A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent
By Charlotte Dudal - 42832845 Humans and dolphins, what do these two animals have in common? You might think that the only thing t...
biol1020-2012-1.blogspot.com
the chromosomal blocks that match with humans ..which in most cases don't match with 'most fish' I think the lungfish has genome comparisons that put them in the same net.
Evo-devos suppose that this commonness has to do with both dolphins and humans were air breathing mammals... someday they'll find the evidence for it. ID identifies common design for common purposes. the old basic building blocks designers all use in different areas.
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting
So where is the explanation?
Why do dolphins have DNA closer to humans than to fish? All I see is you saying "
common design for common purposes", but if that is true, we would expect dolphins to have DNA closer to fishes.
Your explanation leads to the opposite of what we see. Thus, we can conclude that you are wrong.
You are lost once again... if you identify the differences then your comment actually makes sense. It is about the differences -which confounds you clearly. "differences"
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting
The Specific Pattern of Commonality is about the difference
and the similarities.
Dolphin DNA has similarities to human and to fish DNA. It also has differences. What we are discussing is why it has more similarities to human DNA than to fish DNA.
You explanation is "
common design for common purposes", but if that is true, we would expect dolphins to have DNA closer to fishes.
You Reject Evolution Because It Contradicts Your Faith
Pretty much explained that one to you...you are slowly catching on.. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but the condescension runs deep in the evo-devo faithful..... and they imagine the evidence and beg for others to as well no wonder so many scientists keep bailing from it.
Firstly, bear in mind that "the evo-devo faithful" are people of many religions, including, Christianity and no religion. Therefore this cannot be a faith position.
Secondly, I will remind you that for each assorted scientist and engineer who is "bailing" from evolution, there are over a hundred scientists who are experts in biology and still accept it.
Thirdly, "
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a huge problem for you, because your biggest argument is gaps in the fossil record.
And fourthly and lastly, you have failed to address the actual issue, which is that you reject evolution because it is a materialist view, and not because of the evidence.
What Do You Even Believe?
I earlier said:
Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for creationism, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because creationism has no mechanism at all!
Again you appear to be ignorant of ID as you keep conflating with Creationism... Please read up on ID or rephrase your rambling in a coherent question.
Like there is a practical difference!
Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for ID, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because ID has no mechanism at all!
Now you need a new excuse to dodge it.
I earlier said:
I repeatedly ask you to state your beliefs. Do you think the universe is 6000 years old? Several billion? You cannot say. This is a far far bigger hole than any you have found in evolution. Why do you gaping hole that is creationism?
Already answered and you responded... one has to wonder why the Pixie likes to 'misrepresent' things. If you pay better attention I stated that the universe appears to be just over 13.5 byo - why does the Pixie default to immature misrepresentations? ID is not creationism, close but not the same.
And do you think God created each species in isolation?
Or do you believe is common descent?
You have spent post after post arguing against common descent, and also advocating front-loading, apparently without realising front-loading implies common descent - at least from a ancestor over 500 million years ago - which makes us related to, say, squid.
Have you decided which you want to go for? Or are you going to continue to oscillate between the two?
Evolution actually requires great faith with all the missing and assume evidences much of which keeps vanishing year by year and better science.
No it does not. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution from genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology and other disciplines too.
No ID Science
ID is deeply rooted in scientific evidences and blows holes through evolutionary theory. the hundreds of biologists and thousands of other scientists with their studies and books all but shut down the evo-devo dead end.
So show me the ID science.
As far as I know, the only people claiming to be doing ID science were Douglas Axe and Anne Granger at BioLogic, both of whom have now left. ID is dead.
ID has an abundance of evidence in genetics, bio-chem physics..and is accepted by more and more scientists yearly...while evolution is losing ground. "Yea for better science!" (those flat-earthers hated seeing those T-shirts with that logo in the lab)
So where is it?
Why are you not citing ID papers in your posts? In fact the only science papers I recall you citing are the one that had a statement by the authors at the front stating clearly they support evolution, and the dog/wolf paper, which also supported evolution.
Have you cited
any ID science?