- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Oh wow. You think that other primates don't have hearts, lungs, penises and vaginas?
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.
In my opinion, The complexities of creation are so vast that only God can create it. All creation seems impossible without a creator. Not only did man miraculously grow heart, lungs and the other organs, but both male and female evolved at the same time as well? Its too incredible to be without God the creator.
Not being aware that human organs and systems are only slightly modified versions of those found in all other eurherians is hardly a "logical opinion".No, you misunderstand me. I can form a logical opinion based on what i see
It's so rare to the "I know you are, but what am I" tactic outside of an elementary school playground.Your inability to understand God and how He works doesnt effect other peoples knowledge of him.
I'm confident in making the claim that most creationists reject evolution because they just don't understand the science behind it.
we know it can happen because we can test the tree growth. we can see its growing every year.
POE?
But we can compare them side by side to see if their specific morphology is similar. This is how we determine homology when it isn't possible to look at developmental pathways.
.
so the dorsal fins of both dolphin and ichthyosaur are homologous?
It would be far more likely that there was a genetic mutation that reactivated pre-existing genes. I never said that the lizards lacked any of the genes to form cecal valves to begin with, I simply doubt that it is a matter of environment alone.
Same family does not equal having the same traits, I don't think you understand how genetically distant two species that only share the family level of classification are. Humans and gorillas are in the same family, but a person is never going to be as strong as a gorilla, no matter how much they work out.
-_- cats have 38 chromosomes, and dogs have 78. Need I say more on why a cat population couldn't evolve into a dog population in 36 years? Because there are plenty more reasons why that wouldn't be evolutionarily sound, I just don't feel like dedicating a page worth of dialogue to it without invested interest from you.
ok. so we may both agree that this trait isnt new.
humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.
According to an article in 'Nature', the last common ancestor of all placental mammals (including humans and cats) lived a few hundred thousand years after the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct; that is, about 65 million years ago - see Face-to-face with the earliest ancestor of all placental mammals . We must be cautious about this, since the same article says that genetic studies put the origin of the placental mammals at around 100 million years ago. Nonetheless, the important conclusion, that humans and cats are descended from a common ancestor that lived within the last 100 Myr, is still valid.humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.
You're not helping.
humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.
And creationists mean something else by it yet again. They see the presentation of the ToE and its evidences as part of an adversarial proceeding, which is their context for the meaning of "proof."I would argue just the opposite. It doesn't help when people say that theories aren't proven when scientists themselves say that theories are proven. What matters is the context and how the word is being used.
And creationists mean something else by it yet again. They see the presentation of the ToE and its evidences as part of an adversarial proceeding, which is their context for the meaning of "proof."
Humans and chimps are still primates.
No good scientist says that. Or, more charitably, none that take their role of educating the public seriously.I would argue just the opposite. It doesn't help when people say that theories aren't proven when scientists themselves say that theories are proven. What matters is the context and how the word is being used.
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?