A
anon65111186
Guest
I’m saying non-coding DNA is irrelevant for proving evolution.So you are sticking with the position that the formerly junk DNA is a positive proof for evolution?
I’m saying non-coding DNA is irrelevant for proving evolution.So you are sticking with the position that the formerly junk DNA is a positive proof for evolution?
Sorry, not as a test of the theories validity. From a practical standpoint there is no reasonable theory out there to explain change over the generations.Why do I have to have an alternative theory to know something is wrong with the first?
Galileo may not have understood physics as well as we do now, but geocentrism as qualified today is objectively more accurate than heliocentrism by many orders of magnitude. No concept of acentrism can erase that objective difference.The sun is NOT the center of the universe as Galileo claimed.
I will. But until the evidence for young dinosaurs is stronger than the evidence against it, I will not change my mind.A few years ago they found a pregnant dino with DNA. Stay tuned.
Nothing is “proof positive.”. But junk DNA is more supportive of evolution than against it.So you are sticking with the position that the formerly junk DNA is a positive proof for evolution?
You see them as complementary because you conveniently ignore the unimportant points where they differ and focus only on the interpretation that supports the most important aspects of our faith. And that is exactly what you should do, so congratulations! Now just allow me the privilege of doing the same.What? Genesis 1 and 2 are complementary. Gen 1 describes the order of creation. Gen 2 shows the importance of man. They do not conflict.
It was never a pivotal case for evolution. Cite your source for someone claiming that.So you now agree it should be dropped as a positive case for evolution
You are going to have to start making sense if you want to be understood.Reverse your field. Junk DNA has gone down in flames. Yet you are holding onto it?
Yes, in fact most Europeans and Asians have a small percentage of homo neanderthalis DNA mixed in their own.So they have DNA from all of these examples of early hominid and can test against our own DNA?
I’m sorry, I’ve never heard of that, could you explain what it claims?Front loaded programming.
So does this prove origin?Yes, in fact most Europeans and Asians have a small percentage of homo neanderthalis DNA mixed in their own.