1. Hmmmmm, sounds like taking quotes out of context to me.
2. You seem to be clinging to this, I can only assume you mean empirical as in "we have to see a species giving birth to another species", but this isn't how evolution works. Instead we have to look at the historical evidence. Which we do, and it all points to one conclusion..
3. Yes, because it gives the date of the most RECENT common ancestor. And the reason our paternal common ancestor has a different age is because, well, chaps are a bit more promiscuous than ladies are. If you need that explaining then I am happy to.
4. I can only assume you are not reading any of the references I am giving you. The evidence is that the spine connected to the brain case at the bottom rather than the back which shows a straight, vertical spine, plus the feet were flatter than that of a chimpanzee (which shows they were still adapting).
5. We know these genes are non coding because we know what they do in other species, what part of this are you having trouble with,. Pointing out coding DNA and saying "these bits code" is missing the point entirely. I am fully aware of RNA, but thanks for asking. What I am saying is that we have pseudogenes, genes that we know what their function is, BECAUSE of what it does in other species but it has become inactive in us.
6. It was an example, and a good one. If we even have ONE pseudogene then that is evidence against a design. If you want to look up more (there are plenty) then go and do some research. I am not going to list example after example for you to ignore.
7. YES BUT 3 PARTS REMAIN! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!
8. Whinging seems to be the only way to get through to you.
9. Ha, yeap, my maths sucks. I didn't even do, I am afraid I guessed, but yeah, still 6.67% is still a lot.
10. You asked me where I got the numbers, I told you. I was also criticised for not showing my sources, make your mind up. Also, as I have no way of mapping the genome of a human I have to rely on people that have done it or have worked with it, excuse me for not owning an extremely well funded lab.
11. Well, as the fetus has no bones OR muscles yet, it seems fair that the tail wouldn't either.
12. And sometimes, vestigial parts become used for something else, however they are still defined as vestigial because they no longer hold their original function.
13. Are you serious? Are you actually making that point? Even though I had explained it fully? That it is hangover from our fish like ancestors? Did you actually miss that?
14. Find me a definition of atheism that would support that sentence? Of course, it may link up with the definition in your head, but the point of language is that agree on a definition so we all know what we're talking about. If you want to make your own definition and stick to that? Well fine, good for you.
15. I am not taking anything from creation.com seriously, because it's not scientific. You're other link only suggests that the tranisition was slightly earlier. Any peer-reviewed papers on this? This is just a news story and propaganda.
16. Because you were saying that fattening up pigs break their legs, of course natural selection wouldn't favour a trait that broke their legs. Your analogy is poor.The "trade off" only works if it helps the organism survive. Clearly fattening pigs until the cave in under their own weight would not help them survive, so that trait would not pass on. Are we learning yet?
17. Oh, I am glad you bought up a giraffes neck. Ever head of the Laryngeal nerve? It's a nerve that branches off the vegus nerve and connects at the Larynx, in a giraffe it takes a splendid 15 foot detour down the neck, round the aorta and all the way back up. This is yet more evidence that we all used to be fish like creatures as in a fish, that is the quickest route because they have no neck, however as the neck grow and grows, it is less work to keep the nerve growing rather then re route it, which is what it does. Natural selection is a tinkerer, not a grand designer.
18. It's because you're getting yourself in circles. Traits that are not expressed, cannot be acted on, sometimes they are deleted from the genome and sometimes they stay in the genome as pseudogenes, which we have talked about. Traits that are expressed CAN be selected. The way you phrase it you seem to think this process takes 3-4 weeks rather then tens of thousands of generations.
19. It's only a wiki article, read it..
20. Just a little something you said in #10.
"10. How would anyone know what an intelligent designer think"
21. Absolutely not, your vague, ridiculous question deserved a vague ridiculous answer. If I am not allowed to make assumptions based on evidence, how the hell are you allowed to make assumptions based on your "logic", what the hell gives you that right? Yes, nature is amazing, we know that, we understand some of it but not all of it. To say "it looks amazing, god dunnit" is incredibly poor reasoning and I am surprised you even made that
1. Shakes head.... How is that taking your quote out of context? In one post you admit to using assumptions, in a later post you then claim that you "don't assume anything"... Its very clear who is the one without context, this is shown by your contradictory, (thus illogical) posts.
2. No I mean empirical as in ACTUAL empirical. Observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, your assumption based "evidence" are none of these and thus are not scientific.. I am glad you admit this and that historical "evidence" is used... Therefore you admit that evolution is not scientific since historical evidence doesn't abide by the scientific method, hence it isn't science. Thank you for admitting this.
3. Ummm No.. Different dates that differ by millions of years are contradictory... It is the same as 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. You cannot have 2 different values for the same thing.
4. And so the rest is inference... what about my point about Nebraska man being made from a single tooth, (a pig tooth at that)... Doesn't that indicate the level of imagination that evolutionists are given license to employ. Wouldn't that worry you, since assuming things is not science.
5. I am not pointing out coding DNA, as I have said about 3 times now go research snoRNA, rRNA, mRNA etc THESE COME FROM NON-CODING DNA... Coding DNA only code for proteins, hence all the DNA that codes for functional RNA, (the RNA that do things) are part of the non-coding DNA.
Furthermore as I said you need to prove that all each non-coding gene absolutely has no function. Great you've done one, another 2000 to go, (many of which code for the regulatory RNA which I have mentioned).
6. As I said before, you are assuming the GLO gene is a pseudogene there may be a function no-one has realised yet. Assumptions are not scientific.
7. So you agree information is lost, since as you said parts are taken out... There is nothing wrong with me, is this more whinging?
8. Really? It hasn't done the desired effect rather its just displaying your own character.... Again I ask you to address the problems your claims bring about. Your claims about junk DNA infers that the ancestors of animals had more functional genes and as these were degraded they became the junk DNA you claim, this process defies evolution. Furthermore wouldn't the GLO gene be selected against if it really did nothing... Why are such sequences here if they are useless and there is a fitness benefit to dropping them, (faster copy speed of DNA, less materials used to replicate). Do you see how your claim defies the very tenets of evolution itself?
Again I'll stress, whinging won't save you.
9. If 6.67% is lots then the 5% of difference between chimps and humans by comparison is also lots too.... Is this a case of evolutionary double standards?
10. Quotes of the paper would suffice, you're whinging because I picked up on your name dropping tactic. Please provide the quotes for the "15%" considering you got the % number wrong I doubt this is what the information states... Just giving a name is not enough info, I'm not going to scour the internet with only a name to go by. Provide quotes or a summary of the data.
11. True, I thought you were making claims about people who are born with "tails", which are just fatty tissue..
"The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail.
The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles."http://www.vedicscie...n-debunked.html
So basically we don't have a "tail" during fetus development it is merely the spinal cord developing faster than the rest of the body... WHich makes sense since the rest of the body, (bar the head since it is already developing), stems from the spinal cord hence it needs to be developed first.... Again this exposes the assumptions of the evolutionist...
12. Such as?
13. So claiming its a hang over, excuses the fact that IF it the other method is more advantageous natural selection hasn't selected for it. I can't believe you attempt to brush arguments aside...
14. As I said Atheism piously defended is a Religion, I have already shown you where Religions do not need to be about supernatural deities. A religion is merely a worldview, one about a person's origins and purpose in life...
Atheism's origins are BB and evolution
Atheism's purpose = subjectivism / humanism... "enjoy life"
15. Therein lies the problem. You do realise that the creationism article has references to scientific articles, hence it is exactly the same as a scientific journal... Actually it was published in a journal so it is scientific, despite what you claim.
16. I take it from this response that you clearly do not understand what I was saying or you are attempting to be stupid on purpose. My words are lost on you. What you wrote resembled nothing to what I said, I suggest you re-read till it sinks in.
17. Again nice story... Too bad you do not have evidence as to the ACTUAL method of how the nerve is like that. You can only assume at this point since no-one documented the transition, (remember what I said about assumptions..... they're not scientific).
18. We are only going in circles because you cannot grasp what I am saying... Here I will attempt to write it simpler for you.
If selection cannot act on the traits that are not expressed.
and if independent assortment means traits are randomly chosen for offspring
leading to regressed traits
then how can natural selection claim to change fish into amphibians when these regressed traits can still appear.
In other words how does the new traits get 100% fixation with no regressed traits.
This is in the same vein of the genetic diseases, if selection cannot eradicate genetic diseases to 100% what makes you think it can cause 100% fixation of a new trait, (even if it causes an increase in fitness... since genetic disease cause a LARGE decrease in fitness hence we should see selection against them).
19. It's only a wiki article you can quote from it...
20. Now you are playing word games. I already explained how that was not what I was saying, to which you said you were not
Your reply post #16" Up to you if you want to answer it, my question still stands, if you say genetic disease is a failure of natural selection, then I say it is a failure of a designer."
My reply, post# 24" 10. As I said how do you know what a designer would and wouldn't do hence your claim is nonsensical... Yet my claim is logical since we already know what natural selection is claimed to do hence we should be able to see it demonstrated in life, refer to point 9 to see how this is not so."
Your reply post #27" If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his design should look like? Because I am told a lot that we are made in his image (always a him, never a her)."
My reply post# 31" 4. Did I say that? I said how can we know what a designer wants and doesn't want in his design... That is totally different."
Your reply post# 36" No you didn't, it was just a question, I wasn't quoting you."
Note the retraction... Now you are claiming that you reach that claim from my post 10 which is completely erronious and is contradictory to your post# 36 in where you admit it was a question of your own making. I have already corrected your mistaken interpretation of my post# 10, hence your claim here shows either you forgot, you do not understand or you are trying to play games. Either way I'm not the one who looks silly.
21. Design is the ONLY answer, to information based systems. This also applies to irreducibly complex systems, such as cellular respiration.