Thanatos

Quote Flinger?

Why don't you read those quotes with and open mind and question your beliefs?

Mageth

Let me ask you this:

Have you read those entire books/articles, or just the quotes?

Thanatos

The DNA similiarities between humans and chimps DOES NOT prove evolution.

Of course not. I didn't say it did. It is, however, evidence that is consistent with evolutionary theory. DNA was discovered decades after Darwin jumpstarted the theory of evolution, and genetic evidence viewed so far, across many species, is consistent with evolutionary theory (and, indeed, improved evolutionary theory by filling in some gaps) and further illustrates the mechanism by which traits are modified/inherited (you could say genetic evidence is as predicted by evolutionary theory).

Read these and then tell me that DNA evidence is consistent with evolutionary theory:

Science, 21 May 1999, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” p.1305

Science, 27 November 1998, “The Abominable Mystery” p. 1653

Science News, 5 December, 1998 “Turtle Genes Upset Reptilian Family Tree” p. 358

Science News, 6 March 1999, “Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations” p. 159

Science, 1 May 1998, “Genes Put Mammals in Age of Dinosaurs” pp. 675-676

6 February 1999 (Science News page 88) “DNA’s Evolutionary Dilemma

There's more where these came from, but I think this is enough reading for you for now.

MrDarwin

Thanatos, since you have presumably read all these articles you are citing, can you tell us whether any of the authors of these articles have concluded that DNA evidence is not consistent with evolutionary theory, and in particular, the common descent component of evolutionary theory?

Mageth

I haven't read any of those yet, but my guess, looking at the titles, is that they're mostly dealing with how we classify species and determine relatedness; in other words, we may be wrong in some places on how the "tree of life" is organized. In other words, DNA evidence, as I said, is improving and "filling in gaps."

Before I go out and read all those, can you answer MrDarwin's question?

Godless Dave

We do:

The human appendix

Humans born with tails

Humans born with extra fingers or toes

Cats born with extra toes

Humans born with webbed hands or feet (a neutral mutation in humans, but a useful one in breeds of dogs bred for swimming)

Plus all that junk DNA that doesn't seem to do anything.

pangloss

Why, exactly?

Whenever I see things like this, a red flag goes up. It tells me this: The poster has NEVER looked at any actual data. The poster has no idea how DNA analyses are conducted and has no clue what is atually looked at/for in such analyses.

The citations provided in a later post shore up my initial impression - a few supposed anomalies and we are supposed to just give up and accept creation.

What those citations REALLY show is science in action. Unlike the dogma driven tripe of the creaqtionist/IDiot, real scienc eis driven by data. If the data warrant a reinterpretation of the phylogenetic hypotheses of some groups, so be it. If real science were run like the creationists want it to be, we should just be ignoring/rejecting any such notion. Because, afterall, we would then KNOW that oour presuppositions are inerrant and NO changes are allowed!

MrDarwin

Since we're talking about organisms growing wings, can you tell us why Archaeopteryx doesn't "hold any water"? You are suggesting that the creature is not a transitional form. Can you give us any specific reasons why it isn't?

And can you tell us what you would expect from a fossil of a transitional form between dinosaurs (or any other reptiles) and birds?

RufusAtticus

Thanatos,

Are you ever going to respond to my questions concerning immutable kinds and biology?

It seems to me that you are incapable of even considering the questions, have no knowledge about biology other then what you've skimmed off of creationist websites, and do not care to actually learn something other than strawmen.

-RvFvS

Thanatos

At the International Archaeopteryx Conference in Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 Archaeopteryx was considered to be a true bird. Also, birds have been found much lower in the fossil record, making them older even than Archaeopteryx - and dinos with what evolutionists call dino-fuzz that they argue are primitive feathers evolving, have been found and are much younger than Archaeopteryx. Some older, some younger by millions of years - so when did dinos evolve into birds. Finally, there are no scales associated with Archaeopteryx.

Dr. Alan Feduccia, an authority on birds at UNC - Chapel Hill said, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble is going to change that." (V.Morell, "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 259(5096): 764-65, 5 Feb, 1993.)

You haven't addressed the warm-blooded/cold-blooded conundrum in any of your responses regarding the dino to bird progression.

Do you believe that Archaeopteryx is a transitional?

I would expect scales and feathers to be biochemically similiar, but they are not. I would expect fossils where scales and feathers are similiar, but there are none.

Archaeopteryx is still the subject of much controversy, and not only among creationists and evolutionists. We could argue about it till we're blue in the face and never get anywhere. As a result, there's really no use arguing over this point. I know you're responses - you know mine.