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.
its not a game and you have no answer. thanks.
its my tip to you actually.
first: they do talk about some convergent traits in that fossil.
second: so its not a scientific claim.
and thirdly: you are the one who asked for them.
do you want that the designer will fix the gulo pseudogene in real time in front of our eyes?
I said you were implying it. If you recognized it as a wingnut position with little evidence supporting it, you wouldn't continue to bring it up as if it is a valid position.i actually never said its a mainstream position.
Wow, so even ancient Jews noticed that organisms such as chimpanzees were very similar to humans. So why do people get offended at humans being apes again?actually in hebrew its a bit different and they called "קופי אדם" or "human monkeys". so or so, of course i refer to chimp, gorila and orangutan.
Natural selection doesn't have much effect on the overall genome composition for species like humans, since ~90% of our genome is not under selective constraint. So mutational biases indeed do pretty much control genome composition -- but they in no way argue against common descent.
Even lungfish, which can go on land, do not have 4 legs. They use their fins; it is very easy to look at their skeletons and see that they are fins and not feet: http://www.pbmnh.org/museum-store/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lungfish.jpgsome fish are actually closer to tetrapods then to other fish. so evolution is false now?
like those once?:
(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)
(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)
Close. Both ray finned and lobe finned are descended from basal boney fish (as opposed to cartilaginous fish).land tetrapods are considered to be evolved lobe-finned fish. Ray finned fish aren’t closely related to land tetrapods because they are on a different branch of evolved lobe fins. They both share that lobefin ancestry
. -_- and no, tetrapods do not stop being tetrapods if they lose a limb due to violent removal, etc.
Ah, no. First of all there is, as others have pointed out, no creation model. Second of all, if you acknowledge that human and chimp share about 98%, you have the problem of explaining why that would be if humans and chimps are unrelated and are both the results of separate special creations. And third of all, and most relevant to this argument, is that there is no reason whatsoever in a creation scenario to expect humans and chimps (which are unrelated according to creationism) to have the same number of chromosomes (never mind the same genes in the same syntenic loci on the same chromosomes). On creationism, we would not expect or predict any relationship between the chromosome count in humans and chimps.actually the creation model predict it too. this is because of the fact that we already knew that human and chimp share about 98%. therefore if human lack 2 chromosomes we can predict that they stil exist in the genome. no evolution required here.
Waiting for your explanation of GULO and ERVs.no problem. but lets first deal with your first argument about ervs and chromosomal fusion. by the way as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there.
The protein did not become an obligate feature for the lineage until after it was co-opted. You will see that syncytins are mainly expressed in utero and are therefore not obligate until the evolution of placental mammals. Is your claim really that the designer actively stuffed a retroviral sequence into the same place of the genomes of multiple species at the moment of their special creation? Really??its not consistent with evolution at all, since evolution cant explain how the creature survived before it get this erv.
Yes, but that conclusion is rejected almost 100% buy other systematicists.not according to those scientists:
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."
Could you give us references for your assertions that human brains are:Human beings are not just more developed. Our brains are better organised, have new areas, denser numbers of neurons and work in ways we cannot yet quantify to give unparalleled intelligence, Self, Other Nature and God consciousness and spirituality unique to us
It can't be said too often or too strongly that only natural explanaions are allowed in science. Once you admit supernatural explanations, it's no longer science. As for eyewitness testimony of the evolution of tetrapods, say? Good luck with that.explaining on the basis of reductionist or merely naturalistic assumptions, we reject or qualify based on our own eyewitness testimony of the events you are guessing about.
The problem is that a tightly related group of animals (including humans) all have a broken GULO gene, broken in the same way. The Haplorhini are all hypoascorbemic in the same way. And the only way to explain that is that they all had a common anestor in which the mutation was present - ie, that they are a clade.again: what is the problem? they were made with a functional gulo and then they got a mutations on it. how it have any connection to a bad design?
its not the same since we are talking about the same model\creature here and not about new once.
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?