Evolutionists are Frogs

[explicator]

Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.

[John Harshman]

Could you put your claims in some coherent form?

Are you claiming that human beings are not vertebrates? Not fishes? Not
frogs?

How do you know how many genes humans share with frogs, and especially
how do you know how many genes we share with ancient fishes?

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:53:54 -0800 (PST), explicator
<nors...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.

Cite anything which supports your expressed alternate facts.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Sean Dillon]

Setting aside the lack of any actual evidence provided, I would note that, since all tetrapods (including humans and frogs) share a more recent common ancestor than do humans and modern fish, it should come as no surprise at all that humans and frogs would be more genetically similar than humans and any present day fish (or even our ancestral fish, for that matter.)

Think of it this way: if humans are fish (because we’re descended from fish) then so are frogs, because they also descend from fish. Human fish and frog fish are just more closely related to each other than to classic fish, because we have a more recent common ancestor.

[Ernest Major]

On 17/01/2018 02:26, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/16/18 5:53 PM, explicator wrote:
>> Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say
>> humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny
>> that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of
>> descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans
>> share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that
>> we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is
>> wrong.
>
> Could you put your claims in some coherent form?

It seems coherent enought to me, just stupidly wrong. He's doing a
Denton, i.e. committing the ladder fallacy. (Perhaps he's a Poe
parodying Denton.)

If he were to consider the coefficient of relationship with his first
cousin (1/8) and his great-great-great-grandfather (1/32), he'd realise
that degree of similarity is not a proxy for direct ancestry.

>
> Are you claiming that human beings are not vertebrates? Not fishes? Not
> frogs?
>
> How do you know how many genes humans share with frogs, and especially
> how do you know how many genes we share with ancient fishes?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

On 1/16/2018 7:53 PM, explicator wrote:
> Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.
>
>

Why didn't this make the top 6 list of the best creationist evidence put
out by the creationists themselves?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xCC5NGB-QHI/xmONCrEbCgAJ

This is the best evidence that the creationist ID perps have come up
with in over 22 years of the existence of the IDiot "think tank".

Ron Okimoto

[lbjohn...@yahoo.com]

explicator

Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.

“ ribbit”
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 05:26:17 -0800 (PST), lbjohn...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Ancient Chines saying: those who express their inner frog are doomed
to croak.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:53:54 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by explicator
<nors...@gmail.com>:

>Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates.

Correct.

> They even say humans are fishes.

Correct.

> Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians.

Cite?

> Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from.

Cite, including DNA data from the "ancient fishes"
mentioned?

> Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.

Not even close, especially since no "evolutionists logic"
was displayed, only your unsupported assertions.

But thanks for playing; see the MC for your consolation
(constipation?) prize.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:35:03 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 05:26:17 -0800 (PST), lbjohn...@yahoo.com
>wrote:

>>explicator
>>Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.

>>“ ribbit”
>>Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

>Ancient Chines saying: those who express their inner frog are doomed
>to croak.

Ah, but what of the frog who expresses his inner prince
after osculation?

[lbjohn...@yahoo.com]

Bob Casanova

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:35:03 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 05:26:17 -0800 (PST), lbjohn...@yahoo.com
>wrote:

>>explicator
>>Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates. They even say humans are fishes. Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians. Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from. Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.

>>“ ribbit”
>>Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

>Ancient Chines saying: those who express their inner frog are doomed
>to croak.

Ah, but what of the frog who expresses his inner prince
after osculation?

- show quoted text -

I’m more pragmatic. I’m waiting for the flies to return from D.C. No time soon
I’m afraid. Self auscultation offers no rewards, and only reveals an empty
stomach.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:07:40 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:53:54 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by explicator
><nors...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Evolutionists claim human beings are vertebrates.
>
>Correct.
>
>> They even say humans are fishes.
>
>Correct.
>
>> Frogs are vertebrates too, but evolutionists deny that human beings are frogs because we're not on the direct line of descent from amphibians.
>
>Cite?

[Crickets...]

>> Unfortunately for their doctrine, humans share more genes with frogs than we do with those ancient fishes that we're supposed to be descended from.
>
>Cite, including DNA data from the "ancient fishes"
>mentioned?

[Crickets...]

>> Thus the evolutionists logic is wrong.
>
>Not even close, especially since no "evolutionists logic"
>was displayed, only your unsupported assertions.
>
>But thanks for playing; see the MC for your consolation
>(constipation?) prize.

YAD-BP