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.
Oh great more assumptions. There is no evidence that we came from a fish. Unless you if course you take common design of all life and then try and assume we came from a fish.From Gray wolf - Wikipedia :
"The gray wolf or grey wolf (Canis lupus),[a] also known as the timber wolf[3][4] or western wolf, is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America. It is the largest extant member of its family, with males averaging 43–45 kg (95–99 lb) and females 36–38.5 kg (79–85 lb).[6] Like the red wolf, it is distinguished from other Canis species by its larger size and less pointed features, particularly on the ears and muzzle.[7] Its winter fur is long and bushy and predominantly a mottled gray in color, although nearly pure white, red, and brown to black also occur.[4] Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognises 37 subspecies of C. lupus.[8]"
If we follow this to: Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia , we find among the various sub-species,
we find this under Domestic Dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris) :
"The dog is a divergent subspecies of the gray wolf and was derived from a now-extinct population of Late Pleistocene wolves.[18][37][38] Through selective pressure and selective breeding, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioral and morphological variation than any other land mammal.[39]"Then, it's a short step to genetically map out the connection between that and the Poodle, a layman's summary (with pretty, easy to understand pictures for those challenged by big sciency words and ideas): A Simple Chart Shows How Dogs Today Evolved From A Wolf
All these articles are for the unwashed masses, but links to the peer reviewed science to back them up are on these pages - if you have difficulty locating and clicking the link to them, I can do that for you, so just let me know if you have issues.
I did answer your question, so as explained again, Poodles are in fact Wolves through ancestry, just as you're an Ape through ancestry. and a Placental Mammal through ancestry, and a Synapsid, and an Anmiote, and a Vertibrate, and a Eukaryote, etc.
Technically, Yes. Aren't you aware of Tiktaalik? You know, the transitional life form between fish and all air-breathing land animals?
We were never bacteria. Although, we do have mitochondria, which is a co-opted prokaryotic cell that was most likely bacteria, so I guess we could say that bacteria are an essential makeup of all Eukaryotes?
I understand it perfectly. The real issue is evolutionists don't want to accept reality. You admitted that fish have fur in post 4216. You said we are technically still fish. Bears are technically still fish too according to you, therefore fish have fur which according to your own definition falsifies evolution.Everyone already gets how little you understand evolution, no need to flaunt it. Interestingly though, I'd like to see your reference in whatever article is giving you that pearl of wisdom...
The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions. Show me one tree that proposes a common ancestor that isn't an assumption will you? You make my point for me.
Genomic analysis does not need an evolutionary tree. All it needs is to know all life was made from a common design.
We are trying to get you to be consistent too. If poodles are wolves, poodles are also fish, and anthropoids, and on and on. So you have both your example of fish with fur, invertebrates with vertibrate, and on and on.I'm trying to get you to be consistent.
Dinosaur fossils have been found that feathers, showing ancestry for birds. Additionally, some modern birds have skulls almost identical, except in size, to some dinosaurs, again showing evolution at work.I understand it perfectly. The real issue is evolutionists don't want to accept reality. You admitted that fish have fur in post 4216. You said we are technically still fish. Bears are technically still fish too according to you, therefore fish have fur which according to your own definition falsifies evolution.
Since evolution believes that fish turned into bears eventually I don't understand how that falsified evolution. I would think a fish with fur would prove evolution since that's what you believe happened over a very long period of time. Yet you have no real evidence that it actually occurred.
The problem for evolutionists is they believe we all came from.a common ancestor. All of us. We might have eight legs or two, fur or scales, hands or fins, or we may be able to speak, write and have hopes and dreams or not. So at some point that fish grew a leg.
What correct phylogenies trees are we discussing? The human one where they know the entire tree and history of mankind is going to have to be rewritten?
Ahh, but it’s only the tree for the most genetically studied and geologically searched for species that they got wrong, right? Right?
by the way: in a real case of fish with a fur they can claim for convergent evolution as "solution". so even this case will not falsify evolution at all.Apparently fish do have fur. Since fish are the ancestors of bears fish do have fur. Therefore evolution is falsified by your standard.
as far as i aware a wolf and a dog can interbreed. so they may belong to the same kind. but even in this case it doesnt prove any evolution since they are basically the same creature (dog). so its only a variation rather then evolution.Oh great more assumptions. There is no evidence that we came from a fish. Unless you if course you take common design of all life and then try and assume we came from a fish.
The wolf to poodle tree is also an assumption because of the similarities between the creatures. There really is no evidence that we can actually follow in the fossil record that shows that.
Genomic analysis does not need an evolutionary tree. All it needs is to know all life was made from a common design.
Genetics, no assumption required. The genetic evidence (even if we didn't have fossil remains, which of course we do) is an infinitely more reliable form of evidence than fossils, or for that matter archaeological evidence, or even the most unreliable kind, written down stories (for which we have all forms of evidence mentioned for dogs descending from wolves). Genetic evidence is irrefutable for rational people, this is why it's considered next to unassailable in a court of law. When it is contested, it's the method of collection & processing or a legal technicality that's contested, never the actual evidence itself. Curious though, are you saying that written records are assumptions? I would certainly agree with you if that's your stance...Oh great more assumptions. There is no evidence that we came from a fish. Unless you if course you take common design of all life and then try and assume we came from a fish.
The wolf to poodle tree is also an assumption because of the similarities between the creatures. There really is no evidence that we can actually follow in the fossil record that shows that.
Well, Kudos for trying, I guess... Although we are descended from fish and are nested in the clade that were fish (along with every other animal, of course), we've long diverged from fish enough that traits like 'fur' are considered unique to our lineage of mammals and defines our uniqueness among these living things. I fail to see how this falsifies evolution though, the same branching tree of life holds true, no matter how you want to view inherited traits. Fur is unique to 'mammals' section of the 'fish' tree and is not found in extant fish at all, so isn't actually a 'fish' trait. Equally, theropod dinosaurs are unique in their clade for (among many things) their feathers. Again though, this is not pervasive in fish, just this small section of life that came from fish. All this said, I have no doubt you'll erect another straw man to beat on in short order... evidence and critical thinking be damned!I understand it perfectly. The real issue is evolutionists don't want to accept reality. You admitted that fish have fur in post 4216. You said we are technically still fish. Bears are technically still fish too according to you, therefore fish have fur which according to your own definition falsifies evolution.
Since evolution believes that fish turned into bears eventually I don't understand how that falsified evolution. I would think a fish with fur would prove evolution since that's what you believe happened over a very long period of time. Yet you have no real evidence that it actually occurred.
The problem for evolutionists is they believe we all came from.a common ancestor. All of us. We might have eight legs or two, fur or scales, hands or fins, or we may be able to speak, write and have hopes and dreams or not. So at some point that fish grew a leg.
We can test for convergent evolution. That's to say, if convergent evolution has occurred, then the convergent structures, habits or other phenomenon will have come to the 'sameness' via independent means. This we can check with genetics and molecular biology.by the way: in a real case of fish with a fur they can claim for convergent evolution as "solution". so even this case will not falsify evolution at all.
cars and airplanes don't reproduce, so you're wrong as always.according to this: since both cars and airplanes shared wheels- therefore they share a common descent.
Why would a design model look exactly like evolution and shared ancestry? That would actually take an immense amount of manipulation at the molecular level to mirror exactly what inherited traits would look like if it had evolved by natural processes. That and there's no evidence of any 'designer' manipulating everything everywhere. Feel free to point one out if we've missed it... (I won't hold my breath)you are actually right. in this link of "pitabread" they only checked for conserved motifs to conclude were the locations of the important regions in the genome. we can do that under the design model too. we only need to check the variations among shared genes between several species to know that. without using any common descent belief. actually, even if evolution is false i can do that. more then that: some genes are very conserve among different species but not in human. so even by this method we cant always know were are the important regions.
That's to say, if convergent evolution has occurred, then the convergent structures, habits or other phenomenon will have come to the 'sameness' via independent means. This we can check with genetics and molecular biology.
cars and airplanes don't reproduce, so you're wrong as always.
Why would a design model look exactly like evolution and shared ancestry?
Why would a design model look exactly like evolution and shared ancestry?
I'm still waiting for an example of what makes "common design" distinct from evolution and how it's supposed to offer superior explanatory power and application. :/
you are actually right. in this link of "pitabread" they only checked for conserved motifs to conclude were the locations of the important regions in the genome. we can do that under the design model too. we only need to check the variations among shared genes between several species to know that. without using any common descent belief. actually, even if evolution is false i can do that. more then that: some genes are very conserve among different species but not in human. so even by this method we cant always know were are the important regions.
since the best explanation for the existance of something like a watch\robot (self replicating or not) is the design option, the design is the best explanation so far.
Show me a fossilised fish with fur, then we can talk.no you cant. since most fossils dont have DNA. so a fish with a fur will be explain by convergent evolution.
Even if cars and planes did reproduce in some fantasy scenario in your head, it does nothing to disprove evolution here in reality.so what? even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution. so you are wrong.
Great! Challenge Accepted! Show me a phylogenetic tree of cars/planes and I'll show you why your analogy doesn't work - we'll sort this rubbish out once and for all.this is the point: it doesnt look like a common descent at all. phylogenetic tree is basically a tree of similarity\difference among creatures. we can make the same with vehicles. but it doesnt prove any evolution.
except all the evidence demonstrating evolution to be the cause - that and no evidence of a designer, let alone that one did anything...since the best explanation for the existance of something like a watch\robot (self replicating or not) is the design option, the design is the best explanation so far.
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?