Love ya or hate ya, they'll at least respect your faith.
Faith deserves no respect - people deserve respect, and that should be earned.
You can say as many words as you like. The comparison means a 30% difference in the Y chromosme and it was not predicted and not expected. If you read the link I provided it states the ability to produce vitamin C or not is somatic and has reversed in various lines of assumed descent.
And the paper I linked to shows you why the Y chromosome is different.
Here's a hint - why do you think it is called 'Y' as opposed to 'X'?
But humans have a non-functional gene, and so are unable to synthesis vitamin c using L-gulonolactone oxidase - but the remnant of the gene is still there,
Why?
Your researchers do not see anything. They get results from biased algorithms that.
So, when science comes up with a result you don't like, it is because they fiddled the maths.
That is a real argument, isn't it?
Get over yourself. You have refered to the research I present. Indeed you are responding to some in this post, finally.
But not all of it is research.
Most of it is opinion.
(Hint - research gets published for other scientists and interested parties to read, not posted on a personal website)
The research I provide supports me in principle. For example if I say that the chimp and human genome are not similar at all and present research that speaks to the huge chunks of missing genomic material, insertions and deletions, the remarkable difference in the Y chromosomes, the cimp genome being 10% larger, the surface structure being different, all of which you should be aware of, then I have presented evidence for my view. Much of this info was in my link to the myth of 1%. Do I need to repost it?
It doesn't support you at all.
Chimp and human genomes are 96% alike.
Yes, there are differences.
If there were no differences, then we would no tbe seperated by six million years from our last comon ancestor with chimps.
I have linke dto a research paper which explains why Y chromosomes are more susceptable to change, in all animals that have them, but you have so far ignored this.
But at least we agree on one thing - because I have never said there is a 1% difference.
Likewise with natans and indohyus. You can say I do not support my view as much as you like. Anyone that can read can see you are a liar.
Sticks and stones....
You can't win an argument by slinging abuse.
It is often seen as a sign that someone is losing their temper, because they have nothing to offer the discussion.
Ditch the insults and try to develop a reasonable argument for your case - that is what these forums are for.
The point is you have modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and only 8my after dinos were supposed to have evolved. Like you lot, who don't even have one common ancestor to present for anything.
I don't know if you posted one earlier, but do you have a link to this 212 million year old bird footprint?
How have you discounted that it was a type of theropod dinosaur, which were present on this planet at that time?
However it is good you say that dinosaurs have hollow bones. Now this silly reseachers of yours can recant their crap about hollow bones being an adaptation to flight, unless you are suggesting riocoloradensis flew.
Without hollow bones, birds would have been very unlikely to evolve as we know them today.
It maybe more appropriate to describe this feature as a pre-adaption to flight, in the same way that arm bones and leg bones were a pre-adaption for walking - as we know that animals had bony limbs long before they could walk on land.
You miss the point. Gliding is a skill that fish has that is all that was meant to suggest. The bible states that the creatures of the sea and birds were created closely together and before land animals. Finding 212myo modern footprints is much better support for this than we had before and it is great for me and a headache for your researchers.
The bible is just another old book of stories, I pay no more attention to that than I do to any other religious text.
By the way, birds are not modern, they are just not extinct.
So it doesn't back up your argument whatsoever, because there is no evidence for a single creation event - nor a wave of creation events if you imagine a 'day' to mean 'a few million years'
i din't miss the point, you failed to make a coherant one.
I appear to have more than you.
Sea lion.
Ambulocetus Natans.
Ringed Seal on display in Barrow Alaska.
Indeed Natans more closely resembles a sea lion or seal than a whale. And let's not forget this is a reconstruction just like the Neanderthal woopsie regardless of having a plethora of fossils. Natans is described as moving like a seal. Indeed given the great range in skulls that belong to the one species, dog, this fossil is more likely to be a seal or sea lion relative than a whale.
Indohyus
Mouse deer
Indohyus is just like a mouse deer. Indohyus more closely resembles a mouse deer than anything else.
And a human most closely resembles a chimpanzee - your point is?
Indohyus and mouse deer are both Artiodactyles....
there is also a major point you have missed - indohyus is extinct, and mouse deers "which are so alike" are not.
You have failed to address why this 'ancient mouse-deer' has the inner ear and bones density more like that of a cetacean than any other known line of animals - unlike the modern mouse-deer.
You have also failed to address the point I raised abut timescales- pinnipeds and cetaceans evolved at different times and in different parts of the world.
If
A. natans is a seal ancestor, it is hopelesly anachronistic.
Evolutionists have lost the art of observation and use algorithmic magic and imagination instead, it apears!
I don't think an algorthm would tell you the structure of an ear.
Don't forget, creationism is magic.
You evos have nothing more than misrepresentation to present in a desperate attempt to find intermediates.
again, one fact you consitantly fail to address is that the intermediate forms were discovered first, then came the idea of evolution.
Unlike creationism, which came when we didn't know anything.
Nothing I offer nor any interpretation of the data I present could be worse than the 150 years or falsifications and instability you evos have to offer.
Mudslinging
without even offering examples does nothing to furthe your argument.
I not need intermediates. You do. I am therefore free to use the skill of observation rather than implore straw grabbing, desperation and wishful thinking to base my theoretical assertions on.
I don't need intermendiates.
It just so happens that they are there, and so some humans have devised a theory to explain them. a theory which works.
You don't need evidence either, which is why you seize the few supporting papers you can find (even though most of your points are based upon opinions, and not facts) becasue your beliefs are above facts.
No matter what is presented, you will always stick to your guns - and come out firing from all barrels.
Despite all your words and assetions, you have demonstrated nothing.
You have beacked up very little of what you say with evidence, let alone peer-reviewed papers.
You talk of magic and hand waving, lies and mis-representation when much of this is the cornerstone of your case.
Until you produce something concrete, we have very little to discuss here.
And i thought that atheists were supposed to be strident....
