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.
And Actinistia (coelcanths) and Dipnoi (lungfishes) are more closely related to tetrapods than they are to ray-finned fish. Tetrapods, Actinistia and Dipnoi are all in the clade of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes).Close. Both ray finned and lobe finned are descended from basal boney fish (as opposed to cartilaginous fish).
Yeah, I know. How does that contradict what I wrote?And Actinistia (coelcanths) and Dipnoi (lungfishes) are more closely related to tetrapods than they are to ray-finned fish. Tetrapods, Actinistia and Dipnoi are all in the clade of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes).
You came up with the analogy of Ferrari car designers. I pointed out how your own analogy supports the lack of an intelligent designer. As life is full of things that no human intelligent designer would put in there or leave in there. So, you need to explain why an all-powerful God would be incapable of designing life as competently as Ferrari engineers design cars.
i actually refer to the claim above, about falsifying evolution by finding a creature that is closer to other group than to its own group.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.jpg
skeleton of another fish for comparison: https://www.sportfishingmag.com/sit...7/fish-skulls-12-snook-side.jpg?itok=MLWkAXV2
If you mean Tiktaalik, yes, some fish did have more tetrapod traits than others. But the defining feature of tetrapods is locomotion utilizing 4 feet/legs. If it doesn't have 4 feet/legs, it isn't a tetrapod. -_- and no, tetrapods do not stop being tetrapods if they lose a limb due to violent removal, etc.
id simply means that some objects in nature are best explain by design rather than by a natural process. so if will find a spinning motor the best explanation for the existence of that motor is design:I'm awaiting you explaining this theory with impatience.
Or is it restricted to "it looks like x, so I'm gonna say it's x"?
The creationist versions of evolution outright lie about what we actually know . It’s designed deliberately to confuse laymen about science facts so that they’ll accept the Bible ( or other holy book) version of creation stories. None of them, either the creationist versions or the Bible explain science facts accurately.
Except that there is no evidence of design.id simply means that some objects in nature are best explain by design rather than by a natural process. so if will find a spinning motor the best explanation for the existence of that motor is design:
(image from Discovery Safari with Mr. K.: FLAGELLUM MOTOR: world's smallest outboard)
id simply means that some objects in nature are best explain by design rather than by a natural process
. so if will find a spinning motor the best explanation for the existence of that motor is design:
so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror?
if we have a broken gene than its just means that that gene were lost in the past because of a simple mutation.
so the design scenario can explain it by a lost feature.
and i dont think that any creationist has a problem with that.
Perhaps they try to use their beliefs to interpret evidences, as science also does. It seems like a conspiracy theory to claim some grand 'creationist' version of evolution that was designed as a lie.
hold down for a moment. you bring up too many claims at once. i want to stay in focus here so please pick up a single claim and we will discuss about it.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.
you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design?
The taxonomy is defined by certain key traits when it comes to fossils, especially ones so old that DNA cannot possibly be extracted from them. While Tiktaalik physically has many traits intermediate between tetrapods and fish, without its DNA we would be unable to tell if it is more closely related to modern tetrapods or to modern fish. It might even be dead center between the two; organisms don't conform to the boxes we make for them.i actually refer to the claim above, about falsifying evolution by finding a creature that is closer to other group than to its own group.
you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design?
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?