Posted on 10/04/2018 6:59:49 AM PDT by fishtank
There is an interesting list of relatively recent evolutionary adaptions in human beings, from my memory they include:
Boogieman: "At least a few of our features should be noticeably different."
Some of our features are indeed noticeably different enough that some of our forefathers believed they reduced certain people to the status of sub-human slaves.
I'm just saying...
Evolutionists are like lie-berals, they always refute logic and fact with slander and insults...
Is the ape at the right holding a monkey wrench?
If every species was created separately, why should there be any DNA in common at all between chimpanzees and human beings?
Once again: it's irrelevant exactly what the numbers are -- 98% or 85% -- so long as you use the same methods/assumptions to calculate "average rate of change" and to count up the percent of differences between species.
Is that concept too hard for you to grasp?
But an evo using that kind of analogy doesn't understand much about the concept of projection.
Yep, your post (and likely your breath) stinks.....
Bigger question: did the article writer read the research his article is allegedly based on, and was he able to understand it?
“Some of our features are indeed noticeably different enough that some of our forefathers believed they reduced certain people to the status of sub-human slaves.
I’m just saying...”
Well, modern evolutionists reject all of that, so they can’t really use that for an answer to the question. What I’m looking for are large scale morphological changes, of the type we could notice only from the fossil record if we didn’t have access to DNA.
If the two assumptions (constant rate of genetic change over long scales of time, and constant appearance of morphological changes accompanying that change over long scales of time) are both true, then we should expect to see something of that in the last 100,000 years for which we have a relatively large fossil record for homo sapiens.
It seems to me we actually do not see that, and the obvious conclusion I come to is that one or the other assumption (or both) is false, and therefore, the other speculative conclusions that evolutionists come to based on whichever assumption is false are also invalid.
Oh so we are arguing over degrees of hate...perhaps detest is a higher form of high tech lynching sort of hate.
Forgive yourself!
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/detest
Detest comes from the Middle French word détester, meaning “to curse, to call God to witness and abhor.” Though the words detest and hate are interchangeable, the word hate is much more common, which has caused it(detest) to lose some of its hateful impact. Detest is used more sparingly, reserved for cases where no other word will do, where your feelings of dislike are so powerful that they need just the right word to sum them up.“She detests politicians”
Synonyms:hateAntonyms:love
have a great affection or liking for
Types:abhor, abominate, execrate, loathe
find repugnant
contemn, despise, disdain, scorn
look down on with disdain
look down on
regard with contempt
Do you have anymore revelations about what God hates...(or detests) you, the scientifically minded, would like us to know about?
New "links" are discovered pretty regularly.
The totals so far are roughly 6,000 individuals representing at least two dozen different species, some like Neanderthals with dozens of individuals per specie.
The oldest of those pre-humans look more like chimpanzees, then gradually change, newer ones looking more & more human.
[[why should there be any DNA in common at all between chimpanzees and human beings?]]
Common design- using what works in many different species- most animals have feet and legs- that is homology- a proven efficient design for locomotion, most species were created with eyes- a proven efficient design for moving about in the world safely- (Yes, we know there are other systems that don’t include sight and are effective- but comparatively speaking, eyesight is a great design that many species share because it works well and God used it in many species when He designed them- homology)
“Eyes
Some homologous structures, such as the eyes of a human and the eyes of an octopus are very similar but are extremely distant on the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists, then, are quick to label these structures as analogous, though they are really more homologous, in order to save their theory. This is just another example of how evolutionary scientists only look for answers that line up with their dogma instead of considering scientific facts that could contradict it. It is unscientific to believe that such complex and similar structures could have come about separately, by way of chance mutations, at drastically different times. But, to say that they evolved at relatively the same time breaks down the whole theory of the order in which things evolved. “
http://www.creationwiki.org/Homology
And a Chihuahua is still a wolf.
Well... evolution is a confirmed theory built from observed facts.
Of course "assumption" does play a role in natural science -- as the name implies, natural science assumes naturalism, meaning it accepts as scientific only natural explanations for natural processes.
So as soon as you interject "God did it", then by definition that's not natural science.
Yes, there is a debate over "methodological naturalism" versus "philosophical naturalism" -- not sure if you really want to get into it.
BrandtMichaels: " What really shows you’re bias is ignoring all the recent DNA studies which show devolution of DNA. "
If 99% of DNA mutations are harmless or harmful, and if they accumulate in our gene pool without the effects of natural selection (due to scientific advances) then, yes, things might well get worse before they can get better.
BrandtMichaels: "Micro changes are basically encoded within the DNA BUT micro have only been assumed to lead to macro nothing more..."
These days the DNA differences between biological breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, etc., those can be measured rather precisely and so new lines drawn telling us which is which.
But no natural or defined line tells us which difference is just "micro" and which "macro".
That distinction is totally artificial & bogus.
About 5000 years ago most humans were lactose intolerant.
Then came the rise in pastoral societies, and the gene to be able to process milk spread like wildfire.
Now I think only 5% of people in the world are lactose intolerant.
That’s a pretty big evolutionary step, very recent.
“Is that concept too hard for you to grasp?”
Someone disagreeing with your premise doesn’t mean they don’t understand it.
Wow — we have degenerated into spelling.
Bye.
Boogieman: "Now that is a bit dishonest, since the theory posits that all changes in morphology are a result of evolution"
Nothing dishonest in Mr Ramsbotham's post since far, far from all mutations have anything to do with morphology.
Of course over time evolution results in morphological changes, but the rate of such changes is in no way fixed or constant.
Boogieman: "After all, evolutionists use changes in morphology in the fossil record to estimate the times of divergence of species absent any other evidence, which shouldn’t be possible unless they are assuming that evolution necessitates some fairly steady rate of morphological change."
Maybe... absent any other evidence, but when is that ever the case?
Every fossil found in situ is surrounded by "other evidence" which properly processed can provide a huge database of reference points.
So we'd have to assume a fossil removed by amateurs and brought to some, say, museum without provenance -- now what can we say about it?
Answer: not so much, but maybe it compares to other fossils well known and so some timeline might be estimated.
My point is: that's not good science and should be avoided whenever possible.
Boogieman: "Of course that contradicts the idea that we see species from millions, or hundreds of millions of years ago in the fossil record that are to this day identical."
So far as I know, there's no such thing -- similar to: sure, identical: not really.
Even where what's called "convergent evolution" served to keep outer morphology remarkably similar, analysis of extant related species DNA would show, in effect, millions of years worth of "genetic drift".
Boogieman: "Never mind that in all that time, no creature could remain so perfectly adapted, since the environment itself would be subject to change."
"Living fossils" come to mind, the Coelacanth living at great depths in the ocean perhaps less subject to environmental changes or radiation induced DNA mutations, might qualify as much more slowly evolving than "normal".
“Why are their phd’s any more fake than phd’s that believe evolution? They’re basing their conclusions off of mainstream scientists studies and conclusions. “
Because their conclusions have to agree with their inerrant bible.
“All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days.”
Do you really believe the earth is older than the sun?
Does this mean Roseanne is getting her TV Show back?
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.