DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
It's sad to see to what lengths you need to go, just to be able to believe these obviously false stories.
Upvote
0
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.
That's just it. I don't believe their were carnivores (during man's creative period) until sometime right before the flood, which where still able to eat grass also.
Genesis 1:30
"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
But just before the flood.
Genesis 6:12
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."
So we today see the end result of that corruption. Lions that eat only meat. So we assume incorrectly that at the time of Noah, that they could only eat meat.
Where do you think the variety comes from initially?
It's sad to see to what lengths you need to go, just to be able to believe these obviously false stories.
https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html
"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that, on the whole, meat-eating mammals aren't that common, Gunnell said — there are many more herbivores and omnivores on the planet and in the fossil record. In addition, Solé said, fossils from Europe, which appears to be an important stop for, and potentially the origin of, carnivore evolution and spread, are rarer than fossils from North America.
The geographical origin of the carnivoraforms remains mysterious,"
Part of the mystery would go away if they didn't ignore the truth.
https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html
"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that, on the whole, meat-eating mammals aren't that common, Gunnell said — there are many more herbivores and omnivores on the planet and in the fossil record. In addition, Solé said, fossils from Europe, which appears to be an important stop for, and potentially the origin of, carnivore evolution and spread, are rarer than fossils from North America.
The geographical origin of the carnivoraforms remains mysterious,"
Part of the mystery would go away if they didn't ignore the truth.
How does that offer any support for your outlandish claims?
"I don't believe their were carnivores (during man's creative period) until sometime right before the flood, which where still able to eat grass also."
So you read that fossils of carnivores are much less common than those of herbivores and omnivores and understood that to mean that no carnivores existed before "the flood"?
the chromosomal fusion isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp or gorila. its actually a fusion that happened in the human lineage:Genetic evidence of common descent with the primates is overwhelming, but perhaps none of this evidence is as compelling as the case of human chromosome 2, a fusion of two chimp chromosomes since renamed chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b in recognition of their common descent.
The seminal paper is Yunis and Prakash, 1982.
The fusion region can be identified from the banding achieved by dyes. From left to right, here are the shared regions for humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans for our human chromosome 2.
Analogous regions for the remaining chromosomes is available in Yunus, above. Further research, with better tools, has served to confirm and provide further details of the fusion region in chromosome 2.
Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
J W IJdo, A Baldini, D C Ward, S T Reeders, and R A Wells
Abstract
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres.
Telomeres are the end caps of chromosomes, as opposed to the centromeres at their centers. We know they represent a chromosome fusion because of the framing structure:
(telomere)-(active centromere)-(telomere)-(telomere)-(inactive centromere)-(telomere)
While die-hards may wish to argue for common design for the analogous DNA sequences on either side of the fusion region, no similar argument suggests itself for the inclusion of telomeres and pre-telomeres away from the chromosome ends, or the presence of an inactive centromere.
the chromosomal fusion isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp or gorila. its actually a fusion that happened in the human lineage:
View attachment 233115
That doesn't explain why, when split at the fusion site, we get an exact match with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing".
Do you also think the similar DNA between parents, children, siblings and cousins might as well be a coincidence?the chromosomal fusion isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp or gorila. its actually a fusion that happened in the human lineage:
View attachment 233115
What common ancestry? Ahhh, you mean those "common ancestors" that are one and all missing you use to link every separate form....."Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that"
Yes, I'ld expect that finding out historical events from millions of years ago, is kind of challenging.
Sounds like you are creationists nr-I-lost-count who has problems distinguishing between the process of evolution and the genetic fact of common ancestry on the one hand, and evolutionary history on the other.
This is just another of your ignorant assertions, and it's getting really boring. What it comes down to is that we have no way of demonstrating that a particular fossil is a common ancestor, so we don't make an unsupportable claim. You then twist this (honest) approach to (dishonestly) assert that it means there were no common ancestors.What common ancestry? Ahhh, you mean those "common ancestors" that are one and all missing you use to link every separate form.....
Just want to make sure that you understand that "carnivora" and carnivores are two different things.No, I meant exactly what was said, that the origin of carnivora remains mysterious.....
Where are the points of recreation? And what evidence is there for them?Ahhh, perhaps the problem is you confuse me with those that think there was just one creation.
What common ancestry? Ahhh, you mean those "common ancestors" that are one and all missing you use to link every separate form.....
No, I meant exactly what was said, that the origin of carnivora remains mysterious.....
Ahhh, perhaps the problem is you confuse me with those that think there was just one creation.
The tree is collapsing and dying....
View attachment 232915
Darwin’s tree scheme has now been replaced by many with a radiation scheme. This revised scheme (pictured) was published in the journal Nature by Nipam H. Patel entitled “Evolutionary biology: How to build a longer beak.” However, the revision has the same problems as Darwin’s tree – no original ancestor and no transitional links.
“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.
John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species.
Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”
What a crock.right. and we also have evidence for a designer. see my signature link for more information.
OK . . . so why are the insulin molecules different in different species, even though they all work across species barrier? As in, pig insulin can help a diabetic, but human insulin is better because it doesn't give an allergic reaction.common similarity explain it. by a common designer of course.
We're not going back. Evolution has been established. You either learn to accept it or remain out of touch with reality.Go back to post 3.
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?