Re: Possible vs. Likely
- From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:50:53 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 28, 12:11 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(snip)
Name a unique functional difference between humans and chimps that(snip)
isn't just quantitative but qualitative . . . Then, once you have
done this, show the minimum number of genetic differences needed to
produce this novel functional difference.
I'm a little curious here . . .
Humans and chimps are closer to each other, genetically, than many
other species are which creationists consider to be the same "kind" --
horses and donkeys, for instance, or cheetahs and jaguars.
Why then do you consider it utterly absolutely completely impossible
for humans to have "micro-evolved" their genetic differencesd with
chimps, but NOT utterly absolutely completely impossible for members
of other "kinds" to have "micro-evolved" their LARGER genetic
differences with each other?
If the genetic differences between jaguars and cheetahs can have
evolved, then why do you insist that the SMALLER genetic differences
between chimps and humans, can not have?
Besides, of course, your religious opinion that humans are special and
simply cannot be related through descent to any other animal, no
matter what . . .
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Possible vs. Likely
- From: Ron O
- Re: Possible vs. Likely
- From: Frank J
- Re: Possible vs. Likely
- References:
- Possible vs. Likely
- From: Seanpit
- Possible vs. Likely
- Prev by Date: Re: Possible vs. Likely
- Next by Date: Re: Chez Watt: Humans aren't Natural?
- Previous by thread: Re: Possible vs. Likely
- Next by thread: Re: Possible vs. Likely
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
