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.
Isn't it though.
Notice that while they dream of all these hypothetical common ancestors, they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.
It's that Ostrich theory taking effect lifepsyop.
Yes , yes, We all know where your head is firmly affixed. Neither you nor lifepsyop understand the nature of evidence.Isn't it though.
Notice that while they dream of all these hypothetical common ancestors, they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.
It's that Ostrich theory taking effect lifepsyop.
Ancestors are not hypothetical.
We all have ancestors.
DNA tells us if we share ancestors and how distant they are.
Common ancestry is not an assumption. It's inferred from data. It's as factual as it gets.
they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.
If you "say" so.
I see lots of different breeds of the same Kind.
Remember, coloring is an artists conceptual addition having no significance to what any reality might have been.
Quite right. Our ancestors were humans.
DNA confirms human common ancestry because we already know humans descend from humans. No assumptions need to be made here.
Genetic similarity will not tell you that humans and fish share a common ancestor. You will always need to impose your mystical evolutionary assumptions that fish-like animals can and did eventually give rise to humans over many generations.
It's a very simple and clear distinction. One claim relies on assumptions. One does not. You want to confuse the two together. You wish universal common ancestry was strictly inferred from the data, but it's not. It is yet another instance of evolutionists trying to sell their superstition by use of rank equivocation.
Sounds like you only let DNA tell you what you want to hear.
The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, and the same break in the same gene is shared with other primate species. This is simply not explainable except as the result of a common shared mutation, which cannot happen except there be a shared common ancestral species.
It is not an assumption, it is a deduction from evidence. The kind of thing that juries are willing to use to condemn criminals to death.
Sounds like you only let DNA tell you what you want to hear.
The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, and the same break in the same gene is shared with other primate species. This is simply not explainable except as the result of a common shared mutation, which cannot happen except there be a shared common ancestral species.
It is not an assumption, it is a deduction from evidence. The kind of thing that juries are willing to use to condemn criminals to death.
Sort of like hearing only what one wants to believe and ignoring those ERV's which are one and all foreign to the host. ERV's that have been shown by HGT to insert foreign genes into different species?
What evidence? What we see before our eyes, breed mating with breed and producing a new breed in one birthing?
Husky remaining Husky and Mastiff remaining Mastiff with no transnationals between them and the Chinook? Why yes, the fossil record does indeed tell us that. Those missing links are not missing, they never existed.
Chinook was bred to German Shepherd Dogs and Belgian Sheepdogs (at this time, all varieties were considered the same breed) from working backgrounds, Canadian Eskimo dogs, and perhaps other breeds. These offspring were bred back to Chinook, and to each other to create the Chinook breed. He was considered a sport of nature because he sired pups that resembled himself in size, color, drive and intelligence.
All of these breeds of the same species would be listed by evolutionists as seperate species if they had never seen one in real life. Perhaps with that incorrect belief - a transitional or two as well.
No, I just reject unnecessary assumptions of the Darwinian mystics. DNA doesn't "tell" you that it arranged itself via blind natural laws into instructions for new types of animals, thus your extraordinary claim that genetic similarity across distinct animal groups must indicate relatedness is based on major assumptions not found in evidence. You impose your evolutionary creation religion onto the evidence.
And you wrote this denial of evolution even while you possess ear wiggling muscles you don't use. You don't use them for a very good reason . . . we have a sophisticated phase analysis system that allows us to tell, instantly, which direction a sound is coming from. But it works best if our ears hold still.
Neverthless, our ears have ear wiggling muscles that nobody ever uses. Some of us can wiggle our ears but it doesn't help our hearing. These muscles are only explainable as vestiges from a previous species way back that could move its ears to good effect.
Most creationists finally know what vestigial traits are and that they definitely exist. They tend to ignore them. It is nice to see that a few creationists still don't know what "vestigial" means.Nice to see some evolutionists are still making bald assertions about "vestigial" traits. You don't see that as much these days...
Most creationists finally know what vestigial traits are and that they definitely exist. They tend to ignore them. It is nice to see that a few creationists still don't know what "vestigial" means.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your scepticism with this example. Why specifically do you reject this example of vestigial ear muscles as evidence of descent from a nonhuman ancestor?lifepsyop said:Nice to see some evolutionists are still making bald assertions about "vestigial" traits. You don't see that as much these days...
I know, I was being a bit facetious and took the same stance that lifepsyop did. Sadly he does not know why or how vestigial organs are vestigial. He does not know that many times vestigial organs develop a new use and though they are still vestigial in their original purpose that does not mean that they are not needed today. That is illustrated with every breath that we take. The organ that our lungs arose from was the swim bladder in fish. In fact there are still some lungfish in existence today. Their gills are of little use, they breath mostly through their lungs which use to be their swim bladder many many ancestors ago.No its not nice. Its sad.
I know, I was being a bit facetious and took the same stance that lifepsyop did. Sadly he does not know why or how vestigial organs are vestigial. He does not know that many times vestigial organs develop a new use and though they are still vestigial in their original purpose that does not mean that they are not needed today. That is illustrated with every breath that we take. The organ that our lungs arose from was the swim bladder in fish. In fact there are still some lungfish in existence today. Their gills are of little use, they breath mostly through their lungs which use to be their swim bladder many many ancestors ago.
On a related noted, your spelling of the word "scepticism" makes me cringe a bit since to my American mind it looks like it the root word should be pronounced "septic". But it got me thinking along with the fact that we have ancestors that were not human. For almost all of us in he New World we can trace back to where our ancestors were not American, or Canadian. Our ancestors made a change. For them it was a choice. Species will often have a group that undergoes a change but for them it was not a choice, it just happened because of various reasons. That fact that a speciation event happened does not mean that the old species had to die out and the fact that some of my ancestors came from Finland does not mean that there are no more Finns. In fact if I claimed to be a Finn most of them would laugh at me.We all know that religious motivation can lead men to not only be martyrs, but to be extremely wrong. Its easy to see in those religions other than mine. Never possible to happen to me . . .
Sort of like hearing only what one wants to believe and ignoring those ERV's which are one and all foreign to the host. ERV's that have been shown by HGT to insert foreign genes into different species?
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?