Proof of Creation?

[EternalDragon]

No.

Dodos are part of the subfamily raphinae.

Raphinae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dodos are a species within that family, along with the rodrigues solitaire (another extinct flightless bird) Dodos are, themselves, a species. Or were, anyway.

Firstly, if this were true, they'd be using the SIMILARITIES in bone structrure to determine it.

Second, it's not true. From the part of the wiki you didn't bother to read.

They know where to place dodos because they studied their DNA.

From the Wiki on the Dodo and exactly what I said:

Its closest genetic relative was the also extinct Rodrigues solitaire, the two forming the subfamily Raphinae of the family of pigeons and doves.

Dodo's and Raphonae are subfamilies of the family of pigeons and doves.
Now here is my previous statement.

Dodo's are a subfamily of the family of pigeons and doves.

 

[lasthero]

From the Wiki on the Dodo and exactly what I said:

Its closest genetic relative was the also extinct Rodrigues solitaire, the two forming the subfamily Raphinae of the family of pigeons and doves.

Dodo's and Raphonae are subfamilies of the family of pigeons and doves.
Now here is my previous statement.

Dodo's are a subfamily of the family of pigeons and doves.

Are you actually reading those links?

Click on raphinae. Raphinae is the subfamily. Dodos and rodrigues solitaire are species WITHIN the subfamily. Dodos are not, themselves, a subfamily. They are one of two birds that make up a subfamily, but they are not, individually, sub-families. Do you understand what it actually means for something to be a family in taxonomic ranking?

And you're still avoiding the question: why do you accept their relation when it was determiniend by comparing similarities, which you constantly claim don't prove anything?

 

[EternalDragon]

Are you actually reading those links?

Click on raphinae. Raphinae is the subfamily. Dodos and rodrigues solitaire are species WITHIN the subfamily. Dodos are not, themselves, a subfamily. They are one of two birds that make up a subfamily, but they are not, individually, sub-families. Do you understand what it actually means for something to be a family in taxonomic ranking?

And you're still avoiding the question: why do you accept their relation when it was determiniend by comparing similarities, which you constantly claim don't prove anything?

Apparently everything is related.

 

[lasthero]

Apparently everything is related.

So you're not a creationist anymore? You accept evolution?

...I'm strangely disappointed.

 

[EternalDragon]

So you're not a creationist anymore? You accept evolution?

...I'm strangely disappointed.

That's called design in creation. Something nature can't do unless
it has some sort of higher intelligence.

 

[lasthero]

That's called design in creation. Something nature can't do unless
it has some sort of higher intelligence.

Nice bare assertion you have, there.

Can comparisons be used to determine ancestry or not?

 

[lasthero]

What short time am I allowing? I don't think I ever said any time frame.
Is 10,000 years too short for some slight changes? 20,000 years?

By the way, taking a step back for a moment, but dodos were native to an island. Creationists generally place the flood as happening about 4,500 years. Do you understand what that means for the evolution of the dodo, which was a flightless bird?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And scientists are using bone structures and other features to show they are related. That's what I am using. What scientists have determined.

So you're using similarities.

So scientific tools used to demonstrate common ancestry between pigeons and dodos are acceptable; those same tools used to demonstrate common ancestry between men and chimpanzees are not acceptable.

Because, one might assume, reasons. Or perhaps you could offer why the same tools used to show one relationship is not acceptable to demonstrate another.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lasthero]

Also, I'd appreciate you explaining what the 'swimming bird' family you mentioned earlier is, ED. Never heard of that one. I'm curious.

 

[EternalDragon]

Also, I'd appreciate you explaining what the 'swimming bird' family you mentioned earlier is, ED. Never heard of that one. I'm curious.

I gave the technical name way back in another post.
Anatidaeare water birds and there are also Ciconiiformes.

 

[EternalDragon]

So you're using similarities.

So scientific tools used to demonstrate common ancestry between pigeons and dodos are acceptable; those same tools used to demonstrate common ancestry between men and chimpanzees are not acceptable.

Because, one might assume, reasons. Or perhaps you could offer why the same tools used to show one relationship is not acceptable to demonstrate another.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't accept common ancestry for the most part.

 

[AceHero]

So you're using similarities.

So scientific tools used to demonstrate common ancestry between pigeons and dodos are acceptable; those same tools used to demonstrate common ancestry between men and chimpanzees are not acceptable.

Because, one might assume, reasons. Or perhaps you could offer why the same tools used to show one relationship is not acceptable to demonstrate another.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't accept common ancestry for the most part.

I don't understand why the idea of us sharing a common ancestor is so threatening.

Regarding the acceptance of common ancestry amongst birds, etc. but not humans, some creationists on this board don't consider humans to be mammals, let alone animals. We're just...humans. The idea has no basis in reality as there is overwhelming evidence for our relation to other species.

 

[lasthero]

I don't accept common ancestry for the most part.

Which, again, raises the question - how do you determine the common ancestry you DO accept without using simalirities? Like, I seem to remember you accepting that wolves and dogs share a common ancestor. How do you think thT was determined if not by comparing their similarities?

 

[lasthero]

I gave the technical name way back in another post.
Anatidaeare water birds and there are also Ciconiiformes.

Anatidaeare are a family that have ducks and swan, but don't include Pelicans. Pelicans are in their own family, Pelecanidae.

Ciconiiformes are an order, not a family. And they don't include pelicans, either. Pelicans are in their own order, too, pelicaniformes.

I find it extremely telling that you seemed willing to accept that ducks and pelicans were the same kind. Ducks and pelicans are only related at the class level, aves. If you can accept that pelicans and ducks share a common ancestory, you should be able to accept that bears and dogs do, that cats and dogs do, that alligators and snakes do, that frogs and salamanders do, that bats and chimps do, et cetera...

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't accept common ancestry for the most part.

So your determination isn't through any scientific method, but based purely upon your arbitrary decision-making skills.

In that case I accept that influenza is a virus, but I consider the common cold to be the work of faeries.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bhsmte]

So your determination isn't through any scientific method, but based purely upon your arbitrary decision-making skills.

In that case I accept that influenza is a virus, but I consider the common cold to be the work of faeries.

-CryptoLutheran

And that sums it up quite well!

 

[SkyWriting]

And where in Quantum Mechanics does it say that the intentions of the observer changes reality?

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com

 

[Split Rock]

I don't accept common ancestry for the most part.

So, you want to limit common ancestry, based on arbitrary lines you create, which in turn are based on your religious dogma.

 

[EternalDragon]

So your determination isn't through any scientific method, but based purely upon your arbitrary decision-making skills.

In that case I accept that influenza is a virus, but I consider the common cold to be the work of faeries.

-CryptoLutheran

It is from the evidence and using my arbitrary decision making skills
just as scientists have arbitrary decision making skills. (As well as a
desire to keep the funds coming in to keep their jobs.)

So mere similarities to you mean there was a stepwise evolutionary
pathway connecting two species? How so? Could it also indicate common
design? (Yes, it could.) Where is your evidence of the step wise evolution?
The fossil evidence doesn't show this. The genetic evidence doesn't
show this.

Faced with Uncooperative Data, Evolutionary Icthyologists Reverse the Predictions of Common Descent - Evolution News & Views

Demolishing Darwin's Tree: Eric Bapteste and the Network of Life - Evolution News & Views

Science writer Henry Gee explains in Nature, "We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it."

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution? - Evolution News & Views

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

 

[EternalDragon]

So, you want to limit common ancestry, based on arbitrary lines you create, which in turn are based on your religious dogma.

In reality it is already extremely limited. According to the evidence.

By the way, religious dogma does not enter into the equation.