Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Your claim was that different domestic dogs are called sub species. That was false.
Yes, that seems to be the case. At any rate the somatic variance between a .....
So you agree that skeletal differences can not determine if something is a different species?
The difference between us and Neandertals is slight. It appears they may have been stronger. And...who knows, they may have been intellectually superior to us. They did have a slightly larger brain than us, but size isn't everything.
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Research has proven virtually everything evolutionists once believed is wrong....Bring on the research!!
Our appendix is not useless
It had no known use, rather because it's function was non-essential, and would commonly result in appendicitis.
"It had no known use" so evolutionists jumped to faulty conclusions for many organs in the body in order to create evolutionary believers. Science has proven the evolutionists were wrong...
DukeMedicine "Appendix Isn't Useless at All: It's a Safe House for Bacteria"
http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/10151
Daedalean's_Sun said:
There is some evidence that the appendix may be a remnant of a shrunken ceca which in herbivores is used to digest cellulose. There is some dispute over this, more study is needed.
There is zero evidence of that. Its simply another false evolutionary belief...not science. Similarity /homologyis not an indicator of common ancestry.
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Our bodies are not full of junk DNA
They are still. "Junk DNA remains a label for the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function has been identified".
Ha...Yes it remains a label perhaps,but the fact is our bodies are not filled with "junk" DNA. It was not so long ago that evolutionists claimed 98% of our DNA was "Junk...flotsam...useless.(etc)"
But science is just now discovering the design and functionality of what evolutionists called "Junk". Creationist scientists were correct...most if not virtually all non protein-coding genes are functional.
This is an exciting time to be a Christian, as science unveils the amazing design and complexity within our cells.
"The consortium has assigned some sort of function to roughly 80% of the genome, including more than 70,000 ‘promoter’ regions — the sites, just upstream of genes, where proteins bind to control gene expression — and nearly 400,000 ‘enhancer’ regions that regulate expression of distant genes. But the job is far from done, says Birney, a computational biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute in Hinxton, UK, who coordinated the data analysis for ENCODE. He says that some of the mapping efforts are about halfway to completion, and that deeper characterization of everything the genome is doing is probably only 10% finished…
The vast desert regions have now been populated with hundreds of thousands of features that contribute to gene regulation. And every cell type uses different combinations and permutations of these features to generate its unique biology. This richness helps to explain how relatively few protein-coding genes can provide the biological complexity necessary to grow and run a human being…
With thousands of cell types to test and a growing set of tools with which to test them, the project could unfold endlessly. “We’re far from finished,” says geneticist Rick Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Huntsville, Alabama. “You might argue that this could go on forever.”
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-encyclopaedia-1.11312
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Life does not come from non life
Not unless you're trying to conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation, which are distinctly different things. Abiogenesis is alive and well.
Abiogenesis is simply an aspect of atheist beliefs which science indicates is impossible.
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Psuedogenes do have function and purpose
Sure, in many cases vestigial biodata acquires new function, that is distinct from original function. In the case of pseudogenes they no longer code for proteins, although it is quite clear that they once did.
Again, you rely on your beliefs instead of science. Psuedogenes is a misnomer ...based on evolutionary beliefs. Evolutionists were wrong about this just as they were about junk DNA.
In 1998 Richard Dawkins said,
"Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there's lots more DNA that doesn't even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, "tandem repeats", and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn't seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA."
Other prominjent evolutionists such as Francis Collins and Karl Giberson said that it is "not remotely plausible" that "God inserted a piece of broken DNA into our genomes."
However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes. In the science journal RNA, a new article says:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"
The article closes with warning similar to what creationists have been saying for years not to assume that pseudogenes are "nonfunctional relics"because that has caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease":
RNA, Vol. 17:792-798 (2011).
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Neandertals were intelligent
It was never a question whether Neanderthals were intelligent, the question was "how intelligent?". A question which we are still unraveling
If I was an evolutionist, perhaps I would like to re-write history also. But evolutionists have been proven wrong.
They did try claim Neandertals were dimwitted. Evolutionists insisted they were carnivores without any culture and incapable of speech ETC ETC... Science has proven those evolutionary claims were false.
Guardian
"
Several times in the past 10 years scientists have had to rewrite the textbooks on Neanderthals, the last species of human to go extinct. Once the archetype for primitive, uncivilised behaviour, the species, illuminated through fossil excavations and lately analysis of their genome, has emerged as being not too dissimilar from our own.
Contrary to their dim-witted image Neanderthals have been found to have used tools, to have worn jewellery, and, lastly, to have interbred with our Homo sapiens ancestors to such an extent that 4% of every modern European's genome is traceable to Neanderthal origins
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
Adam and Eve were created human, and all humans are descendants from them.
You said that neanderthals were the ancestors of modern humans (homo sapiens), and you also said that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of neanderthals this means that Adam and Eve were neither Homo Sapien nor Homo Neanderthalensis, so what exactly were they?
Adam and Eve were humans from which all people groups descended. Asians ,Neandertals, Scandanavians and Pygmies result from mutations, sexual selection, natural selection etc.
