If common appearance = common DNA

[pitabread]

Then why does this species:

Have more in common genetically with this:

Than this?

Or this?

Is the designer just messing with us?

 

[Hank77]

I didn't know what these guys were that are in the first pic. San Diego Zoo has an article about them. Very interesting. Thanks!

 

[Shemjaza]

Also these guys:

Are more genetically similar to this guy:

Then they are to this guy:

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why does this species:

Have more in common genetically with this:

Than this?

Or this?

Only the Designer knows for sure, and He didn't choose to tell us, so it really doesn't matter.

We can only speculate, so here goes:

1. They have to deal with the same kind of cooties?
2. They have to live in the same general area?
3. They have a symbiotic relationship and protect each other somehow?
4. They won't be afraid of each other?
5. Certain animals that would kill a hyrax "sense" an elephantine aura about them and choose not to mess with them?
6. 10,000 other speculations?

Is the designer just messing with us?

No. Science is myopic.

 

[xianghua]

first: its possible that their internal morphology is different. secondly: its possible that the difference in the dna level means a different appearing time by the designer. also remember that even according to evolution- more similar dna suppose to mean more shared similarity in the morphological level too. so the whole claim is wrong.

 

[Jimmy D]

its possible that the difference in the dna level means a different appearing time by the designer.

Great, So let's test that idea! Where do we start?

 

[AV1611VET]

Great, So let's test that idea! Where do we start?

Science is myopic.

That's like asking how we test for the existence of Aldebaran with a pair of binoculars.

 

[xianghua]

Great, So let's test that idea! Where do we start?

i dont think that we can do that under our current knowlage in biology yet.

 

[Doveaman]

If common appearance = common DNA

Then why does this species:

Have more in common genetically with this:

Than this?

Or this?

Is the designer just messing with us?

No, the designer is just showing that humans and apes are not cousins even though they have common appearance and common DNA.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No, the designer is just showing that humans and apes are not cousins even though they have common appearance and common DNA.

Is the designer also showing that you are not related to your parents even though you have a common appearance and common DNA? Amazing how no matter what the evidence shows, creationists can just hand wave it away.

 

[pitabread]

No, the designer is just showing that humans and apes are not cousins even though they have common appearance and common DNA.

Huh? How does having a species that superficially resembles a groundhog, but is more closely related to an elephant demonstrate that chimps and humans aren't related?

Or are you just making all this up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? How does having a species that superficially resembles a groundhog, but is more closely related to an elephant demonstrate that chimps and humans aren't related?

Then why aren't these animals in the same genus, if they're so closely related?

 

[pitabread]

first: its possible that their internal morphology is different.

This much is true. Hyrax's and elephants do share a lot of morphology, although you wouldn't necessarily know it at first glance.

also remember that even according to evolution- more similar dna suppose to mean more shared similarity in the morphological level too.

Not necessarily. There is actually discordance between genetic and morphology, where big genetic changes can have little impact on morphology and vise-versa, small genetic changes can have a huge impact on morphology.

This is why you can have creatures that share similar outward morphology with others, but may actually be more closely genetically related to creatures that look very different. Marsupials and placental mammals are great examples of this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To illustrate this further with an example that sends shivers down the spines of YECs...

This dude:

Is genetically more similar to this dude:

then to these dudes:

 

[Gene Parmesan]

To illustrate this further with an example that sends shivers down the spines of YECs...

This dude:

View attachment 194451

Is genetically more similar to this dude:

View attachment 194452

then to these dudes:

View attachment 194453 View attachment 194454

Uh, no. The first one is part of the ape KIND and the last two are part of the ape KIND and the human there is part of the human KIND because KIND is a thing and this makes PERFECT SENSE.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Uh, no. The first one is part of the ape KIND and the last two are part of the ape KIND and the human there is part of the human KIND because KIND is a thing and this makes PERFECT SENSE.

"Kind" is not a term used in biology. Humans are apes. Apes are defined as a large primate without a tail. So no, that term does not make perfect sense. Is a lion and a house cat the same kind?

 

[pitabread]

"Kind" is not a term used in biology. Humans are apes. Apes are defined as a large primate without a tail. So no, that term does not make perfect sense. Is a lion and a house cat the same kind?

He's being sarcastic.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" is not a term used in biology.

That's because it's from the Bible ... and Linnaeus was serving the Devil at the time he propagated his bologna; and we all know how much the Devil hates the Bible.

Humans are apes.

Until a couple of them act like one ... like at Columbine ... then scientists scratch their heads. (Apes do that too, you know.)

Which one, by the way, wore the shirt that said: NATURAL SELECTION? Klebold or Harris?

Apes are defined as a large primate without a tail. So no, that term does not make perfect sense. Is a lion and a house cat the same kind?

Then make Linnaeus turn over in his grave: use the term GENUS instead.

 

[Doveaman]

"Kind" is not a term used in biology.

It's a term used biblically.

Humans are apes.

Nope. Humans are created according to the God kind:

"And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" -- (Gen 1:25-26).

Apes are defined as a large primate without a tail.

Humans are defined as Mankind.

So no, that term does not make perfect sense. Is a lion and a house cat the same kind?

Yes, the feline kind.

 

[pitabread]

It's a term used biblically.

So?

Humans are defined as Mankind.

"Mankind" is not a taxonomic classification in biology. Taxonomically speaking, humans are a member of the Hominidae family, also known as the "great apes" which also includes chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. If you have an issue with that, take it up with biologists.

Yes, the feline kind.

And Felidae is a taxanomic family of felines (e.g. house cats, lions, tigers, etc.) in the same way that Hominidae is a taxanomic family which includes humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.