It's one of the commonalities, certainly.So if we have a similar pelvis structure to that of a primate, that makes us primates?
Creationists often write things like to try to save face.No concessions here. Just amusement.
I'm not trying to be convincing. But if you had anything of value to add to the topic, you would have done so by now. Many creationists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out the cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic. And it shows.Passive agression isn't making you convincing.
A common creator that 'creates' via mechanisms indistinguishable from understood natural processes. How clever.Or have a common creator.
Many evolutionists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out thier cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic.I'm not trying to be convincing. But if you had anything of value to add to the topic, you would have done so by now. Many creationists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out the cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic. And it shows.
In part.So if we have a similar pelvis structure to that of a primate, that makes us primates?
Most interesting, as I started this thread for the purpose of discussing it BECAUSE I possess the intelligence and relevant knowledge to address the topic, which is also how I know that most creationists do not.Many evolutionists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out thier [sic] cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic.
I suspect that the creationists who count the numbers of mutations necessary, aren't just referring to mutations of the pelvis, which is why I asked if we are just pelvis'.In part.
It would be awesome if creationists could use Google for purposes other than to find creationist websites.
A nice definition from Britannica (converted to bullet points), plus a few from other sources:
- brain to body weight ratio
- presence of calcarine sulcus in brain
- presence of nails on at least some digits
- presence of Meissner’s corpuscles in the hands and feet
- stereoscopic vision
- unique (among mammals) molar cusps
- a single pair of pectoral mammae
- external (scrotal) testes
- external pendulous penis
- pentadactyly
- etc.
But that is irrelevant to the topic of this thread - the topic is regarding common creationist claims regarding the numbers of mutations they claim are "required" despite never explaining their rationale or providing evidence in their support.
Like what you do.
Says the fellow that thinks a few quips trumps actual evidence.Humble too, I see.
The pelvis is just 1 thing that creationists have, in fact, referred to as requiring a huge number of mutations - as I mentioned in the OP.I suspect that the creationists who count the numbers of mutations necessary, aren't just referring to mutations of the pelvis, which is why I asked if we are just pelvis'.
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
Creationist assertions are amazing in their simple-mindedness. Not so amazing is the evidence they provide in their support (or lack thereof).So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.
Are you trying to claim most or all mutations are beneficial?Citation, please. I ask for a citation because the notion that a particular gene must experience thousands of harmful mutations 'for each' favorable mutation comes across as absurd and a mere fabrication.
Evolutionists try to explain all the variations within and among species on the basis of random changes..."mutations."
It's not a complete explanation.
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.
Wow.... No, I am claiming that any specific gene does NOT, in fact, have to experience ""thousands" of harmful mutations before experiencing a beneficial one, or if they have a beneficial one it is cancelled out or whatever by "thousands" of other harmful ones.Are you trying to claim most or all mutations are beneficial?
Selection by what? The only selection is if one happened to survive while another doesn't.
There is no justification for why an unlimited common creator would use a nested hierarchy when creating diverse species.Or have a common creator.
You numbers seem really off.I suspect that the creationists who count the numbers of mutations necessary, aren't just referring to mutations of the pelvis, which is why I asked if we are just pelvis'.
Evolutionists try to explain all the variations within and among species on the basis of random changes..."mutations."
It's not a complete explanation.
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.
I think he means evolutionary selection - the various ways in which some genes spread through the population and become fixed, and others don't. Typically, it involves variations in reproductive success.Selection by what? The only selection is if one happened to survive while another doesn't.