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.
he claim nothing actually. the fusion happened in the human lineage, not apes (chimp still have 48 chromosomes). so how this suppose to be evidence for a common descent? i think that even prof miller doesnt believe in his own argument.After I finished watching that video (at x2 speed because that guy was a slow talker!) it recommended this video of Ken Miller:
The whole talk is great, but I'd be curious to hear your response to this segment.
b) Why don't we see genetic chimeras in nature? A designer wouldn't be limited by the bounds of reproduction and inheritance. They could conceivably mix 'n match DNA among different species, leading to living species that would in no way fit into a nested hierarchy based on genetic descent. Yet, we don't see such things in nature.
actually we do:
First of all, we are apes.he claim nothing actually. the fusion happened in the human lineage, not apes (chimp still have 48 chromosomes). so how this suppose to be evidence for a common descent? i think that even prof miller doesnt believe in his own argument.
Man's way is not right. It is never good and healing nor truth.You're not making any sense.
have you heard about the platypus?:I should clarify that when I am referring to genetic chimera, I'm looking specifically for examples where would not have natural mechanisms for gene swapping. Obviously in the case of horizontal gene transfer amongst single celled organisms that would be a known exception.
I'm looking for examples particularly in higher order Eukaryotes and where there is enough separation to prohibit hybridization and the like.
First of all, we are apes.
Secondly, it demonstrates the reliability of an evolutionary model. We found we had fewer chromosomes than our close relatives. But if we did share a recent common ancestor, our genetic information should be very similar. So the information must still be there for evolution to be reliable. And of course, there it is.
What does ID have to say about our striking similarity? Common design! But I see plenty of analogous statements about design and vehicle production here on the forums. So I can roll with that for a moment. If it was simply common design we should see a much bigger mish-mash of features to maximize efficiency, much like we see with the result of a single human designer. There should be no need to rely on inherited features. If there is a Designer, and there very well could be, He seems to either have His hands tied or is making a conscious effort to follow some kind of consistent biological restriction. I would contend that this restriction/method that a god seems to have used in this scenario should be called "Evolution."
have you heard about the platypus?.
Your answer is that there are a lot of variations in nature? I have to wonder if I am that poor of a communicator that this is would be a reasonable response. If so, I do apologize.there are so many variations in nature that i doesnt get what you means by "either have His hands tied". there are about 8 milion species on earth. so of them are so different from each other that you may not conclude even a common descent even if you believe in a common descent.
from the a rticle:How is the platypus an example of a genetic chimera?
Do you understand what I am asking for?
from the a rticle:
“The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that,” says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome. Another chromosome matches the mouse X, Graves and her colleagues report in Genome Research
Same request as pitabread.so what kind of example will falsified it?
maybe this one will be more clear:Keep reading:
"This is evidence that placental mammalian sex chromosomes and the sex-determining gene Sry — found on the Y chromosome — evolved after the monotremes diverged from mammals, much later than previously thought. "
Again, you still haven't demonstrated specifically why this would be considered a genetic chimera.
maybe this one will be more clear:
"The platypus shares with other mammals four genes associated with the zona pellucida, a gel-like coating that facilitates fertilization of the egg. But it also has two matches for ZPAX genes that had previously been found only in birds, amphibians and fish"-
so basically when we found the same genes from different groups in the same creature- we can claim for convergent evolution or a loss of genes between species.
The platypus branched off relatively early. So it's no wonder it shares traits found elsewhere in other critters. It also had the lovely advantage of being geologically isolated from the emergence of competition from placental mammals. No biologist is freaking out about the platypus.maybe this one will be more clear:
"The platypus shares with other mammals four genes associated with the zona pellucida, a gel-like coating that facilitates fertilization of the egg. But it also has two matches for ZPAX genes that had previously been found only in birds, amphibians and fish"-
so basically when we found the same genes from different groups in the same creature- we can claim for convergent evolution or a loss of genes between species.
It would be more of a surprise if you found, say, similar type of genes in the hominid lineage, but no other mammals. That would be truly weird.
why?
in this case we can claim for lgt or for convergent evolution even in the genetic level.or claim that other species apart from the homind one just evolved faster in those genes. anything is possible according to evolution. you see now why evolution predict nothing?
This type of thing would either suggest some sort of unknown genetic swapping mechanism or that the evolutionary relationships as we know them are in serious doubt.
They could have mixed 'n matched DNA freely with no regard for any sort of hierarchical constraint. Heck, they could have even inserted messages into each creature's DNA as a personal signature.
But they didn't do any of those things. Any way you slice it, life looks like it evolved.
It's this sort of thing that a creator could do. They could easily have cleaned up all the genomes of species getting rid of all the pesky genetic atavisms. They could have mixed 'n matched DNA freely with no regard for any sort of hierarchical constraint. Heck, they could have even inserted messages into each creature's DNA as a personal signature.
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?