Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And that tangerines are the offspring of oranges and orangutans through "kind variation".....:biglaugh:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Speciation
- Thread starter lunakilo
- Start date
And that tangerines are the offspring of oranges and orangutans through "kind variation".....:biglaugh:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Not to mention sticks and stick insects. I mean, if it looks like a stick, parsimony says it is, right?
newhope101
Active Member
Pretty much every "argument" you raised has been refuted. No matter how many times you display your weak arguments...they've been shown to be wrong or just completely misunderstood by you but for some reason you perceive your ignorance as a victory over established facts. We call that...being delusional.
No you most certainly haven't. You have shown nothing to refute that there is a miacis cat, a creodonta cat, an Indohyus deer etc. All you give back is opinion. Your making intermediates of creatures that are not intermediates at all is desperation at its' best.
But see what you're doing? Why do you begin a debate about a totally different hominid and have all the facts put in your face showing how wrong you are and then instead of admitting you're wrong you move on to something completely different? Lluc is not even a problem in the grand scheme of things. You're raising a pointless argument because you don't seem to understand what the article you link to is actually saying.
LLuc is made to be a non event by your silly researchers because the human branch hadn't started yet. The point being that flat faced primates have been around for over 12 million years at least. These fossils you lot uphold as the progression of ape to chimp are nothing more than apes that have flatter faces. You and your researchers have turned them into half breeds. They aren't. There is an alternative explanation. Just like the Florensienses debarkle of opposing opinions, your researchers are gropping in the dark for anything they can find to make headlines and a name for themselves.
Oh, I see.....so they're all dumb now...OK newhope......Maybe you and your researchers can actually put forth coherent charts as to where the species on the planet are supposed to be. Can you do it or are you going to keep griping about species vs "kinds".....because I've seen nothing, so far, that remotely challenges the current understanding of where species are supposed to be placed.
Then you haven't been listening to your own researchers. About the only thing they agree on is "It all evolved".
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
Humans closer to orangs
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution
Major sweeps in your modelling crap!
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Birds from dinos crap! Who do you side with DP?????? ..and why????
Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
Origin of life 10 billion years ago.
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist
Chaos theory
Just a few examples of researchers not seeing eye to eye. How surprising...NOT.
OMG if you think that your researchers all agree on anything more than 'it all evolved' you are sadly mistaken as well as ignorant by nature or choice.
Then maybe this isn't for you or just maybe...maybe...you need to get your education together...because this stuff is so easy to understand. I don't have any problem with it......
Maybe you need to do BIO101 eg Pandas. If you think this is simple you will be able to answer my questions below easily..........Let's see how you go.
Had to stop you as you were starting up your rant again. If Neanderthal and H. Sapien are both human as you assert even though their genomes differ by 202 base pairs then would that make them two separate "kinds" of humans?
Where did I say that? and it doesn't matter because quite frankly I do not think your researchers have any clue. Neanderthal being human or not does not affect the creation model anyway. Straining the point out of desperation are you?
How does H. Neanderthalus fit into the creation model?
It appears to be human. That's of course dependent on hwether or not your researchers have a clue what they are seeing in genes.
Were they Adam and Eve?
NO. More likely the human fossils dated to 400,00 years ago in Isreal are much more closer to Adam and Eve that your neanderthal, I'd say.
Where does H. Sapein fit into the creation model considering we know Neanderthal and H. Sapien are two hominids with separate morphological characteristics and both existed around the same time...?
Don't ask questions that your own researchers can't even agree on. It makes you look sillier. Out of Africa or multiregional, which do you place bets on?
If Neanderthal is human, as you admit, wouldn't this make Neanderthal a different species?
Another point your own researchers with all their grants and hours of work can't agree on. Why do you wish to strain a point that means nothing? Here is just one link. There is plenty debate from many researchers. People like you get around with blinkers on, totally ignorant and unable to comprehend the standing debates.
Neanderthal-human hybrid 'a myth' › News in Science (ABC Science)
This can't simply be chalked up to "kind variation" considering you deny H. Sapien and Chimpanzee relationship even though the genome supports ancestry there as well.
The genome shows whatever your researchers want it to show and is crap. Did you know that 80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genome are different? Unlikely! It is proteins, that are ultimately responsible for an organism's anatomical, physiological and behavioural characteristics.
Eighty percent of proteins are different between h... [Gene. 2005] - PubMed result
If Neanderthal, considering the genetic differences and similarities, make it a separate species of "human" then this refutes your definition of "kind".....Dear remember all races fit the definition of separate species. You lot have called them races so you do not look quite as stupid.
Ok so you don't want to talk about whales obviously. I guess I win. I can understand your not wanting to debate it given your intermediates resemble kinds alive today, or simply those that have gone extinct.
Let's talk humans.
I have answered your questions, now please answer mine!
If humans are 98% identical base for base pairs, how do you make sense of the fact that chimps have 10% more DNA than humans?
How do you make sense of chimps having more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans?
How do you make sense of the tips of chimps chromosomes contain DNA not present in the tips of the human chromosome?
There is obviously alot more to genomics that just nucleotide substitution.
Our DNA is 75% similar to a nematode. Are you suggesting that a nematode is 75% human? A study found side by side the comparson of genetic simialrity is 86.7% (Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC Class . National Academy of sciences)...That puts a chimp halfway between a nematode and human.: hamster :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164652/
Go...........
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., let's discuss whales. What is it you want to talk about concerning whales?
What do you think it suggests?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
1. Are you capable of discussing the issues without resorting to name-calling and insults?
2. What questions would you like answered?
btw, I am NOT a brainiac, NOT a biologist, and have only a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary biology, attained by reading books from the library. Just to set the record straight.
Of course we are poor defenders of the faith. We have no faith to defend.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think it suggests that even after the Trichoplax debacle, Newhope still doesn''t know a thing about genomic comparison.
Otherwise she wouldn't be peddling the same exact errors with different species.
The nematode in question C.elegans has a genome of about 100 million bp vs. the human with 3 billion bp.
And differences between humans and chimps are logical since chimps have been evolving as long as we have. That's like asking why your identical twin has different scars than you do. If you were twins wouldn't you be exactly the same?!
The 10% difference is only with the Y chromosome... human males are lacking in this regard. This has been explained many times... you even have pointed it out yourself... so I really wonder why you are dredging it up? Unless you want to bring up your flaws on that issue again?
wa:do
Otherwise she wouldn't be peddling the same exact errors with different species.
The nematode in question C.elegans has a genome of about 100 million bp vs. the human with 3 billion bp.
And differences between humans and chimps are logical since chimps have been evolving as long as we have. That's like asking why your identical twin has different scars than you do. If you were twins wouldn't you be exactly the same?!
The 10% difference is only with the Y chromosome... human males are lacking in this regard. This has been explained many times... you even have pointed it out yourself... so I really wonder why you are dredging it up? Unless you want to bring up your flaws on that issue again?
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
Well no takers to the questions I posed so far. The point - Many here are unable to defend this irrefuteable evidence of yours that hovers over the rubbish bin of delusions past - I win
I win the "You have no robust evidence for the ancestry of mankind to Ardi, either genomic or fossil".
I win the .....you have no evidence that suggests that the kinds and species around today were not represented in miacis eg the cat, bear, dog.
Yep you need to stay away from humans also. You have nothing in the way of evidence for ancestry from human to some ape Ardi and Lucy. Flat faces appear in apes 12mya, human skulls are varied eg Australian Aboriginal, some have slight ridges and it all means absolutely nothing to ancestry to the ape kind.
So Auto you want to talk about whales so please identify any mid species or intermediate or common ancestor that you suggest is a good example of whale ancestry and why. Then I'll show you that it is either a variety of the species and kinds that are here today or it is just a variation of a kind that has become extinct.
The majority of what you call evidence, I say, is not evidence at all. Like you, and your researchers, I do not need to be able to answer every question, to find justification for my views.
I'll kick off with Indohyus, the alleged ancestor of whales and whatever. Indohyus is not an intermediate form at all. It is a deer that appears to be very similar to the mouse deer, that is known to dive underwater to escape predators. Dogs are dogs with or without tails. Indohyus is a little deer.
Now you put up your evidence and name it.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
What features make Indohyus a "little deer"? Especially since Chevrotans (the proper name of the "mouse deer") isn't actually a deer.
How do you define what is and isn't a deer?
wa:do
How do you define what is and isn't a deer?
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
How about some evidence PW, rather than your opinion this time, for a change?
It doesn't really matter which research is right or wrong anyway. The overall point is.. it all sounds like woffle and desperation. That is the main point speaking to both genomics, and your fossils as evidence, for that matter.
Are you saying that 80% of proteins are different NOT in chimps and humans different or what? Please provide more than your opinion. I have provided research. Not that there isn't a refute..and a refute to the refute, all from within your own evolutionary research. That's the fun.You have minimised and misinterpreted many times before. Although it is all desperate rubbish it is fun to read the woffle and excuses and contradictions...so GO!
Minimisations and misrepresentations are not a serious attempt PW.
Painted wolf I am not the one confused, and I do not need a theory if everything. Suffice to say this little creature, Indohyus, is a little deer and there is not need for a convoluted explanation as to why it is not a deer. The only thing that would stop your researchers from saying Indohyus is a deer is because it would blow your TOE out the window.....
Then you have Pakicetus. Have you looked at the fossil
Pakicetus fossil
Cyote skull
The Pakicetus fossil is a dog, from the KIND - DOG, and nothing to do with whales, nothing to do with Indohyus, other than they make take a swim now and again. Any similarities at all is straw grasping as similarities abound in non related species eg hippo/pig , whale/human spindles, homoplasy etc etc etc
.JPG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrotain
Your researchers can classify and name then what they wish. They are deers but most of all not any mid species.
Go your hardest PW and Auto.. show me all your solid evidence for whale ancestry.
I say you have none.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, well I find it's more accurate to let the readers decide whether I "won."
I don't believe I've ever posted anything on the subject. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.
Actually you wanted to talk about whales.
Well unless you can define "variety" and "kind," you can do anything you like, it just doesn't have any meaning.
By "my researchers" I suppose you mean scientists?
You crack me up.
It's not my evidence, newhope, it's the evidence that Biologists have discovered and shared with us. I've never dug up a fossil in my life.
Well, if you can imagine that Indohyus is a deer, miacids are cats, and the Paluxy footprings are real, you can force yourself to believe anything, no matter how outlandish.
So, are whales a "kind?"
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm very confused, newhope. I thought a "kind" was a family. Am I wrong? Could you clarify again what you mean by "kind?"
thanks.
thanks.
Stop it!
This "Kind" nonsense is getting ridiculous. I don't know the specific meaning of the original Hebrew term, but you can bet it wasn't a scientific term nor intended in any kind of technical sense.
It was just a plain, ordinary word. You make too much of it.
This "Kind" nonsense is getting ridiculous. I don't know the specific meaning of the original Hebrew term, but you can bet it wasn't a scientific term nor intended in any kind of technical sense.
It was just a plain, ordinary word. You make too much of it.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
So the entirety of Newhopes argument is...
"Because I say so!"
And...
"Don't listen to PW because she is a doody-head."
Very classy and clearly thought out.
wa:do
"Because I say so!"
And...
"Don't listen to PW because she is a doody-head."
Very classy and clearly thought out.
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
McBell
Unbound
Really?
If true it is still much better than your "make it up as I go along and call those who do not fall for it names" approach.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And I quote:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya
wa:do
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya
wa:do