Creationists

[UltimateReality]

You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.

In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the living organism that causes leukemia?

Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no designer at all?

Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?

This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.

"Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled? When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[LOki]

Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender.

Your failure to bring ANYTHING you think is not a source of specified information is proof of logically invalid premise.

Thanks for playing.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

YOU have revealed your premise to be bullshit. And nicely done too!

Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.

Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.

For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.

And I have made it abundantly clear (with your own help. Thanks!) how your premises are bullshit. your premises are bullshit.

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

You claimed comparing DNA to computer binary code was not a good analogy.

You aren't making an analogy. You are claiming DNA IS a code, just as binary code is a code in computers.

You screamed that I was changing definitions on you to make my argument.

And you clearly are.

Surely you can back up your argument and tell us your reasons for why it isn't a good analogy.

It's a fine analogy, but it's only fine as far as the analogy can go ... which is not where you wish to take it. While it is useful to express DNA in living things like a computer code, it is NOT computer code as you insist.

Oh wait, your the guy that lies about analogies... nevermind.

Didn't lie once. We can add Poisoning The Well to your bullshit rhetorical arsenal.

 

[LOki]

Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument.

Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!

Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.

The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.

I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.

I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.

You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.

You obviously can't bring anything but the pretense that the invalidity of your fundamental premise has not been fully exposed.

 

[LOki]

In what way, exactly?

My questions came from your comment that only raised more questions. Then when asked for an answer to a question your comment raised you say how the F-U-C-K am i suppose to know. So your response shows your answer lacked credibility. If you can't see why my question needed to be asked that is not my problem but your problem.

Typical bait and switch Loki intellectual dishonesty.

More of your lolsome denialism.

 

[Hollie]

Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?

This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.

"Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled? When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?

You didn't answer the question.

You're afraid of the answer.

 

[LOki]

Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?

You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.

In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the living organism that causes leukemia?

Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no designer at all?

Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design ...

The only "evidence of purposeful design" being rejected here is that which has been presented that relies entirely upon accepting the very contentious premise that it supposed to be supporting.

... and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?

As far as "chance" and "luck" are concerned, you are just refusing to accept how narrowly constrained the probabilities discussed are, by the well understood limitations of the processes in the explanations described; and there are no "miracles" involved in the descriptions of natural processes, so you can just stop beating that tired drum.

"Miracles" are the nonsense product of this magical and explanationless "intelligent agent" you keep positing as an explanation for everything.

 

[LOki]

And let me add to this:

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

 

[ima]

If we were made by intelligent design, this thread wouldn't be so dumb.

 

[daws101]

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Speak for yourself Troll.

ooooooow scathing retort !

 

[UltimateReality]

Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!

Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.

The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.

I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.

You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.

You obviously can't bring anything but the pretense that the invalidity of your fundamental premise has not been fully exposed.

Because it hasn't. And you certainly haven't exposed anything about the fundamental premise other than to say "it is bs, BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

 

[UltimateReality]

This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.

"Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled? When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?

You didn't answer the question.

You're afraid of the answer.

Dodge.

 

[UltimateReality]

And let me add to this:

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that "the present is the key to the past." Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation."

Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.

Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.

So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."

 

[daws101]

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.

4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.




"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

 

[daws101]

And let me add to this:

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

evidence! the thing you don't have. makes all the difference.

 

[Hollie]

You didn't answer the question.

You're afraid of the answer.

Dodge.

I understand your dodge. It's typical of creationist blowhards.

Because the question remains fully unanswered, maybe you can define for us how alleged biblical "miracles" have ceased to occur as humankind has grown more scientific and less superstitious.

 

[daws101]

So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.

that would not have been a problem since the biomass of the insects alone would have held the ark in place and the rain would have filled it.
(try to imagine the weight of all the insects in on the planet all crammed in to a small space.

 

[Hollie]

And let me add to this:

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that "the present is the key to the past." Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation."

Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.

Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.

So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."

Nonsensical cut and paste.

Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.

 

[LOki]

You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.

You obviously can't bring anything but the pretense that the invalidity of your fundamental premise has not been fully exposed.

Because it hasn't.

More of your fatuous denialism ...

And you certainly haven't exposed anything about the fundamental premise other than to say "it is bs, BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

... and pathological projecting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.

4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.




"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

 

[LOki]

And let me add to this:

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

In every single way that has been repeatedly explained and practically diagrammed in crayon just for you.

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution ...

--PATHETIC APOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S QUESTION-BEGGING APPEAL-TO-IGNORANCE PREMISE SNIPPED--​

... historical sciences."

The explanationless "Designer" posited by Intelligent Design Theory as the explanation for everything, is a question-begging non-explanation. Rather, it is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science.