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.
Juv sez..."Good, at least you realized what's left.
Now, give the same data an interpretation according to creationism. That is it. Everything fits perfefectly. QUOTE//////////////////
Hespera sez... Could you give us a quick definition of what you mean by evolution and by creation? Seems like everyone on the creationist side has a different definition for each of those terms.
Also... i think its kind of pointless to argue "my interpretation is better". I think the theologists like to talk like that, concerning the bible.
How about it you, as a scientist, self proclaimed or otherwise, wade in and defeat science on its own terms ? Science defeats its own theories all the time, using its own standards. so with truth reality and god on your side, you should be able to do this!
IF evoluiton is false it should be a cinch to bring up a bit of data to falsify it.
however.....
THAT is one thing you cant do, which i expect is why you try a different approach, one that just goes round and round on opinions.
if you want to argue like 'them scientists say this rock is old but i say its young", I guess i will just sort of watch from time to time and see how long that goes on.
Oooh, let me, let me!
Actually, I'll pick three.
Wikipedia if you don't understand anything.
The similarities and differences between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens, relative to where they originated. H. Neanderthalensis being native to colder climates, and also, physically better adapted to colder climates than H. Sapiens. At first glance, they'd apear human, but their DNA and skeletal anatomy are actually very different. (Our genome is actually a lot more similar to the chimp genome than H. Neanderthalensis.).
The fusion of two chimp chromosomes in our genome. Human chromosome #2, has telomeres in the middle. (Telomeres are like end caps for chromosomes, only found in the centre of chromosomes if those chromosomes are the result of a fusion of two other chromosomes.)
Atavism. Atavism is similar to when certain traits (Say blue eyes or a certain shaped nose) skip a generation. Say, someone may share common features with their grand parents, or great great grand parents, that were absent for the inbetween generations. Atavism takes this a step further, it turns on parts of an animal's genome that have been dormant for a very long time, resulting in things like chicken with teeth, humans with tails, snakes with legs, whales and dolphins with hind limbs. Of course, we only find atavisms for traits that an animal has had in its evolutionary history. You'll never find atavism say... giving a whale feathers, or an orangutan wings.
I'd be supprised if you can explain any of them from a creationist perspective.
Fine...love to.
The presence of retroviral insertions in both the genomes of humans and other primates. Their shared nature and identical locations are overwhelming evidence in support of the theory that posits that humans and the other primates shared a common ancestor.
Your creationist "interpretation"? That your god just 'magicked' them there to make scientists look silly...?
No I don't.This time, if you wish me to tell you something, you need to try harder.
Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.
Very loose definition:
Creationism: Everything is created by God.
Evolutionism: Everything is not created by God.
juv..."Very loose definition:
Creationism: Everything is created by God.
Evolutionism: Everything is not created by God.QUOTE//////////////////
hespera sez...
Ok.
Creationism exists only in the imagination of theists.
Evolution refers to how life developed on earth.
"isms" are intangible, and you are defining them in terms of physical objects. I find your definitions to be completely useless.
And you know nothing about biology but propose to debate evolution.
This topic is way over my head. But I will try. If you are tired of me, then please stop at any time.
What is the "shared nature" and the "identical locations"? (Please don't let me read articles, I won't. I want to hear from you.). The blue text is what I called the interpretation, and I ignore it.
OK, in layman's terms...
Within the genome of humans and of the other great apes there are the remnants of ancient viral infections. These viruses (retroviruses) are unusual in that they leave behind markers of their earlier presence. These markers are then passed down from generation to generation, as they have become part of the genetic makeup of the host.
Now, as you have probably been made aware, part of the explanation of the ToE and of common ancestry is that we (humans) share a common ancestor with the other primates. If this is indeed the case, then we should see a number of features in ours and the genomes of those other primates.
One of these predictions has been described by Alunyel - ie, that we should see a 'fusing' of two chromosomes from our earlier ancestor, in order to give us the 23 pairs that we possess - and we do see this - at chromosome #2.
The other thing we should see is that, if we have a common ancestor, the retroviral 'markers' should also be present in our ancestral 'cousins' - and they are!
And, not only are they in the IDENTICAL location in the genome as in ours, but the TYPES (oh yes, there's more than one!) of insertions that are shared, match EXACTLY the phylogeny (the 'tree of life' pattern) as suggested by ALL the other evidence supporting the ToE and shared`ancestry.
In short, many in the biological sciences assert that the evidence provided by these ERV's is ON ITS OWN overwhelming support for the theory....
Questions...?
juv sez...
This illustrates the power of wisdom given to creation scientist.
Do you (or someone else) want to try the same on geology?QUOTE////////////
hespera sesz...
You are a funny guy for sure. You were given the wisdom of an oxymoron?
Try the same as what on geology?
you want to debate geology?
Advice: take a logic course. So you can put the question together.
I challenge anyone to use geologic science to disprove creationism. (paleontology is excluded)
Let me repeat what I understand first:
The observation is: In human genome, we found a feature which can only derived from the change of ape(?) genome.
Then the conclusion goes: human and ape(?) must have a common ancestor.
To make it better, if you can, please plug in the exact animal name for the "ape(?)".
And also a very simple (?) question about the idea of common ancestor. If I had the correct understanding, would it be more correct to say that human is derived (evolved) from ape(?), rather than has a common ancestor with ape(?)?
Human/Chimpanzee chromosome comparison.
Why are you excluding paleontology? Paleontology is a subset of geological science.
No, it occured after the hominid/ape split.
....
Both are true. Humans are still apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes but did not evolve from them. Our ancestors were not modern chimpanzees but for all practical purposes they were apes.
Let me repeat what I understand first:
The observation is: In human genome, we found a feature which can only derived from the change of ape(?) genome.
.Then the conclusion goes: human and ape(?) must have a common ancestor
Is this precisely right? Please correct me, so I can go on with my argument.
To make it better, if you can, please plug in the exact animal name for the "ape(?)".
And also a very simple (?) question about the idea of common ancestor. If I had the correct understanding, would it be more correct to say that human is derived (evolved) from ape(?), rather than has a common ancestor with ape(?)?
Try "Hominidae," the family consisting of, among others, the great apes, hominids (us), chimpanzees, and orangutans,The ones we share the markers with? - chimps, gorillas, etc. The original ancestor? We don't have a name for it yet.
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?