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.
My suggestion is that the Creator could have used developing templates as He moved from less sophisticated to more complex designs. Thus what is discerned as common ancestry is related to the hierarchy of templates used. That also mutation history following creation will share commonalities because very often it was the same code responding to the same conditions post fall and flood.
Did you restrict human behavior to "biological"? Is that one of thing you can do very well biologically?
Extinction events and dead end microevolutionary history in a fallen and broken universe would account for those.
Most noncoding regions don't do anything, but many do. Something like 8% - 11% of the genome is functional, but less than 2% is coding.No rational designer would bother to make commonalities between non-coding regions, because they don't do anything and thus don't have to have any specified content.
Did you restrict human behavior to "biological"? Is that one of thing you can do very well biologically?
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.
Sure, it's possible to have a faulty model and still make accurate predictions. But there's still a reason that the faulty model is accurate -- it can be mapped onto the more accurate model, in this case. But what you're advocating is a model that doesn't make any predictions at all.Ptolemy made accurate predictions about star and planet movement and still worked with a faulty model.
I already told you: an explanation tells why things are the way they are, rather than some other way. If your explanation would be identical regardless of the data ("God did it that way"), then it's not an explanation.What do you mean by explanation.
I'll be honest: junk DNA kind of confuses me when Creationists use it. Like, I get what it means (it's basically non-coded DNA, so it does nothing), but when they use like it a "Gotcha!" type thing, I just don't get how.
My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species. The tree of life is thus verified without verifying evolution. Also that the differences which do exist make all the difference whether observed or on the DNA level. Which is why the apes do not have a developed language ability, have built no pyramids and run around naked without the ability to adapt to extreme cold for instance.
Quite true, since your second sentence has little to do with your first. One change in a base pair could indeed be fatal, and yet the roughly 6 million differences between my DNA and yours does not mean we're not related.You accepted that even one change in a base pair could be fatal. Yet you cannot accept that 40 million differences point to an even more significant difference and de novo design intervention.
And yet, humans are still apes.
We are classed as apes.
We are great apes.
You are ignoring massive similarities and focusing on minute differences here.
Sorry but the brain thing is not a minute difference.
Using magic in an science debate is an auto-loss.
How so?
Most noncoding regions don't do anything, but many do. Something like 8% - 11% of the genome is functional, but less than 2% is coding.
there is also the question of how many of those mutations are adaptive. if we need about 20 new mutations for a complex language, what make us believe that every mutation toward a complex language is adaptive at all? so or so: the fact that we have no empirical evidence that such a transition is possible make evolution a problematic theory to begin with.It is the same programmes as I have previously looked at then. We are talking about 40 million mutation differences between chimp and human! The similarities and differences in the genome support a creationist template theory just as easily as common ancestry.
And yet, humans are still apes.
We are classed as apes.
We are great apes.
You are ignoring massive similarities and focusing on minute differences here.
how a chromosomal fusion support common descent rather then a common designer?No, they don't. It's not the similarities or differences that matter, it's their pattern. It's not only the 1.3% point mutations, it's also the chromosomal synteny, ERV patterns, The Chimp 2A,2B fusion, nested hierarchy, just to name the first 4 that come to mind. Noting that 40 million over 3 billion is about 1.3%, it's not that much...not that a higher number would matter.
Most noncoding regions don't do anything
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?