Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Take a look at the Emetazoa article and break that down in plain English for the common folk. Wonder if you really can or if you just posted a bunch of stuff you have no idea what it says.
No that would prove evolution not falsify it.
Be cause evolution claims we all came from the same ancestor therefore we evolved from a thing that wasn't us in the beginning.
What was a bird before it was a bird? What was a bird before it evolved feathers?
3. Beings that are not closely related (humans and armadillos) having more in common genetically than beings that are closely related (humans and chimpanzees) would falsify evolution.
"Descendants never stop being that their ancestors were. Humans will always be hominids
More speculation and assumption. All the suggestions are assumptions. You have no evidence to show it actually happened. Evolution is full of that.
Take a look at the Emetazoa article and break that down in plain English for the common folk. Wonder if you really can or if you just posted a bunch of stuff you have no idea what it says.
So we'll ignore all those stalactites that are over a few metres in length shall we? What about the ones that have been measured to have a much slower growth rate? And the ones which have been shown, by several independent methods to be multitudes older than 10,000 years? And the amount of time it takes caves to form?
If you can't see the problems with the nonsense you're proposing I can't help you.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to show any of these claimed common ancestors would you?Species.
> Birds from birds.
Order.
> Monkeys from monkeys,
Not a monophyletic classification.
> beetles from beetles are the only way things change.
An order with 400,000 species.
I guess "kind" means anything you want it to.
Birds were, and are theropod dinosaurs.
Ooops.
https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0399-x
Analysis of synteny conservation across the P. tepidariorum genome suggests that there has been an ancient WGD in spiders. Comparison with the genomes of other chelicerates, including that of the newly sequenced bark scorpion Centruroides sculpturatus, suggests that this event occurred in the common ancestor of spiders and scorpions,
The Last Common Ancestor of Most Bilaterian Animals Possessed at Least Nine Opsins
Colonial origin for Emetazoa: major morphological transitions and the origin of bilaterian complexity. - PubMed - NCBI
[Origin of bilateral-symmetrical animals (Bilateria)]. - PubMed - NCBI
when it comes to using something to age the Earth, these sorts of exceptional things are the most critical. I highly doubt that the average rock on this planet dates to 4.5 billion years old, but we don't use the average age of rocks to date something to begin with.
The fragile nature of stalactites is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the majority of them are no more than a few thousand years old. Once they get too big, they break. If a stalactite can only possibly last for, say, 30,000 years or so at most, they could never be used to date the planet, because if the planet is older, there wouldn't be any stalactites as old as the planet is.
-_- also, dating methods have to match up with each other,
(image from 10 Famous Underground Caves in the World)
(image from Stalactites And Stalagmites In Jenolan Caves Stock Photo | Getty Images)
right. we have other evidence that point to a young earth too. but for now i want to focus at this one.
And fish? And anthropoids? And bacteria?This particular misconception has nothing to do with my list of potential falsifications. I'll try and keep this really simple.
1. Descendants never stop being that their ancestors were. Humans will always be hominids, primates, mammals, synapsids, sarcopterygians, etc.
Hmm, so what does that say since we evolved from fish?2. Lineage specific characteristics like fur/hair in mammals being found in another branch like fish would falsify evolution.
So updates place human/chimp at around 92% and mice at 97%...3. Beings that are not closely related (humans and armadillos) having more in common genetically than beings that are closely related (humans and chimpanzees) would falsify evolution.
Nothing falsifies evolution, since no evolution supports evolution.4. Lobsters are invertebrates and thus lack a vertebral column. If we were to observe one with a vertebral column that would falsify evolution.
5. Etc.
Except you can’t show a single common ancestor for anything where this imaginary split happened.Again, we're getting into the fact that you don't actually understand evolution. A "bird" is not some sort of pure Platonic form. Birds evolved from feathered theropod dinosaurs which themselves evolved from basal archosaurs. "Birds" however, never stopped being dinosaurs or archosaurs (etc.). The are merely a branch of theropod dinosaurs that split off in the Jurassic and survived the K-Pg extinction event. Again, I suggest you read more and pontificate less until you grasp some of the basics of evolution.
* You really need to learn that science doesn't prove anything and there's no such thing as scientific proof.
-_- if all those rock formations were "in place since their formation" doesn't quite make sense for a lot of them, because they never stopped forming. To be blunt, all rocks don't date the same age, and the range of ages is huge.so? this is because many geological process that changed the originial formation. but indeed, if all those rock formations were in place since their formations, we should get the same result in most rocks.
-_- I can see the crumpled rocky fragments all over the ground, especially in the second photo. When they fall apart, it isn't usually just into 2 big pieces or as one solid piece, you know, they shatter. But, hey, I managed to find a cave that has a big pile of big ones all over the floor https://s1-ssl.dmcdn.net/XrOFA.jpg also, look at those huge stalagmites. They grow similarly to stalactites and are structurally much more stable, so of the two, why not use those to get a date? Stalactites all over the ground here too https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/05/CNRS_20160048_0006/lead_960.jpg?1464180693if it was true then the cave floor should be full of stalactite pieces. but as you can see- this is not what we find:
(image from 10 Famous Underground Caves in the World)
(image from Stalactites And Stalagmites In Jenolan Caves Stock Photo | Getty Images)
If you have other evidence, bring it, because you still aren't noting the fact that the extreme range in stalactite formation speed makes them terrible for dating anything, as does the fact that they are fragile.right. we have other evidence that point to a young earth too. but for now i want to focus at this one.
And fish? And anthropoids? And bacteria?
Hmm, so what does that say since we evolved from fish?
So updates place human/chimp at around 92% and mice at 97%...
Nothing falsifies evolution, since no evolution supports evolution.
So the single celled organism has no vertebral column. Animals now do...... so a lobster evolving one in 10 million years falsifies evolution, but all the animals today developing one from one that didn’t have one (an invertebrate) supports it? What contradiction you propose.
Except you can’t show a single common ancestor for anything where this imaginary split happened.
So updates place human/chimp at around 92% and mice at 97%...
LOL. No. It really doesn't.
Please look at these articles / papers.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/february27/med-genemap-022708.html
(Edit: I don't know why the pic of the gene map isn't showing, it's in the link though.)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/268806252_fig1_Figure-1-Phylogenetic-tree-of-62-world-populations-based-on-Cavalli-Sforza's-Chord
View attachment 212040
I can't see any evidence of hybridization, can you point it out? Or should we just take your word for it?
LOL. "Real biology"!
Why did the "common designer"...
- give humans and chimpanzees the same 203,000 endogenous retroviruses
- give all Haplorhine primates including humans a broken GULO (vitamin C production) gene
- give whales a broken Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development
- give all therian mammals broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development
Odd that honesty and integrity is a "distraction" among so many Christians.
When a creationist plagiarizes, that tells me that, besides the whole dishonesty thing, they cannot digest the information and draw their own conclusions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
-_- I can see the crumpled rocky fragments all over the ground, especially in the second photo. When they fall apart, it isn't usually just into 2 big pieces or as one solid piece, you know, they shatter. But, hey, I managed to find a cave that has a big pile of big ones all over the floor https://s1-ssl.dmcdn.net/XrOFA.jpg also, look at those huge stalagmites.
Perhaps large chunks are often cleared away from the floor in popular tourist caves to prevent people from tripping on them?
Man (who was given dominion over creation sinned) and death entered into all of creation as a result of our curse. This curse effected all of creation..
As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution. Not a single example of a finely graduated chain between major forms has ever been presented, and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists. Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.
no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists.
Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?