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]
> > > > >
> > > > > "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.
> >
> 
> 
> no.. what I am saying is this.. I use myself as an example when I have to
> design test apparatus.
> 
> I have goal.
> I write the rules I will use to acheive this goal.
> I follow thes rules to acheive my goal.
> 
> sometimes I could mess around with my design, but to do so Im ust break the
> rules I have established.
> 
> breaking these rules, would detract from achieving my goal.
> but I decide to keep to the rules or process.
> 
> I have developed may different apparatus  or test fixtures, and some in
> appeareance look the same. and have had tech confused them, and use them
> incorrectly, even though to the tech it seems that certain fixture would
> work.
> there mistake are not based on physical appeareance alone. Techs have about
> the same knowledge I do. so in principle they make  acceptable error. What
> they do not have, is the reasons I have in developing similar test fixtures,
> because they do not know the rules that I have decide to follow.
> 
> same applies to nested hierchies, one can mess around with them, but would
> violate rules established as you pinted out, having a griffith or centaure
> would violate those rules eh?
> 
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> I was joking... I do have a sense of hunour..
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> but then as I've mention before arent we all transitionals?

You creationists like to use human-designed objects as examples of
design. But humans would never design something using *only slight
modifications of previous components in a tool or other construct.
After we had petroleum-based train engines for a few years, and
learned to make them smaller, we added them to all sorts of devices -
water pumps, carriages, bicycles.

We didn't just modify carriage design - we dropped in a useful
component that had been developed elsewhere. Why wouldn't your
imaginary creator "drop" gills into the cretacean line of models?
Either he doesn't exist, or he is using natural selection to
accomplish whatever his/her goals are.

*Everything in plants and animals is consistent with modified
predecessors, and nothing falsifies this expectation.

--- Kermit
Fossils: God's little jokes.