The origin of life and evolution

[46AND2]

There is no doubting familial connections with every human alive.
I'm talking different kinds. How can you prove any two families of
fossils are related without DNA to check? There are many animals
that could fit within more than one family tree by morphology. Some
animals today look like unrelated animals.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2001-12/animals-look-alike-arent

Dolphins LOOK quite a bit like some sharks, yet are more closely related to us than they are to sharks, and morphological comparisons established that before DNA confirmed it. Morphology is more than just superficial similarities.

But I digress, you tacitly admit here, that we can check relatedness through DNA and guess what...we have "checked" the DNA of new world monkeys and humans, and find that we ARE related, just as we predicted through morphology. Indeed, we even found that we are related with the same PATTERN as we find morphologically. We are most closely related to chimps, a little less to gorillas, and less still to orangutans, and so on and so on.

 

[46AND2]

Here is a list of evolution breakers:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/time_travel/esp_ciencia_timetravel08c.htm
and more:
http://humansarefree.com/2011/04/amazing-evidence-human-specie-is.html

Pick one you would like to discuss in detail and I will start a new thread on it.

 

[pat34lee]

Most of the support for evolution in the United States comes from Christians. Many of the scientists who helped establish evolution early on were Christians (including priests and ministers).

Do you understand what evolution teaches in light of scripture?
Evolution makes God a liar, and makes Jesus, not only a liar, but
irrelevant.

https://realtruth.org/articles/101126-001-science.html
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/can-evolution-and-creation-go-together

 

[pat34lee]

But I digress, you tacitly admit here, that we can check relatedness through DNA and guess what...we have "checked" the DNA of new world monkeys and humans, and find that we ARE related, just as we predicted through morphology. Indeed, we even found that we are related with the same PATTERN as we find morphologically. We are most closely related to chimps, a little less to gorillas, and less still to orangutans, and so on and so on.

If you make a series of robots, which are likely to
have the most similar parts and programming?

Those with the same features and the same uses.
Common design ensures that, as long as you use
the most efficient designs and programming.

 

[46AND2]

If you make a series of robots, which are likely to
have the most similar parts and programming?

Those with the same features and the same uses.
Common design ensures that, as long as you use
the most efficient designs and programming.

So can we, or can we not determine, with DNA, if people are related?

 

[pat34lee]

Pick one you would like to discuss in detail and I will start a new thread on it.

The problem isn't one or two examples. These
OOPARTs have shown up from the beginning of
archeology and still show up today. Like missing
link fossils, some few may be fakes, but most are
dismissed and shunned without any consideration.

The Ica stones, for example.

 

[pat34lee]

So can we, or can we not determine, with DNA, if people are related?

To an extent. Remember that DNA is not just our history,
but our OS, as well as our blueprints.

 

[USincognito]

There is no doubting familial connections with every human alive.
I'm talking different kinds. How can you prove any two families of
fossils are related without DNA to check? There are many animals
that could fit within more than one family tree by morphology. Some
animals today look like unrelated animals.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2001-12/animals-look-alike-arent

Please provide us with:
1. A scientifically useful definition of "kinds" that has both explanatory and predictive power.
2. The mechanism that prevents common ancestry of said "kinds.

 

[USincognito]

The problem isn't one or two examples. These
OOPARTs have shown up from the beginning of
archeology and still show up today. Like missing
link fossils, some few may be fakes, but most are
dismissed and shunned without any consideration.

The Ica stones, for example.

No they don't. There have been very few OOPARTs found in the last 50 years. Most date from the 1800s and early 1900s and have poor to non-existent chains of custody.

The Ica stones are modern forgeries.

Man you Creationists will believe anything except actual science.

 

[46AND2]

The problem isn't one or two examples. These
OOPARTs have shown up from the beginning of
archeology and still show up today. Like missing
link fossils, some few may be fakes, but most are
dismissed and shunned without any consideration.

The Ica stones, for example.

Ica stones are ADMITTED hoaxes.

The problem is that it does no good to list a whole bunch of examples at once, knowing that it is just too big of a project for us to respond to. I'll discuss multiple ones with you, but ONE AT A TIME.

 

[46AND2]

To an extent. Remember that DNA is not just our history,
but our OS, as well as our blueprints.

Not really. DNA is a MOLECULE.

Explain what you mean by "to an extent."

 

[USincognito]

Do you understand what evolution teaches in light of scripture?
Evolution makes God a liar, and makes Jesus, not only a liar, but
irrelevant.

https://realtruth.org/articles/101126-001-science.html
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/can-evolution-and-creation-go-together

If only those Christian scientists had read some blog entries instead of doing actual science, then they'd have known better. Is that the message in your post?

 

[USincognito]

If you make a series of robots, which are likely to
have the most similar parts and programming?

Those with the same features and the same uses.
Common design ensures that, as long as you use
the most efficient designs and programming.

Common design is an ad hoc and unscientific proposition.

Further we don't see efficiency of design. Whales and snakes have the DNA package to make legs and humans have the bipedal body of a quadruped ape.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You seem to think I actually care how long it takes you to respond (or even IF you respond).

You act like you care way too much. Think what you like..all seems a pretty petty waist of time to me.

 

[46AND2]

You act like you care way too much. Think what you like..all seems a pretty petty waist of time to me.

Have no idea where you get this from, because nowhere did I push you for an answer.

 

[pat34lee]

Please provide us with:
1. A scientifically useful definition of "kinds" that has both explanatory and predictive power.
2. The mechanism that prevents common ancestry of said "kinds.

Kind - similar to species, but includes all offspring from a single ancestor, including those no
longer able to mate with the original (so-called ring species) or other offspring (chihuahua
and great dane), and those which are sterile, such as a mule.

Predictive power, without gene splicing, you will never have an offspring of a different kind
than the originals. You will only get variations such as dog breeds. Proven through ever test
of trying to force evolution through mutation and thousands of years of breeding animals and
plants.

2. DNA. You would not only need to change DNA to change kinds, you would have to change
every part of the cell that reads DNA to match.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

 

[pat34lee]

Common design is an ad hoc and unscientific proposition.

Further we don't see efficiency of design. Whales and snakes have the DNA package to make legs and humans have the bipedal body of a quadruped ape.

Humans and apes are nothing alike except the general shape.
Every part of the body is made differently.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanzees/genetics/chimpanzee-y-chromosome-2010.html

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Humans and apes are nothing alike except the general shape.
Every part of the body is made differently.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanzees/genetics/chimpanzee-y-chromosome-2010.html

Ummmm the link you are posting in no way supports your position. The guy you are linking fully accepts evolution and the demonstrable fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Are you attempting to dishonestly quote mine?

 

[bhsmte]

Ummmm the link you are posting in no way supports your position. The guy you are linking fully accepts evolution and the demonstrable fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Are you attempting to dishonestly quote mine?

Maybe, he hoped no one would read it?

 

[USincognito]

Humans and apes are nothing alike except the general shape.

Sorry, but no. Humans are apes. We have ape bodies and ape behaviors.
- Large, intelligent, tailless primate
- 2/1/2/3 dental formula
- sexually dimorphic
- social
- diurnal
- hands and feet instead of paws or hooves
- infants born helpless and remain in childhood for many years

There are no characteristics that apply to all apes that do not apply to humans other than being quadrupedal.

Every part of the body is made differently.

This sentence makes no sense and even less when paired with your link.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanzees/genetics/chimpanzee-y-chromosome-2010.html

Yeah, The human and chimpanzee male specific Y chromosome is as different genetically as the whole human genome is different from the whole chicken genome. That's not entirely surprising given that the male specific Y chromosome tends to have a higher rate of mutation. Not sure what this has to do with anything though.