newhope101
Active Member
This thread is not about abiogenesis and how your single cell or kinds appeared. This thread has not requested a hypothesis other than to speak to the creation. In other words evolved yet has requested evidence for the hypothesis God created life as opposed to life evolved. If you are too stupid to pick that up, that is your responsibility.
I have illustrated that although toe purports ancestry of the Cambrian to Precambrian life and any evidence apart from that, is theorised. Some of this life is still here with us today. What evidence you have suggests an explosion of life in a relatively short period of time in the Cambrian and many other kinds that resemble todays kinds appearing in the Mesozoic.
I have given sufficient information to demonstrate the remarkable difference in the male human and chimp chromosome. If you were uninformed, then you have had the opportunity to get yourself informed. Your theoretical assumption is that the Y chromosome should be similar in related species. They are not. You may have theories as to why they are not, however they are far more divergent than was expected. Further to that genomic comparisons can be made in a variety of ways. One holistic method that looks at more of the simialities as well as differences notes a 30% difference in similarity between the chimp and human.
　
Your genomics indicate that each and every living thing on the planet today has a common ancestor. It appears you can illustrate that humans are not descendant from todays species of chimps. There are also flat faced monkeys that may have adapted and changed in size. The common ancestor of chimps and humans is theorised, with many varying models and changes in evidence that speak to human ancestry. You are now pushing forward in the fields of gene expression, epigenetic and RNA regulation. A New Genetic by John Mattick has some insight into this field. Many of you really need to look into recent research as you have no idea, as is illustrated by some replies.
The solid evidence you have that shows human ancestry sounded convincing until such finds were made like Lluc, Anoiapithecus 12myo, a primate with facial morphology similar to Homo. Mistakes such as Lucy, with gorilla features being initially disregarded, then reinstated and disregarded once again when Ardi came to light is testimony to your fossil specimens not being reliable evidence.
Basically, this is the way it is. Much of your evidence is supportive of creation. Support for creation or evolution does not amount to proven fact. Whether or not you accept your theoretical assumption that are put forward to explain the evidence is your choice. Im fairly bored with a couple of regular repliers here that appear to have no life other than to clog up threads with desperate side winding and irrelevant requests.
The request was not for evidence that evos like or accept. If that is the point to the thread then it borders on baiting and is a delusional request. Even a Precambrian human would not be accepted as evidence for creation.. Whether or not you like or accept another hypothesis of the facts is also unfortunately irrelevant.
The thread requests evidence for creation I have supplied some. Whether or not you are able to refute it with theoretical assumptions is irrelevant. Your acceptance is, most definitely, not required.
I have illustrated that although toe purports ancestry of the Cambrian to Precambrian life and any evidence apart from that, is theorised. Some of this life is still here with us today. What evidence you have suggests an explosion of life in a relatively short period of time in the Cambrian and many other kinds that resemble todays kinds appearing in the Mesozoic.
I have given sufficient information to demonstrate the remarkable difference in the male human and chimp chromosome. If you were uninformed, then you have had the opportunity to get yourself informed. Your theoretical assumption is that the Y chromosome should be similar in related species. They are not. You may have theories as to why they are not, however they are far more divergent than was expected. Further to that genomic comparisons can be made in a variety of ways. One holistic method that looks at more of the simialities as well as differences notes a 30% difference in similarity between the chimp and human.
　
Your genomics indicate that each and every living thing on the planet today has a common ancestor. It appears you can illustrate that humans are not descendant from todays species of chimps. There are also flat faced monkeys that may have adapted and changed in size. The common ancestor of chimps and humans is theorised, with many varying models and changes in evidence that speak to human ancestry. You are now pushing forward in the fields of gene expression, epigenetic and RNA regulation. A New Genetic by John Mattick has some insight into this field. Many of you really need to look into recent research as you have no idea, as is illustrated by some replies.
The solid evidence you have that shows human ancestry sounded convincing until such finds were made like Lluc, Anoiapithecus 12myo, a primate with facial morphology similar to Homo. Mistakes such as Lucy, with gorilla features being initially disregarded, then reinstated and disregarded once again when Ardi came to light is testimony to your fossil specimens not being reliable evidence.
Basically, this is the way it is. Much of your evidence is supportive of creation. Support for creation or evolution does not amount to proven fact. Whether or not you accept your theoretical assumption that are put forward to explain the evidence is your choice. Im fairly bored with a couple of regular repliers here that appear to have no life other than to clog up threads with desperate side winding and irrelevant requests.
The request was not for evidence that evos like or accept. If that is the point to the thread then it borders on baiting and is a delusional request. Even a Precambrian human would not be accepted as evidence for creation.. Whether or not you like or accept another hypothesis of the facts is also unfortunately irrelevant.
The thread requests evidence for creation I have supplied some. Whether or not you are able to refute it with theoretical assumptions is irrelevant. Your acceptance is, most definitely, not required.
