Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Ah! Semantics! I can still find the thread in which you argued that because a platypus is called a duckbill, the bill must be a duck's bill.
No, not semantics. When scientists name a species, they have scientific reasons for it. It is not semantics therefore to say they gave them the same generic name. I asked you to back up your post, give pictures, tell us what the heck this species is and you start to turn it into a personal thing. Seems you cannot back anything you say Vade. When called on anything you start with irrelevancies and diversions.
Nice verbal foot dance, but it does not sell. Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps. That is not the case therefore this is a proof against evolution.
Was even the "big, big" hint in my previous post wasted on you?
You should be an expert on evolutionary theory by now. Why would it be a dismaying, flabbergasting event to find evidence of mammary glands in dinosaurs?
I will tell you if you say, "OK, I give up."
But think about what it means for a 1-year anti-evolutionary veteran of these threads to admit he's clueless about how to apply the evolutionary model.
Duck-Billed PlatypusOrnithorhynchus anatinusAlso Called: Duck-mole |
|
Huh? If the ancestor of humans and chimps broke off from the other apes, developed the mutation, and then split to form humans and chimps, only humans and chimps would have the mutation, and not the other apes -- which was precisely what was posted to you. Either you didn't read the post all the way through or you did not understand what was being said. Either way you should have asked for clarification before posting the nonsense above.
Okay, you gave an explanation, let's see the proof of it. BTW does that mean that mammals descended from dinosaurs? Does that mean that evo paleontology has been proven wrong again?
Just give the proof, stop playing games. Every time I ask you to give proof of a statement you start with these silly evasions. Cough it up. Cough up the proof that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands.
The error is in assuming a solar system governed by newtonian mechanics and laws as is our present system (the ancient system was chiefly governed by electromagnetic forces) and in failing to recognize the kind of argument which Robert Bass put forward involving planetary orbit stability in making nonsensical claims.
The assumption that you are mentally ill arises from the personal attacks, calling people you don't know anything at all about liars and worse on a public forum etc. etc. I would still advise you to seek professional help.
gore3000: It is the evolutionists which create arbitrariness. Heck in one of the posts here they call changing the sex call of an organism the creation of a new species!
You seem to lose the thread of an argument rather quickly. Let me try staking down those flapping corners of your mind for you.
1) Creationists lump all demonstrated evolution as "microevolution," defining some "macroevolutionary" barrier which cannot be crossed.What is the barrier to prevent an accumulation of micro- changes becoming macro-, wherever you personally happen to place that dividing line?
2) "Macroevolution" is in fact an arbitrary distinction, defined all over the place depending upon to whom one is talking. Thus, it is like the legal age of majority, a legalistic categorization imposed by a beholder.
3) A categorization imposed by a beholder cannot function as a real-world barrier to change.
So you give up, right? Note that I did not say "proof." I said "provides a framework in which dinosaur mammaries are predicted out."
If you give up, say so. But think about it. This would be a good one to show that you can answer.
You have described how you think a mutation, once occurred, might spread in a population. Such an attempt, however poorly conceived, is a model. Yours is a poor one.
I asked you about recessive genes, which I don't see you allowing for.
Two black bears, which have--Tah dah!--black fur, mate. The resulting litter of cubs has one black-furred cub and one cub that is reddish "cinnamon" brown.
What happened there? I don't see your model allowing for it.
Are bears too far from home? Need a human example?
Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and his Tsarina, two non-hemophiliacs, begat Prince Alexei, a hemophiliac. Hemophilia is a hereditary disease. How did that happen?
No, neither Alexei nor the cinammon cub are new mutations.
That's like saying that humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are "all primates." Actually, there is much, much more difference (both structurally and genetically) between an ostrich and a sparrow, or between a shark and a trout, than there is between a human and a chimp.
Anticipating your objection, I fully concede that there is a vast spiritual difference between humans and chimps, but that distinction is not in the realm of evolutionary science. My faith tells me that God created man in God's image, and that he did so from "the dust of the earth." Evolution tells me where that "dust" came from, and how that dust became (physically) human.
These are honest questions, the kind of questions any new, controversial hypothesis is going to have to answer.
The first statement is correct. The second is wrong. It makes the unwarranted assumption that a prior ancestor of both chimps and humans is a prior ancestor to all apes.
I've never called anyone a liar without having facts to back up my assertion. For example, if someone says I have never addressed a point of contention, and I know I have addressed that point of contention, and I know the other guy knows this, the only conclusion I can draw is that the other fellow is lying through his teeth. As for mental illness, I certainly am a bit eccentric (my major goal in life is to be an eccentric old man), but nothing that would excuse my actions in a court of law.
Actually, BMCDA's post I linked back for you earlier did have some nice pictures of the salamanders in the California ring species example. You have failed to comment and are still demanding same as if it were not on the thread already.
As ususal, you're not covering yourself with glory here.
BTW, just a reminder. When someone publishes a study or a summary of several studies that shows something you don't want to accept, you don't discredit it by demanding the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West be brought to you. If you don't accept the conclusions of the study, it's up to you to get out there and find something that refutes it.
You're right. This assumption is not only unwarranted, but contradicted by the molecular data we have. Humans and chimps have viral introns in their DNA that no other primates share.
Human and Chimpanzee Functional DNA Shows They Are More Similar To Each Other Than Either Is To Other Apes. (Long PDF file.)
Humans and chimps are far more related to each other than either is to the orangutan. Humans and chimps are very close. When Humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are compared, one species stands out as far different from the others. That's the oranguatan.
Furthermore, why are the sensitivity curves of the "green" and "red" sensors practically congruent? That too isn't very intelligent IMO but that's just my opinion.
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.