Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Now, Tell me, does it really say something if 98% of DNA (which is an antenna!) is shared with another species?

@Quehoniaomath,

Not all orders of organisms share large amounts of genes between them. Only closely related forms (like apes and humans) or fish and amphibians are closely aligned.

The distances between the genomes of entire orders shows that some are derived and others are not after a deep time common ancestor.

we can trace the fossil record nd find evolved forms first appearances at a time that generally agrees with the occurrence of new genes in the evolved forms.
Genes can be used as a timeclock, a test of similarity (and probable evolution of similar species), AND a test of dissimilarity for species not apparently related.

Like the genomes of Hominids , hominims and new world apes share common genes that predate the final split up of Centarl America from Africa. Then new world apes have their own spcial genomes that differ abundantly from old world apes and Hominims.

genomes can be like etymylogical analyses of words that "travel" from civilization to civilization. (That's a Fairbanks observation , not mine)

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

So you agree it is all in your mind that there is no evidence.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So you agree it is all in your mind that there is no evidence.

No, of course not, read my posting again mate.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You are loosing yourelf again in a sea of words.

Simple question now then:

If A and B have 98% DNA match , will that mean they are, evolutionwise, related?

Now asnwer just yes or no.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

It must be all in your mind because you haven't presented any evidence. Wink

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

its not a "Yes or no" answer dipshit. You don't know enough to even ask a reasonable question . Ive answered you in the fashion that the way IT IS.
You are just stuck in your Fundamentalist worldview.
Look at old world/new world monkeys and apes and humans . The genomes are a TIMECLOCK of separation. I youre not getting it, just signify. Don't hide your ignorance with incorrect assumptions.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

its not a "Yes or no" answer dipshit. You don't know enough to even ask a reasonable question . Ive answered you in the fashion that the way IT IS.
You are just stuck in your Fundamentalist worldview.
Look at old world/new world monkeys and apes and humans . The genomes are a TIMECLOCK of separation. I youre not getting it, just signify. Don't hide your ignorance with incorrect assumptions.

Make something so complicated that even the profs don't understand it anymore, so it must be true!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh

I am not hiding any ignorance, I just showed you!!

I am very ignorant!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

BUT STILL NO EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND!!!

and you still believE this shite?

REALLY?????????

1 Reply

But I will give you your last change now!!

TAKE IT MATE!!

JUST ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, MACRO EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!!

JUST ONE PIECE!!!!!

COME ON MAN, BRING IT ON!!!

3 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

DNA

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

DNA
[TIKTALIK]
LUCY

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Don't worry Q. It's all in your mind.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

But I will give you your last change now!!

It is my opinion that you don't have enough "sence" to make change.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

?????????????? ok, well HOW is that proof! Please state!

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

LUCY???

A HOAX IS NO PROOF OF COURSE.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

It's in your mind Q.

Maybe you should worry about how you are going to get it out.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

FM, at Post No.5718493 it was you that wrote:

Quote:

... since no DNA could possibly be extracted from fossils older than say 500 000 years

     Which number is greater: 500 000 or 63 000 000? ... and isn't that 63 000 000 years ago 'older than say 500 000'.
  If you can't remember what you have said on 17th July 2014 at 05:30 am, you may write in google: http://able2know.org/topic/226001-126
     and you will see what you will see.
     In the context whereof would you be so kind to make an interpretation of this claim of yours:

Quote:

Please point that out. You most often try to miscast what others say well after they've said it .

Please point out that: It doesn't matter whether it is 'well after' or 'right after' - what matters is what has been said and what are the truth value and the validation test results. The Time-Space Continuum mapping is absolutely irrelevant ... and you cannot possible imagine how absolutely irrelevant it might prove. BTW, when one makes some false statement, what difference does it make when he has said it?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Heres what you CLAIMED I said:

Quote:

Do you remember when you claimed in this post that there is no soft tissue (and genetic material) from fossils of species older than 10 thousand years ago

And this is a quote of what I actually said

Quote:

since no DNA could possibly be extracted from fossils older than say 500 000 years

Do you notice that these two statements have NOTHING in common?
Are you completely incapable of reading comprehension?

Or are you just a lying sack of excrement?

NO DNA has ever been extracted from fossils over 500K years. (Even at 150K, they use traces of osteocalcin to gther ny remaining DNA -like sequences.

PLEASE DO NOT MISCAST NYTHING IVE SAID AGAIN--You do this a lot and Im getting that "lecturing to budgie" feeling from what you say. Its the same aura that Quahog gives off.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quahog says:

Quote:

LUCY???

A HOAX IS NO PROOF OF COURSE

Isn't it fortunate that Lucy is no hoax, then? But rather a typical example of the more than 300 fossil remains of Australopithecus Afarensis that have been found to date, upright, bipedal, with characteristic pelvic structure of bipedalism, but with arm, shoulder, and hand evidence that show they could still exploit forested environments, and a small brain, larger but not mjuch larger, than a modern-day chimpanzee. Gee, guess what, that makes her (and them) clearly transitional species (which you and your ilk claim, on the basis of pure whine and nothing else, not to exist)

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Lucy No Hoax??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Pleaseeeeee

http://www.askdarwinists.com/images/lucy.jpg

Quote:

Scientific findings have proven the evolutionist assumptions regarding Lucy, the best-known example of the genus Australopithecus, to be unfounded. In its February 1999 issue, the well-known French scientific magazine Science et Vie accepted this in an article entitled "Adieu Lucy," and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know