography (CT) technology goes a long way toward showing that lungs and gas bladders in fish are variations of the same organ.

Researchers say one of the great problems of evolution is to understand how the major features of organisms have changed over great swaths of time. How did limbs evolve from fins? How did bird feathers arise from scales?


The lung is a major organ of great functional importance for vertebrates (animals with backbones). For 150 years biologists have debated the idea that in living fishes, gas bladders—internal bags of air to which fishes can add or eliminate oxygen to control buoyancy—are simply a modified version of an ancestral pair of lungs. Some have argued that the two are completely different organs.


By proving that several ray-finned fishes, namely sturgeons and paddlefishes, as well as bowfin, have pulmonary arteries like those that supply the lungs of vertebrates, researchers show that the common ancestor of all these fishes must have originally had lungs supplied by a pulmonary artery.

The arteries in gas bladder fish, therefore, are actually vestigial pulmonary arteries that have been co-opted for new functions. The researchers hypothesize that this evolutionary change occurred either by the loss of respiration or by dorsal shifts in the anatomical structures of these fishes.
...
Scientists have known about the vestigial arteries for a long time, but because traditional dissection and corrosive casting techniques lose detail, no one made the connection with pulmonary arteries, says Sarah Longo, the paper’s lead author, who conducted the research as a student at Cornell. Longo is now a graduate student at the University of California, Davis.
Traces of ancient lungs in fish bladders - Futurity

And as I showed you from evolutionary web sites a single mutation cannot undo the process.

You're a little behind, again...

After performing a complete genetic analysis of chickens and alligators as they develop in eggs, the researchers identified key genes involved in feather formation.


They then placed these chicken feather genes in alligator eggs, with the goal of prompting the scales on the growing reptiles’ skin to develop into feathers.


As a result, some of the scales grew into structures “similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs," said Dr Chuong.


The research team located five genetic components that are required for the formation of feathers.
Scientists have tried to create alligators with feathers

plus the follicle that the quill originates from!

Figure 6. Hypothetical intermediate stage in the evolution of feathers from scales, with ‘cracks’ separating sections of a large scales into smaller, lateral plates, or protobarbs (From: Regal 1975).

But here we see a thecodont with the hypothesized structures.

Longisquama insignis was a thecodont. Those aren't feathers. They are very featherlike scales.

Thecodonts gave rise to the dinosaurs. One thecodont, Herrerasaurus, is so much like a dinosaur, it was originally thought to be a dinosaur.

So there's that.

 

[nolidad]

Which is why they call it "Junk DNA." There is some DNA that has degraded, but as I showed you, even decades ago, scientists showed that non-coding DNA often has evolved new functions. As Darwin predicted about vestigial features over a hundred years ago.

No that is not why it is called junk DNA.

From Scientific American:

. Interestingly, all animals have a large excess of DNA that does not code for the proteins used to build bodies and catalyze chemical reactions within cells. In humans, for example, only about 2 percent of DNA actually codes for proteins.

For decades, scientists were puzzled by this phenomenon. With no obvious function, the noncoding portion of a genome was declared useless or sometimes called "selfish DNA," existing only for itself without contributing to an organism's fitness. In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" to describe all noncoding sections of a genome, most of which consist of repeated segments scattered randomly throughout the genome.

Also:

The Origin of the Term “Junk DNA”: A Historical Whodunnit
As textbooks would have it, the term “junk DNA” was coined in 1972 by Susumu Ohno as part of his work on the role of gene and genome duplication. I met Susumu Ohno at a meeting in Crete many years ago, and the way I understood what he told me was that he “deliberately” chose a “provocative term” to emphasize the “uselessness” of this DNA fraction.


He coined it because he considered these no coding regions as fossils of our evolutionary past!

YEC geneticiests or biologists never termed genetic degradation as JUNK DNA (afaik)

No, you just never got the message. Neither God nor His Church caused your problems.

My problem was I believed them in my early years (grammar school) and then saw them run away from they taught me as a child.

Barbarian said:

That's another case that looks like deviousness. The Baltimore Catechism did not say the flood was a literal worldwide flood. No "Catholic Bible" says so, either. Shame on you.

It says God sent a flood to destroy the world and save Noah. Funny that the friend I talked to also said we were taught God destroyed the world. In high school I was taught in theology class it was but a regional flood. The difference? Vatican 2 As for the bible in my possession- come and see!

"Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. ... Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups."
Archaeopteryx - UCMP Berkeley

As you learned, the old idea of Archaeopteryx as a bird has been demonstrated to be wrong for almost a decade.

Well some evolutionists till hold to it! Once again with evolution you get a buffet of choices!
Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again

Archy has gone up and down and up again. I am sure in the future it will be reclassified a bird again by the ruling dictatorial class of scientists. It is a strange bird with unique features not found today, but it had flight feathers, perching feet, a wishbone. What is interesting however is that full birds have been discovered in rock layers that evolutionists date as older than Archeaoptryx!

Penguins, and ostriches are birds as well, though theey bear many dissimilarities to all other birds!

You even claimed it was a close relative but not in the direct line of reptile to avian transitions. that was wrong as well!

DNA traces in hair can show you the individual whose hair it is, while the analysis of such DNA shows that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other, than either is related to anything else. Again, as predicted by evolutionary theory.

So things being closely related do not related they make! The fact is that human hair is always human and chimp hair is always chimp Human hair is different from chimp hair, dog hair cat hair cow hair etc.etc.etc. Before they can find out whose strand of hair a strand belongsd to- they must first analyze to insure it is human!

 

[nolidad]

You're a little behind, again...

After performing a complete genetic analysis of chickens and alligators as they develop in eggs, the researchers identified key genes involved in feather formation.


They then placed these chicken feather genes in alligator eggs, with the goal of prompting the scales on the growing reptiles’ skin to develop into feathers.


As a result, some of the scales grew into structures “similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs," said Dr Chuong.


The research team located five genetic components that are required for the formation of feathers.
Scientists have tried to create alligators with feathers

that is what I quoted! That is notr evolution but man manipulating material from two creatures! They took the feather gowing genes in a chicken and implanted it into an alligator! That is taking already form coded material from one species and putting it into another! That is intelligent design! shame on you!

And the scientists said they were simil;ar- IOW flayed scute that had a feather like appearance- but o quill, vane barb barbules or hooklets.

Longisquama insignis was a thecodont. Those aren't feathers. They are very featherlike scales.

Thecodonts gave rise to the dinosaurs. One thecodont, Herrerasaurus, is so much like a dinosaur, it was originally thought to be a dinosaur.

So there's that.

Longisquama is a genus of extinct reptile. There is only one species, Longisquama insignis, known from a poorly preserved skeleton and several incomplete fossil impressions from the Middle to Late Triassic Madygen Formation in Kyrgyzstan. It is known from a type fossil specimen, slab and counterslab (PIN 2548/4 and PIN 2584/5) and five referred specimens of possible integumentary appendages (PIN 2584/7 through 9). All specimens are in the collection of the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

Longisquama means "long scales"; the specific name insignis refers to its small size. The Longisquama holotype is notable for a number of long structures that appear to grow from its skin. The current opinion is that Longisquama is an ambiguous diapsid and has no bearing on the origin of birds.


Restoration

Longisquama is characterized by distinctive integumentary structures along its back. The holotype (specimen PIN 2584/4) is the only known fossil preserving these appendages projecting from the back of an associated skeleton. It has seven appendages radiating in a fan-like pattern, but the tips are not preserved. PIN 2584/9 preserves five complete appendages spaced close together. PIN 2584/6 preserves two long, curved appendage running side by side. Other specimens, such as PIN 2585/7 and FG 596/V/1, preserve only one appendage. These structures are long and narrow throughout most of their lengths, and angle backward near the tip to give the appearance of a hockey stick. The proximal straight section is divided into three longitudinal lobes: a smooth lobe on either side and a transversely ridged lobe running between them. The middle ridged lobe is made up of raised "rugae" and deep "interstices", which Sharov compared to rosary beads. The distal section is thought to be an extension of the middle and anterior lobes of the proximal section. While the anterior lobe widens in the distal section, the posterior lobe of the proximal section narrows until it ends at the base of the distal section. In addition, an "anterior flange" appears about two-thirds the way up the proximal section and continues to the tip of the distal section. Both lobes in the distal section are ridged and separated by a grooved axis. In some specimens, the rugae of either lobe in the distal section line up with each other, while in other specimens they do not. Some specimens have straight rugae projecting perpendicular to the axis, while others have rugae that curve in an S-shape. One specimen of Longisquama, PIN 2584/5, has small spines projecting from the axis of the distal section.[1]

The holotype skeleton shows each structure attaching to a vertebral spine. These anchorage points are visible as raised knobs. The base of each appendage is slightly convex, unlike the flattened shape of the rest of the structure. The convex shape may be evidence that the base of each structure was tubular in life, anchoring like other integumentary structures such as mammalian hair or avian feathers into a follicle. Moreover, the proximity of each structure to its corresponding vertebra suggests that a thick layer of soft tissue, possibly including a follicle, surrounded each base.[1]

History[edit]
Interpretation[edit]

Back structures hypothetically shown in pairs
Researchers Haubold and Buffetaut believed that the structures were long, modified scales attached in pairs to the lateral walls of the body, like paired gliding membranes.[2] They published a reconstruction of Longisquama with plumes in a pattern akin to gliding lizards like Draco species and Kuehneosaurus, allowing it to glide, or at least parachute. Though the reconstruction is now thought to have been inaccurate, versions of it are still often seen on the Internet and elsewhere.

Other researchers place the scales differently. Unwin and Benton interpreted them as a single, unpaired row of modified scales that run along the dorsal midline.[3] Jones et al. interpreted them as two paired rows of structures that are anatomically very much like feathers, and which are in positions like those of birds' spinal feather tracts.[4] Feather-development expert Richard Prum (and also Reisz and Sues) see the structures as anatomically very different from feathers, and thinks they are elongate, ribbonlike scales.[5][6]

Still other observers (e.g. Fraser in 2006) believe that the structures are not part of Longisquama at all, that they are simply plant fronds that were preserved along with the reptile and were misinterpreted.[7] Buchwitz & Voigt (2012) argue that the structures of Longisquama are not plant remains, because all of the structures except for the last in the holotype PIN 2584/4 are arranged regularly, and that they are not preserved as carbon films, the usual mode of preservation for plants in the Madygen Formation.[1] The only plant from Madygen with similarities to the Longisquama structures is Mesenteriophyllum kotschnevii, but its leaves do not have the distinct hockey-stick shape of the structures attributed to Longisquama.[1]

 

[The Barbarian]

that is what I quoted! That is notr evolution

It's merely confirming common ancestry of birds and crocs. As you now see, crocodiles form feathers from scutes. They only need a single gene they no longer have, to make that happen.

That is intelligent design!

Nope. It's just the way evolution works. A lot of genes are necessary to make feathers; crocs happen to lack one of them.

And the scientists said they were simil;ar- IOW flayed scute that had a feather like appearance- but o quill, vane barb barbules or hooklets.

Down feathers in other words. The same thing as seen in very early dinosaurs.

(more confirmation of Longisquama insignis having transitions between scutes and feathers)

Yep.

Since other specimens have turned up, no one thinks the "sceathers" are actually palm fronds that just happened to be stuck in the fossil.

 

[Queller]

Well that is awful nit picky

No, it isn't nit-picky. One is true the other is not. If you don't care about that disctiction then...

- but whether one wants to say ex-Deo or ex-nihilo Bottom line is that God commanded and it was done!

Ex-nihilo aligns with the Bible, ex-deo does not.

 

[Queller]

No I understand it well! The dogma of evoluitionism says that first off life somehow mysteriously started. then that life through random undirected mutations preserved by natural selection caused all the biodiversity we see today!

Evolutionists declared that velociraptor to bird is a fact! Yet no one can demonstrate how scales evolved into feathers through random undirected mutations!

Evolutionists have never declared the velociraptors are birds. Velociraptors are theropod dinosaurs. If you want to claim that scientists say they are birds then it's up to you to support that claim.

What we can observe of of almost all mutations is that they are near benign (only slightly harmful) do not add new previously un encoded information to a genome and that mutations end up either killing or reducing the reproductive viability of species!

The key words being "almost all".

 

[Queller]

Well the Matthew account has two people healed in a house

Mark and Luke have them on the roadside!

Matthew , Jesus touched their eyes, Mark and Luke he just speaks their recovery.

So you think these differences mean different instances as opposed to differences in the same story? Interesting. You are aware that neither Mark nor Luke were present at the healings and got their information third hand (at best) right?

 

[Queller]

That would be incorrect. Moses was the editor of Genesis and the author of the other four books of the Pentateuch (with the exception of his own childhood in Exodus)

That's pretty much exactly what I said, so why am I wrong?

BTW, what would prevent Moses from writhing about his own childhood?

Moses had the ancient writings with him when he penned Genesis.

Evidence?

In Genesis you see the words, "these are the generations..." repeated many times. Other than Creation when God told Adam what he did they were first hand written accounts.

No, that says nothing about hand-written accounts. They are nothing more than geneologies.

And God does not lie! If God used evolution- he could have spoken it in a way anyone could understand!

Let me give you an example. God caused life to form (somehow that we do not know) and it began to live. After a time, that life changed in to another kind of life and then another kind of life and so on and so on until the earth was filled and God said it was cool!

With the exception of God being the root cause (something I believe but science cannot address) this is a pretty good description of evolution.

 

[nolidad]

Evolutionists have never declared the velociraptors are birds. Velociraptors are theropod dinosaurs. If you want to claim that scientists say they are birds then it's up to you to support that claim.

The key words being "almost all".

[/QUOTE]

My bad I meant maniraptor. writing on multiple threads and multile discussion sites- I can mix words.

Key being almost all is correct. But we have absolutely 0 evidence of mutations adding new and previously unwritten information in the genome increasing complexity and causing the ascent of one family to another.

Evolutionary geneticist Kimera went to great lengths to show that any "good" mutations would be in the non inheritable area of his chart of distribution of mutations!

Despite the misinformation campaign by another evolutionist here, to go from a scute or scale to a feather requires enormous change.

He asserts meso therm without evidence. But in reality scales or scutes are kniown in cold blooded creatures almost exclusively.

you need to recode for a feather follicle.
recode for a quill
recode for rachis
recode for barbs
recode for barbules
recode for hooklets
recode for downy barbs
recode for after feathers.
recode to form the uropygial gland in the posterior of a raptor.
recode to fill that gland with the specialized oil
recode instinct to teach a raptor to preen
also change the metabolism form cold blooded to warm blooded. Despite the speculation to the contrary.

Just remember- when they took the feather gene from a chick embryo and transplanted it into an alligator embryo all they could produce with that fully completed info to produce feathers was a scute that was flayed!

If a very carefully crafted intelligent design experiment with preexisting informatiuon tranplanted could not work- you think it could happen by random mutations when we know that over 99.9% of mutations fall on the harmful side of the equation (though most are nearlyi benign)

 

[Queller]

If some fish had to evolve to fit the new enviornment- why didn't the rest of the fish evolve also?

Because not all of them had the mutation that increased their chances of survival in the new environment.

If raptorsd evolverd into birds because of a change in enviornment- why didn't other species of raptors evolve into birds? why not other reptiles?

Same as above. This is basic evolutionary knowledge. I thought you said you understood evolution.

 

[Queller]

Wasn't the ocean. However, we do see that happening to other fish, today. There are fish today that leave salt water, and walk on land, even climb trees. There happens to be a niche open, and some of them evolved to fill it.

Don't forget the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus!

 

[nolidad]

That's pretty much exactly what I said, so why am I wrong?

BTW, what would prevent Moses from writhing about his own childhood?

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

What would prevent him? In scripture we have a little of his childhood. He would have been told that info from HIs family. so he was editor not author.

Evidence?

The detailed facts,
The genealogies,
All these were written down and preserved from generation to generation in written as well as oral form.

Also Moses wrote many things down:

Had we space we might pause over many of the other ancient Canaanitish cities, for the subject is of absorbing interest, but perhaps we may return to it in a later volume. Joshua, like all God's true servants past and present, made full use of the precious Book, and, 'There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers.' (Joshua viii.35.)

Also Moses knew details of things long before his time that could only have come by passing them down. History has confirmed many of the writngs of early genesis about cities in caanan.

That is very powerful evidence that there were journals of some kind Moses relied on.

No, that says nothing about hand-written accounts. They are nothing more than geneologies.

that would have been passed on from generation to generation. Writing was well established. there is nothing to say Adam did not write things down.

With the exception of God being the root cause (something I believe but science cannot address) this is a pretty good description of evolution.

You are correct. It is an excellent description of evolution! But God di not say that.

He commanded life to come forth from th esea and land- and it happened in a day! Not millions or billions of years.

He commanded and the stars were cast into heaven in a day!

 

[Queller]

My bad I meant maniraptor. writing on multiple threads and multile discussion sites- I can mix words.
[/quote] Maniraptor is a Clade, Velociraptor is a Genus. They are two vastly different things. You don't just "mix them up".

 

[nolidad]

Because not all of them had the mutation that increased their chances of survival in the new environment.

Same as above. This is basic evolutionary knowledge. I thought you said you understood evolution.

Well the expert here said that evolutionary pressure and the need to fill an environmental niche caused these things to evolve.

Now it is a nice hyptohesis that one little fish had a certain mutation, but now prove that it had a mutation. Otherwise it just remains an idea posed by a scientist.

 

[Queller]

The detailed facts,
The genealogies,
All these were written down and preserved from generation to generation in written as well as oral form.

What is your evidence these genealogies were written down?

Also Moses knew details of things long before his time that could only have come by passing them down.

Or God told him?

History has confirmed many of the writngs of early genesis about cities in caanan.

Name some, with a source.

That is very powerful evidence that there were journals of some kind Moses relied on.

Such as?

that would have been passed on from generation to generation. Writing was well established. there is nothing to say Adam did not write things down.

Now you are adding to the Bible.

You are correct. It is an excellent description of evolution! But God di not say that.

You just said that's how it happened.

He commanded life to come forth from th esea and land- and it happened in a day! Not millions or billions of years.

He commanded and the stars were cast into heaven in a day!

Since that goes against the laws of physics that God set up, He was most likely speaking in metaphorical terms, i.e. something those who had only a bare understanding of science could grasp.

 

[nolidad]

My bad I meant maniraptor. writing on multiple threads and multile discussion sites- I can mix words.

Maniraptor is a Clade, Velociraptor is a Genus. They are two vastly different things. You don't just "mix them up".[/QUOTE]


From UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology:

We all know now that birds are dinosaurs, right? The cladeManiraptora (which is defined as containing all dinosaurs closer to birds than to ornithomimids ) is the group of theropod dinosaurs that many paleontologists believe birds were derived from some 150 or so million years ago, in the Jurassic period. Hence, according to phylogenetic taxonomy, birds are by definition maniraptorans, and the other maniraptorans are their closest relatives.

But this little blurb shows one thing.

Bot h sides have evidence to buttress their beliefs and one side attackes the evidence of the other.

It all boils down to what you choose to believe.

An omnipotent God who spoke all things into eixistence.

or according to the newest consensus
Nothing exploded and caused everything to be!

I do not include theistic evolutionists because secular evolutionists reject their divine aspect and YEC bible believers reject their secular evolutionary ascent!~

 

[nolidad]

Name some, with a source.

Bible hub.

Now you are adding to the Bible.

or not

You just said that's how it happened.

No, what I said is that God could have told Adam how he evolved things if evolution was the methodology He chose. But He told Adam He did it all in six days.

Since that goes against the laws of physics that God set up, He was most likely speaking in metaphorical terms, i.e. something those who had only a bare understanding of science could grasp.

Well as you cannot feed approx. 20,000 people with just five loaves and two fishes, maybe that was metaphorical.

Since a burning bush cannot be onfire and not be consumed and cannot talk, maybe that was metaphorical

since one cannot be drained of blood and rise form the dead maybe Jesus is still dead?

Sorry you reject God working what we call miracles- which are nothing more than a temporary suspension of the natural laws by the God who made those laws!

Or God told him?

That is a commonly held opinion by those who haven't rejected Mosaic authorship in favor of the JEPD hypothesis.
But as we know that writing was common long before the time of Abraham, there is nothing to say that Moses did not have access to a historical account. The people of god have bveen famous for writing nearly everything down!

But in teh end- this is a tempest in a teapot. I can accept either way. I prefer the journal account. It makes all biblical sense, and it follows with the fact that god uses an economy of miraculous.

 

[nolidad]

For Barbarian:

From an ICR article:

Australopithecus are ape-like fossils thought to represent the first precursor to the genus Homo, or human. However, nothing has been found to bridge the gap between the two groups. In a 2016 Royal Society paper titled “From Australopithecus to Homo: the transition that wasn’t,” two secular paleontologists state:

Although the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is usually thought of as a momentous transformation, the fossil record bearing on the origin and earliest evolution of Homo is virtually undocumented.1

Even the field of human-ape DNA similarity research has come up empty in this regard. Both creationists and evolutionists recently documented that the human and chimp genomes are no more than 85% similar.2 For humans and chimps to have evolved from a common ancestor over an alleged period of three to six million years, a 98 to 99% similarity is required. The scientific data from both paleontology and genetics demonstrate a chasm of discontinuity between humans and apes, a situation that is clearly on the side of the Bible’s account of human history.

Once again believers in evolutionism see what they believe and not believe what they see!

 

[The Barbarian]

Australopithecus are ape-like fossils thought to represent the first precursor to the genus Homo, or human. However, nothing has been found to bridge the gap between the two groups. In a 2016 Royal Society paper titled “From Australopithecus to Homo: the transition that wasn’t,” two secular paleontologists state:

Although the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is usually thought of as a momentous transformation, the fossil record bearing on the origin and earliest evolution of Homo is virtually undocumented.1

Well, let's take a look...
Australopithecus to Homo: Transformations in Body and Mind

Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 29:125-146
Abstract Significant changes occurred in human evolution between 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago. Stone tools first appeared, brains expanded, bodies enlarged, sexual dimorphism in body size decreased, limb proportions changed, cheek teeth reduced in size, and crania began to share more unique features with later Homo. Although the two earliest species of Homo, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, retained many primitive features in common with australopithecine species, they both shared key unique features with later species of Homo. Two of the most conspicuous shared derived characters were the sizes of the brain and masticatory apparatus relative to body weight. Despite the shared derived characters of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, one unexpected complication in the transition from australopithecine to Homo was that the postcranial anatomy of H. habilis retained many australopithecine characteristics. H. rudolfensis, however, seems to have had a more human-like body plan, similar to later species of Homo. H. rudolfensis may therefore represent a link between Australopithecus and Homo.

But wait, didn't your source say otherwise? Nope. From the study you referenced:
Although the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is usually thought of as a momentous transformation, the fossil record bearing on the origin and earliest evolution of Homo is virtually undocumented. As a result, the poles of the transition are frequently attached to taxa (e.g. A. afarensis, at ca 3.0 Ma versus H. habilis or H. erectus, at ca 2.0–1.7 Ma) in which substantial adaptive differences have accumulated over significant spans of independent evolution. Such comparisons, in which temporally remote and adaptively divergent species are used to identify a ‘transition’, lend credence to the idea that genera should be conceived at once as monophyletic clades and adaptively unified grades. However, when the problem is recast in terms of lineages, rather than taxa per se, the adaptive criterion becomes a problem of subjectively privileging ‘key’ characteristics from what is typically a stepwise pattern of acquisition of novel characters beginning in the basal representatives of a clade. This is the pattern inferred for species usually included in early Homo, including H. erectus, which has often been cast in the role as earliest humanlike hominin. A fresh look at brain size, hand morphology and earliest technology suggests that a number of key Homo attributes may already be present in generalized species of Australopithecus, and that adaptive distinctions in Homo are simply amplifications or extensions of ancient hominin trends.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248

I'm thinking you never read the paper, or more likely didn't understand what it says.

Even the field of human-ape DNA similarity research has come up empty in this regard. Both creationists and evolutionists recently documented that the human and chimp genomes are no more than 85% similar.

Deoends on how you measure it. But here's the rub; if you change the method, then all the other results are equally downgraded, and you end up with exactly the same phylogenies. Rock and a hard place.

2 For humans and chimps to have evolved from a common ancestor over an alleged period of three to six million years, a 98 to 99% similarity is required.

Nope. Depends on how you measure similarities.

You can't have it both ways.

The scientific data from both paleontology and genetics demonstrate a chasm of discontinuity between humans and apes,

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise disagrees. He notes that even back when he wrote the paper, the transitional series from apes to humans was "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

And now we get genetic confirmation. No matter how you measure similarities. Humans and chimpanzees come up more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. No way to dodge that.

Once again believers in evolutionism (YECs) see what they believe and not believe what they see!

Those who understand evolution realize that the YEC belief of "evolutionism" is merely a collection of misconceptions.

 

[nolidad]

Make you a deal--- yes, baramin is a word that does not appear as written in Scripture, neither does the word trinity. Both words are biblical in they perfectly describe biblical truths. And if the ancient rabbis coul duse long before your 1941 wiki date oh well.

And sorry we cannot accept the 2016 paper. As long as you pull Wise out of context and try to confuse watchersby saying a progressive creationist is a creationist trying ot give the appearance he is a biblical creationist, and you want to use infor from teh 1940's and 1950's we cannot bother with you r info from past 1965- I am even giving you more years than you use for creationist writings!