100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > howzityoume
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The reason i told Howzit he was full of crapm cause he left out alot in his post.he didn't say that neanderthals and humans walked together and mated.He didn't mention that hominids are fossils that show the evolution of neanderthals.He keeps pumping his DNA theory thinking it leads to his proof.Problem is he seems to not realize that humans came from neanderthals which we have very similar DNA with.Theres also is the possibility that other Neanderthal like people walked the earth cause of how by race our bone structures are different. People who study skeletal remains can identify a race by distinct differences in their bone structures.Why would God do that?He just used vague DNA crap to make his claim.There is alot more to evolution then just DNA. Now with that typed i'm going to play Diablo 3. Of course Neanderthals and humans mated, that is because Neanderthals are human, and therefore could mate with other humans. Take Australia, if Aborigines continue to breed with other humans, and eventually you find that the independent Aboriginal race has disappeared due to reducing numbers and interbreeding, you would end up in a few hundred years with the same situation as the Neanderthals. This just proves that races sometimes die off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
It's just sad to see science that was once labeled evil by christians is now being used to try and prove their myth is an existing myth. It's even sadder to see that you do not welcome religion's embrace of science which is the very lack that Christians are normally criticised for. Your approach surprises me, it's like your atheistic belief systems are threatened when Christians delve into science and therefore all you can resort to is needless insults. It's an enlightening approach, enlightening to me that is. I have placed the two theories on nearly equal footing empirically, I have never said no other option. I said I personally feel the evidence favours creation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
It's just sad to see science that was once labeled evil by christians is now being used to try and prove their myth is an existing myth. It's even sadder to see that you do not welcome religion's embrace of science which is the very lack that Christians are normally criticised for. Your approach surprises me, it's like your atheistic belief systems are threatened when Christians delve into science and therefore all you can resort to is needless insults. It's an enlightening approach, enlightening to me that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Here are some similar messiah stories that predate Jesus if you think the stories are false about them just check out each one then you'll see that the small paragraphs matches the whole story.Of course you'll claim it false even though they were stories about Jesus like figures just like Jesus was a story. Logically, if the flood story is true, most nations on earth would have some remembrance of it, and there would be myths and stories about it. Most nations do claim to be descended from a certain son of the man on the boat that survived the great flood. Yes the bible came afterwards, so you do make a logical point, nevertheless the worldwide flood myths strengthen the possibility of the truth of the flood story, not weaken it. My bad, I thought you were talking about flood stories, now I see you were referring to Messiah stories. Anyway it is interesting that the biblical flood comes up in ancient tradition across many cultures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/23/12 11:41 PM
|
|
Spider i posted to show the similarities i didn't post it to say it was about Jesus,your defending Jesus like you met him for coffee or read a book he ACTUALLY wrote.Dam Spider relax it's just hocus pocus religious crap.You seem to forget your religion isn't the only one that exist. I'm butting in here because of your rude comment about my religion being hocus pocus religious crap. There's two theories here: 1) a supreme being just always exists 2) Matter continuously spontaneously creates itself, and life also spontaneously creates itself. Both are miraculous and statistically illogical, because where did the supreme being come from? But then how did matter and life form? Whatever you believe is hocus pocus , supernatural, unbelievable, but the fact is that matter exists and life exists, therefore a miracle has occurred that is statistically impossible. The fact that miracles do occur in our lives, that the bible does prophesy the future, that many humans on earth have had some close encounter with the spiritual world starts to push the logic of miraculous beginnings in the favour of a creator. Call it "religious crap", its more logical than "atheistic miracles" which you believe in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Here are some similar messiah stories that predate Jesus if you think the stories are false about them just check out each one then you'll see that the small paragraphs matches the whole story.Of course you'll claim it false even though they were stories about Jesus like figures just like Jesus was a story. Logically, if the flood story is true, most nations on earth would have some remembrance of it, and there would be myths and stories about it. Most nations do claim to be descended from a certain son of the man on the boat that survived the great flood. Yes the bible came afterwards, so you do make a logical point, nevertheless the worldwide flood myths strengthen the possibility of the truth of the flood story, not weaken it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Howzit it's fine people of different faiths are in science..I'm bored thats why i'm on here,just killing time. LOL, well I enjoy a challenging debate, hope it all stirred your interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Howzit all you're doing is taken what science has discovered and placing it in your bible when your not even putting dates on it.Your just takin events and typing "See 'this is","could be" what happened in the bible" when theres no accurate dates to make the claims they both coincide.So how can anyone talk science if your just gonna keep on comparing actual events with biblical events. I'd also like to add i have read some of the creationist sites and just about everyone of them give different dates on when the biblical characters existed. Scientists do the research and they find the data. The data is then interpreted to come to a conclusion. howzityoume disagrees with their conclusions, not their data. I am the same way. How is that not acceptable to you? Isn't that what scientists do with new hypothesis? The only difference is that howzityoume and I don't immediately exclude the possibility that God exists from the discussion. In the end, we are more scientists than any so-called scientist who excludes conclusions because it's now fashionable to declare those who reject the existence of God to be more intelligent and those who accept it. Well said! Let the data speak for itself, without interpeting it through preconceptions. This is the more scientific approach. God is one possibility, and the biogenesis argument as well as the observation of complex DNA without the evidence to get there points to "sudden inexplicable appearance" of firstly life, and secondly advanced genetic life. The fact that the evidence currently favours sudden appearance rather than spontaneous or gradual appearance of advanced life would make the theory of creation a empirically competitive theory to evolution. (I personally believe its empirically stronger) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support? 
I wish there was something scientific in what you said so that we could discuss it. I wonder if these boards are even moderated, I didn't think insults to someones religion count as fruitful discussion. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to add i have read some of the creationist sites and just about everyone of them give different dates on when the biblical characters existed. Naah, its not ALL I'm doing. I've studied the geologic layers and discovered they fit the bible very well. If the only problem you can see with my placing the flood at the P-T boundary is the date problem, then I would say we are starting to see a lot of biblical consensus between the geologic sequence and the bible. Both have a bountiful period (carboniferous) followed by a worldwide extinction, followed by a dry silted up world of difficult conditions. Unlike other creationists I respect science and enjoy delving into the truths exposed by science. I just do not feel that evolution is the most logical projection of the data available. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus). Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support?
I wish there was something scientific in what you said so that we could discuss it. I wonder if these boards are even moderated, I didn't think insults to someones religion count as fruitful discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The tchadensis is just another extinct ape. When hominid skulls are discovered people seem to forget the huge variety of hominids that already exist. Sure there are many extinct hominid species, some very humanoid in shape, this just proves that there was more variety in the past, something that creationists agree on. Its impossible to discover a skull and claim its modern human ancestry or a missing link, its just another species or even the same species as today. An extinct species proves nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/23/12 02:32 AM
|
|
Yeah it does sound good. You see, I admit that creation is just a theory from an empirical point of view. I do believe its true from a faith point of view, but I'm not using that as an empirical argument. I believe all organisms were created at the same time. I believe they took turns to proliferate, and the fossils of the rarer types are often not discovered because of their scarcity during periods that other types proliferated. I believe micro-evolution and mutation explain differences within species and across some species, yet cannot explain the creation of increased genetic complexity. Regarding genetics, I believe the observance of chromosomal patterns retaining a certain genetic length or reducing in size, yet never increasing in the number of beneficial genes is an observance that favours creation over evolution as an empirically supported theory. I believe that observing the fossil record for clues regarding evolution, puts both theories on an even footing. Because the lack of rarer types during phases of proliferation is just as easy to explain as the evolutionary explanation for the lack of observance of transitionary fossils. Both theories say you do not find fossils of rare types, that is why they are not discovered. If something cannot be falsified, surely this would prove the possiblity still exists, not invalidity? What you are saying makes no sense. If the theory cannot prove to be invalid, it therefore remains a possibility. The evidence exists in the limits to advantageous genes that exist in every organism, the fact that you cannot increase the number of active, useful genes naturally, and yet complex life exists, suggests that complex life just appeared. I am not saying its proven, just that creation is another valid explanation, no worse than evolution from an empirical point of view. My problem is that a lot of the scientific community has already accepted evolution as having more empirical evidence, when in fact it does not have more supporting evidence than creation. The evidence exists also in the increasing amount of "living fossils", organisms that exist today that are found fossilised in the early layers. As each one is discovered, the logic that most modern animals were all already there during the Carboniferous becomes more obvious. Sure, you do not find bunnies in the carboniferous. But the Carboniferous is a geolgic term for the wetlands fossils that are found widespread throughout earth in the deeper layers. Wetlands fossilise easily, and bunnies do not live in the wetlands. Even today you do not find dead bunnies in swamps, there is no reason EVER to expect to find grasslands and forest mammals in the layers regarded by geologists as Carboniferous. Even the expectation is illogical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. Well the more science progresses, the more the scientific evidence points towards bible type events. You seem to confirm all mankind dying out and only a small group (1000) left. All humans coming from that group. This is very similar to the Noah story. By the way, do you realise that scientific evidence itself points to a marine flooding (transgression) during the Permian-Triassic extinction. This was caused by the Siberian traps (Russian Volcanoes) causing global temperature rises and hence melting of the huge ice caps and melting of the extensive glaciation of the late Permian. Volcanic activity causes huge amounts of acid rainfall, and that period was the most volcanic of earth's history. Not only the coastal wetlands, but also the widespread low-lying huge flood-plains of the Permian show signs of rapid sedimentation during the Permian-Triassic boundary. This is also known as the planet's most extensive extinction event. What I am saying is that during the boundary between the Permian and Triassic, there were huge extinctions and also massive flooding in the floodplains and also the coastal wetlands, both caused by Siberian volcanic activity. This is science itself confirming massive death and massive worldwide flooding. No-one has bothered to piece together the evidence, but its all there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. so we all came from "adam and eve?" science has already proved that false. neither science nor the bible has all the answers we are looking for, but i will put my "faith" in science before anything else. we might have already had a lot of these answers if the religions in the past did declare science a devils tool. science was held back for 1000's of years because of the churches being scared that science would prove them wrong. By what evidence has Adam and Eve been proved incorrect? On the contrary Ihave a quote from the National Geographic that specifically states that all men have a common ancestor. I love science, it generally reveals truth over time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
There are no evolutionists in this thread. That is your first mistake. In this thread are people who accept evolution as being an accurate theory that explains the evidence better than any other theory to date. In my opinion you can play this game of questioning every detail of the massive undertaking that is the modern theory of evolution (especially on a dating site with no evolutionary biologists) until your old and grey and still have details left to nit pick over. However that is for the professionals to do, not us laymen. I know you get your rocks off asking questions about genetics and seeing laymen stumble to answer or refute you, but that is really not the same thing as calling into question the theory of evolution. I tell you what, you tell me your theory for how modern life has come to exist, and we will look at the evidence and talk about that. Sound good? Yeah it does sound good. You see, I admit that creation is just a theory from an empirical point of view. I do believe its true from a faith point of view, but I'm not using that as an empirical argument. I believe all organisms were created at the same time. I believe they took turns to proliferate, and the fossils of the rarer types are often not discovered because of their scarcity during periods that other types proliferated. I believe micro-evolution and mutation explain differences within species and across some species, yet cannot explain the creation of increased genetic complexity. Regarding genetics, I believe the observance of chromosomal patterns retaining a certain genetic length or reducing in size, yet never increasing in the number of beneficial genes is an observance that favours creation over evolution as an empirically supported theory. I believe that observing the fossil record for clues regarding evolution, puts both theories on an even footing. Because the lack of rarer types during phases of proliferation is just as easy to explain as the evolutionary explanation for the lack of observance of transitionary fossils. Both theories say you do not find fossils of rare types, that is why they are not discovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Geology is not a science based on evolutionary biology.
True! Evolutionary biology is a science based on geological observations. Your post makes false statements about geology based on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists don't set the dates and processes of strata, geologists do and have no bias toward biology. Those that support the theory of evolutionist do generally interpret the geological layers according to a progression over time. Their interpretations are based on evolutionary assumptions that are not necessarily the most logical projection of the available data. Your statement is 100% false. What is your source? Geological dating is done by material analysis and cross referencing. Biology has absolutely nothing to do with it but is used as a general reference in "ages" or "periods". There are a few instances where biology can "confirm" a dating of strata, but those cases are few and very special. How dating is actually done. Circularity? The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like: "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils." Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation). When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences. If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong." If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma. If the new data have a large inconsistency (by "large" I mean orders of magnitude), it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested. An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history. Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history (e.g., that the Earth is billions of years old) will change. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods (not only radiometric dating), and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly. So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts (e.g., the classic "moon dust", "decay of the Earth's magnetic field" and "salt in the oceans" claims). I've got no problems with geologists, it's the interpretation of the geologic timescale by evolutionists that is not necessarily correct. ie geologists find earlier trilobites below later Carboniferous plants. Evolutionists often then interpret this to mean Carboniferous plants did not exist at the same time as those early trilobite layers, and plant life evolved. The fossil record is not saying this, geologists just record the layers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
I think its essential to begin a serious conversation with a precise definition of 'the theory of evolution' - I haven't done so in this thread because I'm trying not to get involved in the massive time-suck that conversations like this can become.) I am arguing against evolution as the theory behind the appearance of modern life-forms. I agree that evolution exists, I do not agree that it caused the observation of millions of genetically complex organisms. I do not think we need a definition to know what I am getting at here. These conversations are time-suckers, agreed. I just feel that if someone wishes to start a thread and post in a thread like this, then they should be prepared to defend their views. Something that I feel has not been done by evolutionists in this thread. Many organisms have currently observable highly complex DNA strands. For evolution to be the favored theory on where these DNA strands come from, evolution has to have some sort of evidence for the ability for nature to create additional functional genes. Empirically this evidence is lacking, this is my whole point. Others can distract as much as they like, they can quote irrelevant Wikipedia articles, my point stands as it did from the beginning. Even if they do find it, does evolution then become the MOST FAVORED theory? No, not even then, because you need more than one instance to prove that evolution caused the appearance of modern life-forms. One instance just means that evolution could have influenced one life-form once by adding functional genes, more evidence is needed. But for now, even ONE instance is lacking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Tue 05/22/12 01:36 AM
|
|
The turtle is a closer relative of crocodiles and birds than of lizards and snakes, according to researchers who claim to have solved an age-old riddle in animal evolution. The ancestry of the turtle, which evolved between 200 and 300 million years ago, has caused much scientific squabbling -- its physiology suggesting a different branch of the family tree than its genes do. "The evolutionary origin of turtles has confounded the understanding of vertebrate evolution," the scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. Until the latest study, that is -- which claims to have been the biggest of its kind. "Our study conclusively shows that the genetic story is that turtles are more closely related to birds and crocodilians," research team member Nicholas Crawford from Boston University told AFP. Anatomy and fossil studies of turtles and their reptilian relatives generally place the shelled creatures in the family of lepidosaurs -- snakes, lizards and tuataras (rare lizard-like animals). Genetic studies, however, say they have more in common with crocodiles and birds -- which fall into the archosaur group of animals that also included the extinct land-bound dinosaurs. The latter finding has now been confirmed by the most exhaustive genetic study on the topic ever done, said Crawford -- having gathered "ten times as much" information as previous research efforts. The team compared the DNA of the corn snake, the African helmeted turtle, the painted turtle, the American alligator, the saltwater crocodile, the tuatara, the chicken, the zebra finch and the Carolina anole lizard. Crawford said the historic confusion partly arose because turtles shared key physical characteristics with lizards, snakes and tuataras -- including a three-chambered heart. They had little in common with crocs and serpents. Lepidosaurs and archosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. i think that most people know that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and are closely related... this seems to prove it more... LOL because an engineer creates two engines similar in design, this means they both evolved from the same ancestor - hahaha Ever thought that the genetic engineer (God) could have used a similar design, and that is why there are similarities? Nature does not add functional genes to creatures succesfully, so if nature does not do that, then how could creatures have increasing gene lengths over time, and all evolve from a genetically less complex creature? Let's stick to the facts. The nonsense we see on National Geographic about this creature and that creature having common ancestors, can even be found on Wikipedia. With NO empirical basis at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Tue 05/22/12 01:11 AM
|
|
I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses.
And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves. But you know, I have to take some umbrage at the whole thing really. Here we are defending advanced genetics, taxonomy, geology, and biology in a forum with maybe 12 people who follow the science forum, where over half are pretty much scientifically illiterate, and the other half specialize in fields which rarely if ever touch on the periphery of this subject matter. For such people as myself, metal, massage to defend this subject matter takes a lot of remedial reading on a subject while really cool, is not our bread and butter. This explains our frustration, and it explains the quick one off comments. Then we have a person who does not understand science trying to poke holes in what is probably the most well founded theory in science. I have a challenge for howzityoume, go join the forums over at the JREF, where hundreds of scientists, some of which have lots of time on their hands to walk you through your misunderstandings will be more than happy to help you along the path to understanding. http://forums.randi.org/ Expecting us few who are not biologists to explore every detail is not really fair, but expecting hundreds of individuals, some of which really are evolutionary biologists to respond is a little more effective. Go a head and create a thread just like this one in the science forum over at the JREF. Feel free to link back here, I am sure some of us would enjoy to tag along. The only reason I joined this particular discussion is because I noticed that the opening posts and the following posts were generally one-sided in support of evolution with only a few exceptions, and I thought it would be appropraite to give other viewpoints. I did not start this thread, I merely joined in and feel it was appropriate to do so. If you think I need a higher level of opposition, then I take that as an unintended compliment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Sun 05/13/12 12:11 PM
|
|
Geology is not a science based on evolutionary biology.
True! Evolutionary biology is a science based on geological observations. Your post makes false statements about geology based on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists don't set the dates and processes of strata, geologists do and have no bias toward biology. Those that support the theory of evolutionist do generally interpret the geological layers according to a progression over time. Their interpretations are based on evolutionary assumptions that are not necessarily the most logical projection of the available data. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
