You can find scientists who disagree with the consensus in every field. In order for you to have an argument, you need to show that they are right.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is a good example of fundamental misconceptions of evolution.
The anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs that the poster calls out as undeniable evidence of shared ancestry, is in fact contested by leading experts on bird evolution, who claim the similarities may be convergent. (arising in multiple lineages independently) and that birds arose from totally different animal groups.
Those who believe in universal common ancestry need to find actual scientific arguments instead of just peddling the most popular narratives within the evolutionary community. It's not enough to just assume that you're correct.
True, but calling your assumptions evidence doesn't magically turn those assumptions into evidence, either. No matter how many times you repeat them.
And neither are the vehicle parts identical. They are extensions upon their own unique model designs.
I think your problem is you want to compare a vehicle body to an animal body, as if adding a pick-up bed to the back half of a vehicle is like swapping out an animal's entire hind quarters.. which is a weird comparison...
And neither are the vehicle parts identical. They are extensions upon their own unique model designs.
What's your point? As I said, the pick-up bed structure is analogous to a convergence.
I think your problem is you want to compare a vehicle body to an animal body, as if adding a pick-up bed to the back half of a vehicle is like swapping out an animal's entire hind quarters.. which is a weird comparison...
I'm only viewing the vehicle's body as another character trait.
The anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs that the poster calls out as undeniable evidence of shared ancestry, is in fact contested by leading experts on bird evolution, who claim the similarities may be convergent. (arising in multiple lineages independently) and that birds arose from totally different animal groups.
Is it fair for carpenters and metal workers to use templates and standard measurements for the sake of ease, while at the same time questioning why God didn't use non-standard templates and measurements?
If you accept or reject that the laws of Evolution were Created by God does not in and of itself change those laws.I would like a creationist who proposes that shared features are the result of common design to explain to us why common design would necessarily produced an objective phylogeny, otherwise known as a nested hierarchy.
For example, why would a common designer not be able to create a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Why would a common designer not be able to produce a species with an exact copy of a jellyfish and mouse gene?
If you accept or reject that the laws of Evolution were Created by God does not in and of itself change those laws.
And what is the information content of the first versus the second?
They do however, by Shannon's definition, have a different information content.- The dog barked at the mailman.
- A canine vocalized toward a postal worker.
Those 2 sentences have not a single word in common, yet express almost identical meanings.
There is absolutely no difference in that regard between the two sequences in terms of size or protein they code for. I wasn't trying to demonstrate an increase or decrease of information in my example, but display how redundant DNA bases areAnd what is the information content of the first versus the second?
The peptide sequence does have the same information content (same entropy, same number of bits); I was referring to the sentences.You ignore that the peptide sequence (the "meaning" of the amino acid code) is the same .
There is absolutely no difference in that regard between the two sequences in terms of size or protein they code for. I wasn't trying to demonstrate an increase or decrease of information in my example, but display how redundant DNA bases are
sorry, you were asking this of someone else.I was hoping to get the original poster's answer.
I figured that out on my own, but by the time I edited my post, you must have already been responding.Apologies - the formatting/layout is different here compared to the other forums I participate on and I mistakenly interpreted your post as coming from the creationist you were replying to. My mistake!
Carry on!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?