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 my....
In order for the theory of common descent to 'work' in the case of two so closely related species, the theory would have to explain why one of these species (chimpanzees) has one more chromosome than the other.
Nope, not even close.but the creation model explain it too by a fusion event in the human lineage. so this isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp.
no. because we have evidences for heliocentrism. but we dont have evidence for evolution.
not realy. we already know that the majority of mutations are neutral. therefore the creation model also predict those changes. so again: where is exactly the evidence for common descent here?
That wasn't the question in the OP. The question was, is there anything the poster could say to prove the friend wrong. The answer is, no.Why do you think no one here has addressed the OP?
Both, as has been repeatedly pointed out.Is evolution fact or theory?
If you answered what? If you answered my question, rather than dodging it as you just did, you would start engaging with the reasons that scientists accept evolution rather than playing word games.If I answered that, would it answer that question point blank or is it just a distraction that sounds wise to the unaware but in the end means little or nothing to subject?
How about the prediction I actually made, the one I keep pointing people to, and the one creationists, including you, keep ignoring. You know, the one we're talking about. Or at least the one I keep talking about and all the creationists keep not talking about.Depends on your prediction.
You're stringing words together, but they don't form a coherent argument. A definition is not an assumption. That we came from a common ancestor is neither an assumption nor a hypothesis. A prediction is neither an assumption nor a definition.The definition is an assumption. We believe we came from the ancestor. We define we came from the ancestor. We predict we came from the ancestors.
Um, okay. Suppose I believe that John is guilty of murdering Joe and I go and start looking for evidence. I find John's fingerprints on the knife still in Joe's body, and I find John's DNA under Joe's fingernails, and I find video of John entering the room where the murder occurred -- none of that is evidence that John killed Joe, because it's what I expected to find.And guess what we happen to find supposedly? Exactly what we expect. We assume and we find what we assumed we would find. And yet we still can't go back and find out if it's true.
Also, no auto mechanics, no football, no baseball, no military.So for the deist: no chemistry, physics, crystallography, geology, geophysics, astronomy, histology, toxicology and so on?
So what?not realy. we already know that the majority of mutations are neutral.
Huh? What creation model predicts that virtually all genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees should be the result of mutation? Be specific: What did the two genomes look like when the species were created? When did the creation happen? How many genetic differences were there originally? Were the two species identical originally or different? How many generations has it been since the creation? How many mutations would be required?therefore the creation model also predict those changes.
I see a bunch of lines, with no indication of what they mean. How can I tell whether they're orthologous or not?are you sure? take a look at this figure. do you agree that those 6 ervs are orthologous?:
So what?
Huh? What creation model predicts that virtually all genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees should be the result of mutation? Be specific: What did the two genomes look like when the species were created?
When did the creation happen? How many genetic differences were there originally? Were the two species identical originally or different? How many generations has it been since the creation? How many mutations would be required?
I see a bunch of lines, with no indication of what they mean. How can I tell whether they're orthologous or not?
It seems you forgot what the question was, or maybe you just want to dodge the gist of my comment.Quite obvious actually, just look at what Krishna has made...
Quite obvious actually, just look at what Nature's Pixies have made...
Quite obvious actually, just look at what visiting aliens have made...
See how easy it is to make empty claims when you provide zero evidence to support them...?
So how does whichever model you pick say that the great majority of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are the result of mutation? So far you haven't even specified a model. In other words, you've said nothing at all about creationism and the data.it's possible that both chimp and human created about several milion years ago or even more. it's also possible that the creation event occured about 5000-10000 years ago (we have several evidences for that too). but for the sake of the argument i will agree with the radiometric dating for now.
Yes, I know they're supposed to be ERVs. I want to know what the position of the lines means. Where's the sequence that's being compared? If they're not in the same positions, then they're not orthologous. If we can't tell whether they're in the same position, then we can't tell whether they're orthologous.those lines are specific kinds of ervs. they looks like in the same position but they arent. will you consider them as orthologous?
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?