Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > "Budikka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
> > > > > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > > Why do we have almost identical DNA to chimpanzees if we are
> not
> > > > both
> > > > > > > > related to a common ancestor?  Why is mouse DNA so close to
> ours
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > are not connected?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 75% of our DNA is shared with a banana.
> > > > > > Do you have a reference for this, or is this yet one more in a
> > > > > > tediously endless line of Jabriol Lies(TM)?  **GIVE A
REFERENCE**
> > for
> > > > > > this or admit this is yet another lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://old.smh.com.au/news/0107/27/national/national22.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your cite says 30%. This is pretty dramatic evidence of our
> relationship
> > > > with all life. A look at cell structure shows many similarities.
> > > >
> > >  I thought I read 60%,..
> > >
> > > here a question, if there was a designer, would he not use same
building
> > > material?
> >
> > Certainly a designer would. But the designer would also borrow across
what
> > we call lines of descent. We would have flightless birds with hair, apes
> > with feathers, horses with human heads, dogs with bird-talons instead of
> > paws. We would not see vestigial legs on whales, or feathered-wings on
> > flightless birds.
> >
>
>
> why would that be the case?  I think that a designer would follow the rule
> he models for such design. this is the base of all engineer's like myself.
> Why would I design and ape with feathers to prove a point? if the feather
> serves certain purpose on birds, where it would be lost on an ape?

Point to any example of a violation of the nested hierarchy, or you are just
babbling.


> > I really don't think you understand the nested-hierarchy. It is very
clear
> > that each branch of the tree-of-life can only have characteristics
> modified
> > from its ancestors. You just won't find feathers on dogs.
> >
> >
>
> yet you will  have a duckbill on a beaver :-)

Incorrect.


> monotremes are unique, and some will call these living transitional...

Extant monotremes are not the same species as the actual common ancestor,
but yes, extant monotremes do show intermediate characteristics.