No Missing Links?

[DerelictJunction]

Depends on what you mean by "relatedness". Everything is related in the sense that God used matter to construct all we observe today.

Relatedness as in ancestry or familial relationship.

No, I'm not claiming that paternity test are no longer valid. My father and I are two completely different human creations, yet we're related. We're both human, the same creation, but we're not the same person.

Why are similarities in DNA valid for determining paternity but not valid in determining familial relatedness between species?

That's not relatedness.

So similar morphology doesn't imply familial relatedness? Then we cannot tell if someone is of Asian descent based on the morphology of their body and face?

No, they're related but completely different creations.

So completely different creations can be ancestrally related? That's not what you said before.

I'm not a scientist.

Obviously. However, you brought in a phrase, "completely different creations", and used it to make distinctions regarding the relatedness of different species of organisms. If that phrase has no set definition, as it seems from your comment about "related but completely different creations", then it is useless in making determinations of a scientific nature. Since this is a science forum and we are discussing a scientific topic, it would be more efficient to use defined terms.

The common building blocks in various organisms indicate their relatedness, while complexity and function indicate their status as "completely different creations".

That's nice but since we are discussing ancestral and familial relatedness with regard to potential transitional fossils, perhaps you should provide some evidence that shows morphology does not imply familial relatedness.

 

[justlookinla]

Relatedness as in ancestry or familial relationship.

Why are similarities in DNA valid for determining paternity but not valid in determining familial relatedness between species?

DNA is valid for determining paternity within different creations, but not in disparate creations. For example, simply because I may share common building blocks with a banana doesn't mean that a banana is my relative in a paternal sense.

So similar morphology doesn't imply familial relatedness? Then we cannot tell if someone is of Asian descent based on the morphology of their body and face?

Well, not so much the body but the facial features may categorize the human creation as Asian.

So completely different creations can be ancestrally related? That's not what you said before.

What I said was this.....depends on what you mean by "relatedness". Everything is related in the sense that God used matter to construct all we observe today."

Obviously. However, you brought in a phrase, "completely different creations", and used it to make distinctions regarding the relatedness of different species of organisms.

Actually, I used it in the sense of complexity and function indicating "completely different creations".

If that phrase has no set definition, as it seems from your comment about "related but completely different creations", then it is useless in making determinations of a scientific nature. Since this is a science forum and we are discussing a scientific topic, it would be more efficient to use defined terms.

I think you're attempting to promote the pseudo-science that we are apes, aren't you?

That's nice but since we are discussing ancestral and familial relatedness with regard to potential transitional fossils, perhaps you should provide some evidence that shows morphology does not imply familial relatedness.

Morphology is nothing more than similar creations which differ in complexity and function.

 

[RickG]

I think you're attempting to promote the pseudo-science that we are apes, aren't you?

Question for you. Do you accept the classification that we are mammals?

 

[justlookinla]

Question for you. Do you accept the classification that we are mammals?

Define mammal.

 

[RickG]

Define mammal.

You can't be serious.

It is just a yes or no question. Are we mammals?

 

[justlookinla]

You can't be serious.

It is just a yes or no question. Are we mammals?

We're one of a kind life form. "Mammals" is simply a term to lower humanity to the same level of other, lessor, life forms. So, no, we're not simply mammals. We're much more.

 

[RickG]

We're one of a kind life form. "Mammals" is simply a term to lower humanity to the same level of other, lessor, life forms. So, no, we're not simply mammals. We're much more.

I'm a mammal, you are a person who cannot accept reality.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm a mammal, you are a person who cannot accept reality.

You have to admit, when you get past the initial boredom from reading the repetitive unsubstantiated claims and denial of well evidenced reality, there is some entertainment value.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm a mammal, you are a person who cannot accept reality.

Accept whatever label one wishes to place on you. I breathe air, therefore I'm a member of life forms that breathe air. So what?