Skip to comments.
Earliest Animals Had Human-like Genes
Science Daily ^
| 2005-11-25
| Anon
Posted on 11/27/2005 7:11:52 AM PST by Pharmboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
21
posted on
11/27/2005 8:40:51 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
To: PatrickHenry
To: Enterprise
Here's a dog with human-like genes. LOL on the 'genes'. . .and for sure, the 'jeans'. . .
23
posted on
11/27/2005 8:47:59 AM PST
by
cricket
(No Freedom - No Peace)
To: gungafox
"The rate at which they evolve into other KINDS of animals is zero."We await your proof of that null hypothesis.
24
posted on
11/27/2005 8:48:26 AM PST
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: Fawn
This helps me understand a few people.Funny, how we cannot escape our own metaphors. . .
It certainly works for a lot of Liberals. . .
Even gives substance to their environs i.e. Democrat Underground. . .
25
posted on
11/27/2005 8:51:38 AM PST
by
cricket
(No Freedom - No Peace)
To: Pharmboy
Carrots have 70% of human genes therefore carrots evolved from carrots!
26
posted on
11/27/2005 8:52:32 AM PST
by
mountainlyons
(AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!)
To: Pharmboy
This overturns a commonly-held view of the nature of genes in the first animals. Actually, this supports CREATION and blows a huge hole in the lie of evolution.
27
posted on
11/27/2005 8:55:55 AM PST
by
aimhigh
To: Pharmboy
Another thing that this has shown us is that evolution is not always about gain; the loss of complexity can equally be an important player in evolution.Simplification happens.
To: aimhigh
Actually, this supports CREATION and blows a huge hole in the lie of evolution.
How does this falsify evolution and how does this support CREATION? Be specific.
29
posted on
11/27/2005 9:16:42 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: digger48
Good graphic; but by the above. . .perhaps the gradations are supposed to be, the other way around. . .
A variation on the the old. . .what comes around. . .goes around. . .
30
posted on
11/27/2005 9:17:02 AM PST
by
cricket
(No Freedom - No Peace)
To: Fintan
Thanks for nearly ruining my whole day!
Danged near puked coffee on the keyboard!
The LEAST you could do is post a WARNING a few posts BEFORE you put this filth online!
SHEESH!
31
posted on
11/27/2005 9:21:16 AM PST
by
Thumper1960
("There is no 'tolerance', there are only changing fashions in intolerance." - 'The Western Standard')
To: Fintan
Oh man!. I didn't think there was a worse one than the usual.
Yuuuccchhh.
32
posted on
11/27/2005 9:36:18 AM PST
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: digger48
Poor reconstruction. Homo leftia hippieus should be wearing Birkenstocks.
33
posted on
11/27/2005 9:36:37 AM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: gungafox
The rate at which they evolve into other KINDS of animals is zero.What's a "kind"?
34
posted on
11/27/2005 9:39:08 AM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis
The rate at which they evolve into other KINDS of animals is zero. What's a "kind"?
I prefer to use the word "KIND" which you see in the bible to avoid the confusion you get with the word "species".
Evolution believers are forever talking about examples of "speciation" which do not involve macroevolution or the production of a new KIND of any sort; you have to move up one or two taxonomic categories to get into the meat of macroevolution and what the controversy is really about.
You'd never know that listening to evolutionists however. Liars that they are, they talk about within-kind speciation as if that proves the theory of evolution somehow or other.
A new KIND of animal is one with new kinds of organs and a new general plan for life. The differences between cats and dogs or between wolves and goats is a difference in KINDS. The difference between finches with different kinds of beaks of pepper moths of different colors is not.
35
posted on
11/27/2005 10:08:39 AM PST
by
gungafox
To: Stultis
What's a "kind"? Someone please ping me when you get a straightforward answer from a creationist to this question (I don't expect an alert any time soon....)
An even simpler question no creationist has ever answered for me - are frogs and toads the same "kind", or two different "kinds"?
36
posted on
11/27/2005 10:09:26 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
To: Stultis
"What's a "kind"?"
To many bio-researchers on the social left, it means "child."
37
posted on
11/27/2005 10:10:05 AM PST
by
familyop
("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
To: gungafox
The differences between cats and dogs or between wolves and goats is a difference in KINDS. What about frogs and toads?
38
posted on
11/27/2005 10:14:52 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
To: Quark2005
How about frogs and salamanders?
To: Senator Bedfellow
How about frogs and salamanders? Absolutely. If frogs and toads have a common ancestor, this would mean "family" is a kind (though strangely, cats and dogs are different "kind", even though they are both members of the Carnivora family).
Frogs and toads definitely seem to be of the same "kind" as salamanders, too, especially when we keep finding fossils like this:
Is this a frog "kind" or salamander "kind"? I can't tell.
40
posted on
11/27/2005 10:35:08 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson