Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

sure. here are 2 cases:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

so lets ignore a fossil that doesnt fit with evolution.

or:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."

doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly". but evolution is science, right?

Okay, firstly, NO-ONE is talking about convergent evolution in any of those examples except for you, so you're tilting at a windmill here.

Secondly: So what if we don't know right know? We will find out in the future.

And thirdly: WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE OP TOPIC!?!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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?

It simply wouldn't be done by human, or any other intelligent, competent, designer. This is your analogy, Ferrari cars, that you came up with. And it absolutely shows that what we see in life, when we look close, is completely incompatible with an intelligent, competent, designer.

its not the same since we are talking about the same model\creature here and not about new once.

It doesn't matter even if you propose a different structure like this. As the designers would recognise such a blatant error in the car and fix it. That happens in cars all the time, e.g. models found to have a fault are recalled and the fault fixed. Again, your own analogy shows that what we see in life simply isn't compatible with an intelligent, competent, designer.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm more likely to take the literal meaning of The Bible to be the original intent.

A lot of people say this, generally meaning taking the bible to mean whatever they happen to think it does on reading it, and taking their own interpretation to be indicative of the original author’s intent. From an atheist perspective, this can lead to Richard Dawkin’s type of thinking, i.e the idea that knowing nothing at all about the bible is a good starting point for critiquing it.

 

[sfs]

He seemingly has no understanding (or pretends to not) that the filtering of the survival of the fittest means that the larger proportion of mutations to T do not mean in any way that the number of Ts in the genome of an evolving species will increase.

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.

The most extreme case I know of is Plasmodium falciparum, the most dangerous of the malaria parasites. It has strongly biased mutation and a genome that is more than 80% A/T (approaching 90% in noncoding regions). Sequencing it is a real pain.

 

[Brightmoon]

some fish are actually closer to tetrapods then to other fish. so evolution is false now?

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

 

[xianghua]

Nope we havent.

There are examples where fossil finds have changed our understanding of timeframes for species but there has never been any findings that disprove or isnt inline with the ToE.

so by that definition any fossil cant be in the wrong place. if you will find a monkey- like creature you will just change the timeframe.

 

[xianghua]

Okay, firstly, NO-ONE is talking about convergent evolution in any of those examples except for you, so you're tilting at a windmill here.

Secondly: So what if we don't know right know? We will find out in the future.

And thirdly: WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE OP TOPIC!?!

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.

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter even if you propose a different structure like this. As the designers would recognise such a blatant error in the car and fix it. That happens in cars all the time

do you want that the designer will fix the gulo pseudogene in real time in front of our eyes?

 

[pitabread]

actually there is.

Actually there isn't.

You keep claiming there is, but yet you never present one. So this suggests that you don't have one.

 

[VirOptimus]

so by that definition any fossil cant be in the wrong place. if you will find a monkey- like creature you will just change the timeframe.

No, thats not what I said, read again,

 

[xianghua]

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

its still "out of place" since according to this evolution cant be fine with situation were a chimp can be colser to a dog than to a human.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Surely the lie is to start with Nature rather than with God. Who after all is the basis of all reality.

That's just your religious belief.

Creationists have no issue with useful science. Macroevolutionary theory and Abiogenetic theory are deceptions in the hands of many evolutionists because they imply to these theories a certainty that does not exist for them and label scientific what cannot be demonstrated with the scientific method in repeatable peer reviewed experiments.

What is more likely:
- that you, a layman, are ill-informed/ill-educated about mainstream biology
or
- that millions of professional biologists are wrong and have been wrong for about +150 years?

Also Evolutionary theory is pretty much irrelevant to the useful work done by science over the last few centuries in the areas of industrial production and product development, in medicine, in construction, communications, space flight and indeed military technologies.

That is utterly false. Obviously, it is vital for medical applications, treatments, vaccination, etc

Secondly, the logic of the principles of evolution, has also direct practical application in the form of "genetic algorithms", which is a proven effective search heuristic widely used for optimising all kinds of system designs and business processes. In certain cases, a GA actuall does a BETTER job at optimising certain systems then the best human engineers.


ps: I've actually written software back in the days that did exactly that.

 

[xianghua]

No, thats not what I said, read again,

i will give you a specific example: do you think that we can push back a monkey-like creature by a 20 my?

 

[xianghua]

Actually there isn't.

You keep claiming there is, but yet you never present one. So this suggests that you don't have one.

its very simple: creation model just means that all creatures were created at once and didnt evolved from a common descent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

do you want that the designer will fix the gulo pseudogene in real time in front of our eyes?

At least that would give us some evidence of this supposed "designer".
At this point, all we seem to have is "witnesses" like you, who for some reason can only argue their case by being dishonest about what mainstream biology is really all about....

 

[xianghua]

At least that would give us some evidence of this supposed "designer".

like those once?:

(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)

(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)

 

[pitabread]

its very simple: creation model just means that all creatures were created at once and didnt evolved from a common descent.

That's just a definition, not a model.

 

[Speedwell]

like those once?:

(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)

(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)

Why are naturally occurring objects like that evidence of design?

 

[VirOptimus]

i will give you a specific example: do you think that we can push back a monkey-like creature by a 20 my?

Im not interested in playing games with you. I have already adressed this.

My tip to you would be to learn biology 101.

 

[xianghua]

Im not interested in playing games with you. I have already adressed this.

its not a game and you have no answer. thanks.

My tip to you would be to learn biology 101.

its my tip to you actually.