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.
Sorry, last week is not an issue. By the way, it is 2018, do you believe in the Man they set that to...many weeks ago?
Try to accept that refusing to blindly embrace your fantasies is not denying last week.
This is basically gonna cause a little bit of controversy. People say things like "God made Evolution" "Evolution doesn't NEED god" "Evolution isn't real." Well, all of those are all kinda wrong except for the first one. God did make all the animals, but not in the way Evolution says. And it's one thing that Darwin states that prevents us from understanding how it works for both science and God. What is the one thing he missed...? It wasn't from ONE kind of cell that it was evolved.
Of course, others may or may not see where i am getting at. Let me explain. Darwin states that our ancestors evolved from one organism and it's children (kinda) changed and evolved.
But, that is the VERY flaw that Darwin got wrong. And to explain this before i say what i mean, let's go to Yellowstone. Over a decade ago, the native wolves were kinda eradicated from the area, and that's where it starts to crumble. The deer over populate, the grass and plantation decreases over time, and everything starts to crumble. It wasn't until the wolves are introduced to Yellowstone again that everything starts to come back into order. Now, back to Evolution.... in order for it all to be explained, there needs to be one thing. Balance. How do we get balance? If there were many different orgnisms made. Before i continue, i must say that our genes are like a book, made of different components. but they were put in perfect order by God, like a writer who made a book. Now then, God most likely made different organisms, and they reproduced to make their own family trees. Like cat trees, dog trees, ape trees, plants trees, and all other species of animal are part of their own individual tree... with the exception of Adam and Eve.
Anyways... that's what I believe evolution is. God's plan to make all animals by making their own biological codes and helps them grow, adapt, and evolve according, then he made humans after all the diverse animals were made.
Anyways, that's enough rambling.
Well, for example,cats and dogs( actually feliform Carnivora and caniform Carnivora) evolved out of the miacid tree so they share a distant common ancestry . Humans evolved out of Primates. In fact we’re classified as apes now. The old family name for the non human apes - Pongidae is now retired. The other apes are now classified as Hominidae with us. This was done in the late 90s due to the chimpanzee genome being sequenced . There had already been a groundswell of support for changing the classification to just one family for the apes and humans for decades before it happened but Scientists wanted more information before they did it. This change has been accepted by the international scientific community due to it being based on evidence. Creationists tend to pretend that this hasn’t happened.
Reptiles include birds, turtles, lizards, snakes and crocodiles. They're not a family, but an entire class. So, if you're looking for morphological similarity, you're out of luck.
I believe that God created the universe, I’m not an atheist. Science, however, has no way of determining how God did it . Mixing science with religion is a mistake as it opens the door to baseless claims and causes ideology to run science instead of verifiable evidence.
So the news that "nothing is random" kept me from swallowing that story about "random evolution" very early in my life.
. The clade Reptilomorpha which includes us or if you want to go further back in time to the Silurian , Clade Sarcopterygii . If you’re using the Linnaean system these all belong to chordatesSkin, heads, tails, lungs, brains, spines.......what system are you using? The "hard shell" classification system?
OK. But it's a made made classification system.. The clade Reptilomorpha which includes us or if you want to go further back in time to the Silurian , Clade Sarcopterygii. If you’re using the Linnaean system these are chordates
It may be true that nothing is random (although quantum events are thought to be random), but the 'random' used in the theory of evolution is, strictly, pseudo-random, meaning unpredictable. This can be due to the complexity of the situation (e.g. with billions of molecules & atoms bumping into each other, the path of any one is unpredictable - a Drunkard's Walk), or due to chaotic behaviour (sensitive dependency on initial conditions), e.g. the Butterfly Effect.For me is was a brilliant girl I dated in High School. She was headed for engineering, and her father was a forensics engineer who studied plane crashes for the Federal Government. They'd get plane pieces at their lab and would determine the properties and stress the metal had experienced. She taught me that nothing is random. I asked about the motion of a Tilt-a-Whirl carnival ride and she explained that with enough information about the properties of the friction and mass, that an entire carnival ride could be predicted. So the news that "nothing is random" kept me from swallowing that story about "random evolution" very early in my life.
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:No more than humans evolved from marshmallows.Humans evolved out of Primates.
And yet they often portray themselves as being not only scientifically literate, but to be more so than nearly anyone else.The only problem tas is that you’d probably have to translate that from scientese into grade school English . I mean I know what a catarrhine is but does the average creationist? they do tend to be even less scientifically literate than the average laymen.
You cannot support your fantasy state and religion then. No news there.I'm sorry, it sounds like you are under the impression that I am having a serious conversation with you. For the record: I'm not.
I really don't feel like I need to explain myself to someone whose beliefs are indistinguishable from Last Thursdayism. Nore can I take the statements of such a person seriously.
To me, you are just a joke.
I don't plan on defending anything to you in terms of arguments or evidence or what not, because it is an a priori exercise in futility.
Again, your beliefs are indistinguishable from Last Thursdayism. There is no reasoning possible with you. Reason and evidence, is the last thing that you care about.
Why would I take the time and effort to write you a serious post where serious evidence is discussed? It's not like it's going to stick or something…. It's not like you will understand the importance of it. It's not like you will respond seriously, honestly and with reason.
No. Instead, you'll just toss out your Last Thursday-ish beliefs, ignore all the evidence and then run away claiming victory.
It's literally like playing chess with a pidgeon.
The claim is that they evolved (i.e magically appeared) billions of years ago.Lol....
Nothing's being roasted, except your credibility (not that you had any to begin with).
Sounds like you still didn't google the word "eukaryote". I advice you do.
The past we know about, God told us about.. your imaginary darkly inspired fantasy godless past does not even measure up to last thursdayism. It is fables mixed with denial sprinkled with zealous religion and topped with ignorance.last week, last millenia,.... there's no difference.
It's denial of the past. It's Last Thursdayism (which is a concept, not an actual belief concerning last thursday)
When you build a house of cards on a same state past, you just may be questioned about if you actually know what nature it really was or not. At that point they will find out you don't. Ha.I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
The only replies I have ever gotten on this from creationists have been sad cop-outs asking if humans are related to mice, things like that. And now I am sure I will get the 100% evidence-free inanity that is "different states past."
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?