Derf
Well-known member
Kinda like how a car and a tricycle both have instructions for how to attach an axle?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Because you have so little evidence currently? That's called "faith", and it should make you question your presuppositions.
They did find some teeth of a hippo ancestor Epirigenys lokonensis that are similar to dolphin teeth. Here, the gross morphology between the dolphin and hippopotamus is not readily apparent, but internal structures help us see a potential connection along side the obvious DNA connection.
It is not faith, it is a hypothesis among many.
Derf
Well-known member
If your currently available evidence were strong, then why do you predict such a party when more evidence is found. If you're searching for truth rather than for confirmation of a particular theory (with specific epistemological implications), you should rejoice over any progress--not just for those that you think confirm your viewpoint. I didn't see much rejoicing when dinosaur soft tissue was found, or when radiocarbon was found in diamonds and other objects too old to have it.
When two lines of research converge it is extra fun. This is a human thing.
Question begging nonsense!
Evolution cannot account for the existence of either dolphins, hippos or DNA and yet you attempt to use all three as evidence for it. Just the exact opposite of sound reason, never mind any sort science.
When the base instructions are exactly the same for two structures, that is amazing. Not true for the bike and car. btw.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Well they're both mammals. Why wouldn't you think mammalian DNA would be more similar to another mammalian DNA than to a fish's DNA? Or did you 'flip-flop' what you were trying to say?
Right Divider
Body part
My answer: You're speculating well beyond a reasonable point based on ASSUMPTIONS that you've already made about their past.
Derf
Well-known member
Sure they are: attach axle to vehicle, then attach wheels.
Right Divider
Body part
Not when they have the same Designer.
This is not your answer. This is your reaction to my answer.
Right Divider
Body part
It's a valid answer. Everything in your "answer" were pure speculation based on your false paradigm.
Sorry, no. The question is why do whales and dolphins have pelvic bones similar to those that are condusive for walking?.
Up until the 17th century whales and dolphins were considered fish because they looked like fish. Internal structures and DNA shows us that despite their out look, the y have more in common with mammals. Before DNA was mapped we hypothesized that there was a land mammal ancester of both sea mammals and land animals. The structure and sequence of the DNA supports this.
Hope this helps.
Right Divider
Body part
Again, you make wild assumptions.
What makes you think that they are "pelvic bones" in the first place? (hint: evolution on the brain).
Compare some skeletons and get back to us on what you think.
Interestingly, whale pelvic bones are not simply vestigial as once thought; they appear to help with birthing process.
Right Divider
Body part
- When you say "we hypothesized", you are simply following with the "evolutionary" view.
- DNA is extremely complex and there are many ways to compare it that give differing results. We do not get a "complete evolutionary tree" by comparing DNA. Evolutionists have an extremely biased view of how to compare DNA but aren't afraid to make gross assumptions to attempt to support their "theory".
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, they were never "pelvic bones" in the first place.