Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 23
31
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

Howdy,

Yes, absolutely. Holding all variables but one does not happen in nature, which is why it is very difficult to determine what is causative and what is correlative from a study of nature. Luckily, some humans figured out that you can isolate variables to test what their effect on something is, thus creating scientific experimental design. This isn't mimicking intelligent design, it is mimicking a small system in nature and later adding more data from similar experiments to create a working model of nature.

Alcohol does exist in nature. In fact, it has been found outside of our solar system. Did ancient man invent alcohol and shoot it outside of our solar system with ancient rockets?
en.wikipedia.org...

Or is this again demonstrating my point that just because something can be controlled by intelligence does not mean it HAS to be controlled by intelligence?

As for humans, I don't know how many humans you have met, but I can assure that we don't all look the same... Maybe you haven't met a lot of people, which is fine, but I suggest looking beyond the apparent bilateral symmetry that humans share with... a lot of animals. To be quite honest, I think there are species of animal (such as... phacops rana, for instance) which look much more similar to one another than humans do, but this is probably some kind of human bias/recognition...

Can you clarify you're "branch" taxonomy? It isn't a standard classification system, so I'm unsure of what you mean... If you mean genus level taxonomic distinction, well you've pointed to one of our ancestors. If you mean species level, well here's a well known one.
en.wikipedia.org...

As for your claim that humans haven't changed, that's very incorrect. Look at my above source again, and notice the interbreeding of Neanderthals and modern humans.

Now, you've made a lot of fallacious claims, so the burden of proof should be on your shoulders (you should be providing evidence for your claims). I don't mind helping you to understand, if you have a question, but you are asserting these falsehoods as facts. I would appreciate it if you would either ask if you are unsure or provide evidence if you wish to make a positive claim.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
all humans are identical
color of skin is not a dna thing. it is lack of melatonin celss in the skin, but melatonin cells do exist in whites and everybody.

7 millions without change in human branches, then it was not seven millions, just few thousand years only to explain the similarity of human and the lack of dna diversity.

no evolution happened to humans since their one man ancestor several thousand years ago, so evolution did not happem.

what Neanderthal?
did you see him walking by your house?

in the membrane



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

Howdy,

I don't usually ask this, but are you trolling me? I don't mind trolls, but I honestly cannot tell. I am going to assume that you are being serious and discuss points accordingly.

No, no two humans are genetically identical, not even identical twins.
en.wikipedia.org...

There have been plenty of changes in our ancestors over 7 million years.
en.wikipedia.org...

Several mutations have occurred in the last few thousand years to 100000 years.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

As for denying the existence of Neanderthals, I cannot help you. DNA studies do not lie.

Now please kindly back up your positions with evidence. Do you not think it intellectually unfair for me to shoulder your burden of proof by providing evidence against your claims when you merely assert them without supporting evidence?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
you are adding more evidence when you talk about linski experiment, about adjusting the variables in nature that he only knows only third of them, denying two thirds of nature variables, this called controlled experiment not natural. it is proof that only with his intervention (intelligent design) that these new features happened and they are not good for the species of bacteria in the first place, degraded the bacteria to make it less able to survive in nature, hence all such kind of changes can not promote species towerds enhancement but towerd death in no time, that can not explain why species lived that long, they did because of very expert designer who does not need evolution or institute it because nature evolution (intelligent design by humans a not so expert designer) lead to the end.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

Expert designer? If anything designed us he needs to be fired.
Why do so many people choke to death on food when chimps do not? bad design.
Also use a capital letter at the start of a sentence and learn to use the enter button.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

I suggest you watch this about the ID crowd.



In a court of law they were shown to be fraudulent and liars.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: viibird

Expert designer? If anything designed us he needs to be fired.
Why do so many people choke to death on food when chimps do not? bad design.
Also use a capital letter at the start of a sentence and learn to use the enter button.

are not we the most advanced species on earth?
aren't we lucky.
don't you appreciate you were not born a monky or a rabbit worrying all the time every second who's coming to eat you?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

To clear up a few misconceptions:

Melanin, not Melatonin, in the skin IS indeed in DNA. DNA is a genetic blue print of an organism. Every fiber of its being is in the genetics. Saying that it's in the skin and not in the genetics, is like saying a steering wheel is in the car, but not in the manufacturer's blueprint.

Also you don't need to have controlled conditions to have genetic changes. Scientists have mapped entire genomes of both homo sapiens and neanderthal, as well as many great apes. Every offspring of every species studied is born with dozens to hundreds genetic mutations. In homo sapiens the average is 60 mutations. This is absolute undisputed fact.

The difference between humans and ecoli is that ecoli only lives a few hours to a day in the right conditions. Humans live 60-80 years on average depending on where you live. What that means is that in just one year of experiments, they go through hundreds to thousands of generations. With humans, they reproduce every 20 years give or take. To study humans on an equivalent level they would need to be observed for 20,000 years to equal 1 year of lab study on ecoli. This is why you don't see humans evolving. It is impossible to study on that level, as genetic science is only 50 years old or so.

If 2 populations of human were isolated into 2 completely different environments, for 20-40 thousand years they could very well become different species. It's already began to happen, as seen with the various races of human. This is direct evidence of evolution. Sub Saharan Africa tribes are much different when compared with most other humans because they did not breed with Neanderthals upon leaving Africa, because they didn't leave Africa. They are the closest thing to a different species, although they'd still have quite a way to go. They are indeed homo sapiens, however. If you kept them isolated another 50,000 years, they'd probably lose the ability to breed with other homo sapiens, hence making them (or the rest of humans) a new species.

E coli isn't the only experiment that confirms this genetic shift over generations, either. There is also Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment that shows exactly how speciation via reproductive isolation can occur. Don't forget that speciation isn't long term evolution, it is the emergence of new species. If you're looking for big evolutionary changes, you need to look at speciation events, and then multiply that by 100,000. Speciation changes are usually small, but there's no reason whatsoever to think that small changes cannot add up over time. After thousands or millions of speciation events in a lineage, the resulting organism would indeed be much different from the original organism.

edit on 14-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

So? what has that got to do with the subject?.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: viibird

So? what has that got to do with the subject?.

wasn't he saying our creator should be fired because humans malfunction while chimps don't?

what is mutation?
isn't mutation a mistake in dna copying mutation rate is 0.04 ie 4 mistakes in every copying of dna between parent and child.

so how come a combination of mistakes makes something good or beneficial?
since mutation do exist, then there must be a creator who fix the mistakes every now and then.
other wise accumulating of mutations in dna copying will in no time cause ending of a species like the linski experiment.

every thing in time degrades.
if you leave a fine chair in a room and comes to see it after 2000 years you find it dust!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Krazysh0t
One only has to look at the Cambrian explosion to see new and previously unknown species.


I'm not following you. Is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my points? Because the Cambrian explosion is an example of punctuated equilibrium which is the prevailing belief in how evolution works these days. So that is proof of evolution not against it. So were you agreeing with my points?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: viibird

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: viibird

So? what has that got to do with the subject?.

wasn't he saying our creator should be fired because humans malfunction while chimps don't?

what is mutation?
isn't mutation a mistake in dna copying mutation rate is 0.04 ie 4 mistakes in every copying of dna between parent and child.


No a mutation is a CHANGE in the dna not a mistake. Mistake implies a negative connotation and beneficial mutations exist therefore it isn't a mistake when the DNA changes code. Without this application of evolution, harmful germs would have wiped us off the planet a LONG time ago. That's why diseases never have a 100% fatality rate, because not everyone has the same DNA. The people who cannot become immune to the disease, die off leaving the ones with the immunity intact. Then the bacteria evolves some more and infects new people. The process continues forever.


so how come a combination of mistakes makes something good or beneficial?


Well first off, stop using the word mistake. Second, mutations are either harmful, benign, or beneficial. And actually, they are USUALLY benign, not harmful or beneficial. Its when benign mutation keeps mutating does it swing in a direction of harmful or beneficial.


since mutation do exist, then there must be a creator who fix the mistakes every now and then.


Well the creator is doing a crappy job of it. Explain to me why we still have wisdom teeth. Why do we have a vestigial tail? Why are our bodies so ill equipped to run?

The only thing humans do better than other species is think. Other than that there are tons of examples of animals that can do whatever we can do, better.


other wise accumulating of mutations in dna copying will in no time cause ending of a species like the linski experiment.


No you are making some grave miscalculations due to your negative bias towards the word "mutation". Not all mutations are cancerous and deadly, get that thinking out of your head.


every thing in time degrades.
if you leave a fine chair in a room and comes to see it after 2000 years you find it dust!


Yea, so? What does that have to do with the conversation?





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join