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.
maybe you should meet more creationistsI've yet to meet any creationist that can tell us what a "Kind" is, biologically, and how they can somehow produce all sorts of 'sub-Kinds' in a short time.
No, but we are like in some of the characteristics we share--we are both placental mammals, for instance.its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?
. We both have a sarcopterygian based skull roof and brain case . We’re both tetrapods, we’re both bilaterians ; we both have eucaryotic cells; we’re both vertebrates; we’re both placental mammals etc etc etc. Rabbits are closely related to the Rodentia and so are the Primatesits also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?
its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?
No,just a close relativeits also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?
its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?
maybe you should meet more creationists
and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".
so where is the limit that a human will not be consider as ape then? by 90% similarity? 70%? 50%?
-_- well, all the great apes are over 90% genetically similar. However, animal taxonomy, while influenced by genetics, isn't determined purely by genetics. For humans to not be apes, we'd have to lack at least one of the basic qualifying traits, such as shoulder mobility due to the dorsal position of the scapula. As it is, humans have all of the qualifying traits and the genetic similarity to justify being in the ape superfamily.so where is the limit that a human will not be consider as ape then? by 90% similarity? 70%? 50%?
-_- and those kids would be incorrect, seeing as a chimp, while perhaps superficially looking like a monkey to some people, objectively is physically more similar to a human than any monkey.maybe you should meet more creationists
and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".
Man, I never tire of creationists that find that one whiner in the woods (Marks in this case) and present him/her as the one true voice of truth.
Jon Marks never recovered from being scooped by Sibley and Ahlquist. After they published their DNA-DNA hybridization study before Marks got his banding study out, he has been on a singular mission to make people reject their (and similar) findings. Not many people in the know take Marks' ranting seriously:
Wrongheaded anthropologist claims that humans aren’t apes
"But Marks disputes this universally accepted classification in a post at the website PopAnth called “Are we apes? No, we are humans.” What he’s doing in the post, as you’ll see below, is denying that we’re apes because the popular conception of apes includes every hominid other than humans, but not humans themselves. "
"Marks goes on, confusing the issue of ancestry, which is what our classification with other apes is meant to show, with “identity,” a term that is pretty nebulous and has no formal meaning in biological classification, or even in biology."
"Saying that we are not apes is like saying that Drosophila are not flies (dipterans). It’s just dumb, and somehow meant to set us apart from other great apes. Yes, we do have unique traits, but we’re still in the family of hominids. And, contra Marks, that does not mean that we are our ancestors. It means we share a common ancestor that lived in the past."
But hey - he says what you need to be able to quote, so you go with what you need!
Weird that you offered no link or quote...
I think I know why - which YEC website referred to it?
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.
Abstract
The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.
Imagine that - earlier specimens a more generalized ape, but later ones "missing links."
Right there in the abstract.
Did you even read THAT?
Clearly not - that or you hoped nobody would bother checking your sources.
So tell us, pshun2404 - was it YOU that decided to totally misrepresent this paper?
Or was it some professional YEC that did it for you, and you just took him/her at their word?
You want to be taken seriously, yet it is trivially easy to catch you doing this.
Why should ANYBODY trust your claims?
Here are some other ACTUAL analyses of Australopithecines:
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002;Suppl 35:185-215.
Interpreting the posture and locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: where do we stand?
From the Abstract:
"While most researchers agree that A. afarensis individuals were habitual bipeds, they disagree over the importance of arboreality for them... [...]
When the A. afarensis data are evaluated using this framework, it is clear that these hominins had undergone selection for habitual bipedality, but the null hypothesis of nonaptation to explain the retention of primitive, ape-like characters cannot be falsified at present... Evidence from features affected by individual behaviors during ontogeny shows that A. afarensis individuals were habitually traveling bipedally, but evidence presented for arboreal behavior so far is not conclusive..."
Hmmm... Habitual bipedality in 'total apes'... Odd apes, huh?
Or this one:
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Jun;82(2):125-33.
Hallucal tarsometatarsal joint in Australopithecus afarensis.
Latimer B1, Lovejoy CO.
Author information
Abstract
Hallucal tarsometatarsal joints from African pongids, modern humans, and Australopithecus afarensis are compared to investigate the anatomical and mechanical changes that accompanied the transition to terrestrial bipedality. Features analyzed include the articular orientation of the medial cuneiform, curvature of the distal articular surface of the medial cuneiform, and the articular configuration of the hallucal metatarsal proximal joint surface. Morphological characteristics of the hallucal tarsometatarsal joint unequivocally segregate quadrupedal pongids and bipedal hominids.
Maybe you should not rely on YEC sources or keyword searches any more?
You know... there really are people on forums like this that are actually familiar - MORE familiar with the science than you are, and can spot your, shall we say, errors?
are you saying that human doesnt realy look different compare to other apes?-_- and those kids would be incorrect, seeing as a chimp, while perhaps superficially looking like a monkey to some people, objectively is physically more similar to a human than any monkey.
And I'll remind you again that the reason humans look so "distinctly human" to you is due to the structure in the human brain that has the specialized function for recognizing humans. This is why humans stand out to you compared to other animals, not because of any objective separation between humans and other animals.
are you saying that human doesnt realy look different compare to other apes?
. We both have a sarcopterygian based skull roof and brain case . We’re both tetrapods, we’re both bilaterians ; we both have eucaryotic cells; we’re both vertebrates; we’re both placental mammals etc etc etc. Rabbits are closely related to the Rodentia and so are the Primates
and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".
Apparently the difference makes all the difference in distinguishing man and ape. Also when people do these comparisons they discard large chunks of what they call junk DNA which may actually be more significant than we think. Also what is a match? It is rarely ever a 100% match. With code so complex a single line or character may change everything and no one is really in a position as yet to say how.
The bible says God made us from the clay in a single day. It seems to me that the shared DNA across species is testimony to that shared Designer who in a sense followed a template for life which he differentiated at each stage of His creation process until he had the final types. The evidence of a tree of life is consistent with this Design process but on a vastly more accelerated time frame than evolutionists allow. Subsequent to that we have also seen further differentiation by microevolution which is scientifically observable so that for example now we have lots of kinds of sparrow and dog.
Some Junk DNA aka non protein forming DNA does have some regulatory usage. Pseudogenes do sometimes form strings of amino acids which then get degraded . By forming those useless temporary strings the body doesn’t overproduce the protein and keeps the number of transfer rna units the same . I’m assuming that you mean the totally useless stuff
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?