EVIDENCE FOR HUMAN-CHIMP COMMON ANCESTRY (By Request)

[CrowCross]

And yet missed the point once again. Obviously not reading the link above to the genetics article which is not about anything so simple as blind cave fish but observational and experimental evidence of natural genetic engineering done by organisms themselves

Then present it...name the animal and what happened. I presented an animal and named it.

 

[CrowCross]

With time it's been shown can co-opt new function. More important is 50 mutations without harming the individual contra YEC mantra "most mutations are harmful." Most mutations are actually neutral in terms of fitness

Ok, according to your numbers what % are harmful, neutral or beneficial. So far from you all I see is more unsupported claims.

I wish that were true. I hope it is. That would be progress.... until YECs find out that speciation is actually another name from macroevolution

By definition evo-minded scientist have named speciation as MACRO-evolutonism...when in fact it's really MICRO-evolution.

If a species breeding and producing what is consider as a "new" species isn't MICRO-evolution...then what is MICRO-evolution?

YES!!! Now we're talking!!! The *origin* is very, very problematic. Once you have them it's great for evolution. But getting them in the first place, BIG problem. Yes, you hit the nail of the problem. This is what I meant when saying evidence for evolution stronger than ever but the origin of these natural genetic engineering mechanisms which go back to the origin of life is all the more difficult to explain! Yes, BIG problem for naturalism. We agreed on something!!! Yeah!!!

LOL....so you simply step over that stage..assuming it happened...recognizing it is a big problem...but continue right along suggesting evo-ism in a more complex and sophisticated direction (descent with modification) is a proven fact.

 

[TB2]

@CrowCross there's no point responding to your points that don't respond to mine! Read the genetics article I posted so that you know what I'm talking about. Don't just assume you think you know what I'm talking about. You are attacking nineteenth and twentieth century strawman. Science has moved light years beyond that. Time for you to catch up. Start with the link to the genetic article.

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross there's no point responding to your points that don't respond to mine! Read the genetics article I posted so that you know what I'm talking about. Don't just assume you think you know what I'm talking about. You are attacking nineteenth and twentieth century strawman. Science has moved light years beyond that. Time for you to catch up. Start with the link to the genetic article.

If you say so.

NEXT

 

[TB2]

If you say so.

NEXT

See, that's the problem. You don't read the links I post, and then complain that I don't provide sources when I do but you won't read them. Read the article, then come back and let's talk about it.

Also, spend some time on this site The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which will help bring you up to speed about how evolutionary biology today is different from Neo-darwinism/Modern Synthesis

 

[TB2]

No, nothing like that. Evolutionary biology has been revolutionized in just the past few decades. Instead of natural selection and random accident mutations a mass of evidence---direct observational, experimental evidence---has shown that instead of mutations being accidental most are under biological control and their frequency and timing can be regulated by organisms themselves. There is a whole world of natural genetic engineering happening all around us--not accidental mutations but genetic change through cellular and molecular DNA splicing and excision and insertion and transfer across and between taxa, and whole genome duplications, and endosymbiogenesis, and on and on. We observe instantaneous speciation in the lab. We observe changes to DNA happening in real-time. Heck, the average person is born with 50 or so *new* 'mutations' (genetic differences) that are not found in either the mother or father. The link I gave details a lot of this evidence, and that is but one article. The evidence for biological evolution (and its various mechanisms) has never been stronger

(Of course, like I've said, it makes explaining the origin of life all the more difficult)

@makesends You also might be interested in this site The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. While not as comprehensive there's still a lot of good information about how evolutionary biology today is different from Neo-darwinism/Modern Synthesis. Best!

 

[CrowCross]

See, that's the problem. You don't read the links I post, and then complain that I don't provide sources when I do but you won't read them. Read the article, then come back and let's talk about it.

Also, spend some time on this site The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which will help bring you up to speed about how evolutionary biology today is different from Neo-darwinism/Modern Synthesis

If you say so.

 

[TB2]

If you say so.

I do

 

[Rella]

No, NO!!!! A thousand times no.

Science is not infallible.

My DNA may show me to have a fair amount of Neanderthal in me... I did not come from any animals.... just the natural progression to todays modern man....from possible mutations (Not evolution)

 

[TB2]

No, NO!!!! A thousand times no.

Science is not infallible.

Agreed. Science is very fallible. Science is also not absolute truth, but a matter of probabilities and degrees of certainty.

My DNA may show me to have a fair amount of Neanderthal in me... I did not come from any animals.... just the natural progression to todays modern man....from possible mutations (Not evolution)

It's difficult to dispute the probabilities in this case: the 1 chance in 10,000^100,000

 

[CrowCross]

No, NO!!!! A thousand times no.

Science is not infallible.

My DNA may show me to have a fair amount of Neanderthal in me... I did not come from any animals.... just the natural progression to todays modern man....from possible mutations (Not evolution)

There are many who believe Neanderthal was a modern man. In fact the Neanderthal skull was the skull of an very old (in age) human. That is just as a baby's skull changes as it grown into an adult skull a Neanderthal skull is that of an older person reaching the great ages presented in Genesis.

 

[TB2]

In fact the Neanderthal skull was the skull of an very old (in age) human

Neanderthal evidence is not limited to a single skull nor restricted to one age

 

[CrowCross]

Neanderthal evidence is not limited to a single skull nor restricted to one age

I never said that, yet you seem to be making that claim for me. Basically you're deceptivaly presenting a form of strawman argument.
Many Neanderthal skulls have been found. These skulls have been studied, measurements taken.
As mentioned in my previous post the human skull changes with age....and when these measurement are extrapulated past the typical human lifespan the skull wuld continue to change and become more Neanderthal like.

 

[TB2]

I never said that, yet you seem to be making that claim for me. Basically you're deceptivaly presenting a form of strawman argument.
Many Neanderthal skulls have been found. These skulls have been studied, measurements taken.
As mentioned in my previous post the human skull changes with age....and when these measurement are extrapulated past the typical human lifespan the skull wuld continue to change and become more Neanderthal like.

Your comment doesn't make sense. Please post a peer reviewed study that explains what you mean

 

[CrowCross]

Your comment doesn't make sense. Please post a peer reviewed study that explains what you mean

No, it makes sense...you just don't like it because it causes havoc with your indoctrinated scenario you endorse.

 

[TB2]

No, it makes sense...you just don't like it because it causes havoc with your indoctrinated scenario you endorse.

Personal attacks prove nothing and are usually done to hide the fact that a person has no evidence to back up their position. So I'll ask again: please post a peer-reviewed study that explains what you mean

 

[CrowCross]

Personal attacks prove nothing and are usually done to hide the fact that a person has no evidence to back up their position. So I'll ask again: please post a peer-reviewed study that explains what you mean

A few years back I saw a show on TV called Origins produced by Cornerstone Television out of Wall PA. The host of the show, Russ Bixler had a guest on named Dr. Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist of 30 years.

The show was most interesting and covered the topic of human longevity.

Dr. Cuozzo talked about the neanderthal man and their appearance. One of his points were that studies show that the human head does not stop growing as we age. He cited references from a study done by a Dr. Rolf Gordon Behrents, from the U of Michigan while he was working on his Ph.D.

Dr Behrents work involved the measurement of people heads when they were 19, late 40’s and some at age 80.

What was discovered was that the head changed in this fashion;

the brow ridge came forward
the jaw came forward
the nose got bigger
the chin came forward
the cheeks came forward and flattened out
the teeth came forward
the back of the head started to point out

Some of the measurements show that the nose moved 1.3 mm in 30 years while the browridge moved forward and upward 1.5 mm and the cheek bone moved 1.1 mm in the same 30 year period.

Has this been peered reviewed as you demand??? I don't know...but this is what they discovered.

But as pointed out in another post....you know best...right?

 

[TB2]

But as pointed out in another post....you know best...right?

And as I replied, no I don't, which is why I consult the work of experts on any given subject

 

[CrowCross]

And as I replied, no I don't, which is why I consult the work of experts on any given subject

And you've let it be known creation scientist aren't experts.

 

[Rella]

A few years back I saw a show on TV called Origins produced by Cornerstone Television out of Wall PA. The host of the show, Russ Bixler had a guest on named Dr. Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist of 30 years.

The show was most interesting and covered the topic of human longevity.

Dr. Cuozzo talked about the neanderthal man and their appearance. One of his points were that studies show that the human head does not stop growing as we age. He cited references from a study done by a Dr. Rolf Gordon Behrents, from the U of Michigan while he was working on his Ph.D.

Dr Behrents work involved the measurement of people heads when they were 19, late 40’s and some at age 80.

What was discovered was that the head changed in this fashion;

the brow ridge came forward
the jaw came forward
the nose got bigger
the chin came forward
the cheeks came forward and flattened out
the teeth came forward
the back of the head started to point out

Some of the measurements show that the nose moved 1.3 mm in 30 years while the browridge moved forward and upward 1.5 mm and the cheek bone moved 1.1 mm in the same 30 year period.

Has this been peered reviewed as you demand??? I don't know...but this is what they discovered.

But as pointed out in another post....you know best...right?

Yes, I used to fervently watch that program

Definitely what you post is correct and understandable..