On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2014 11:55, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in >>> popular knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by >>> a mile, is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason >>> it's ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up >>> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual >>> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, >>> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with >>> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it >>> wouldn't happen >>> >> >> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune >> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use >> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions >> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to >> catch their parasites... >> > > there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this. > It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is > treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his > short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther > bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and > underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between > ape and pig can't go on all fours. > > this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a > microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits > is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level > featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are > impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are > acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share > parentage for that. > > It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to > evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of > distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts > over. He did his legwork > > does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site > macroevolution.net >
not to say he's little miss perfect. case in point: *sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be present*.s --> of course they bloody are. what he's probably saying is genetic sequences. Noncoding dna is probably as or more important and different traits will need the dna to say that trait is like that, and get built like this, when, where. An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down's syndrome. Individuals affected by Down's regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ in any way from other humans. To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely useless. --> he does this a fair bit over the site...which is a mistake really because he's on the outside and overlooking down's people are missing a whole freaking chromosome is a shame. It's just a case of he's really busy and thorough for his theory but draws on general knowledge for some of his argument. But he'll be judged for that similarly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
