Question About Creationists

[Godscreated]

First of all I made no response to Min, you have fabricated a response that is not true, so who's lowering the bar on stupidity.
Now to get this straight, one of the early responses to the pic of the coyote, was to call it wolf, then others started accepting what was said, all I have done was to point out that you city people, can't tell the difference between a coyote and a wolf. If your scientific identification of animals is no better than that, then why should I pay attention to anything you say.

Why the fuck did you quote me? Lol, I was making an aside about a cool thing I learned about dogs, wtf?

And also, I grew up on the grounds of a prison 20 minutes out of anything resembling a town. Don't assume things.

You're the one who brought it up in post #67.

[Welsh cake]

Now to get this straight, one of the early responses to the pic of the coyote, was to call it wolf, then others started accepting what was said, all I have done was to point out that you city people, can't tell the difference between a coyote and a wolf.

Have you even bothered to read my response to that yet?

[Minimalist]

[Godscreated]

Wrong!

Hmm, I think we're both wrong, its usually impossible to distinguish between a Coyote – Red Wolf hybrid and a Red Wolf just by looking at it.

You must be a city boy, that is a coyote, we hunt them around here all the time, we use to have Red wolves around here and their appearance is different than a coyote.

[libalchris]

Why the fuck are we arguing over whether it's a wolf or coyote? Coyotes and wolfs are very closely related, and dogs descended from wolves. (It does appear to me to be a coyote btw)

The point is that creationists will agree that the two bottom share a common ancestry, but that the two on the top definitely did not.

[Annik]

Why the fuck did you quote me? Lol, I was making an aside about a cool thing I learned about dogs, wtf?

And also, I grew up on the grounds of a prison 20 minutes out of anything resembling a town. :) Don't assume things.

You're the one who brought it up in post #67.

I didn't bring shit up with you. I quoted Min and you swooped in randomly.

[Abishalom]

[libalchris]

[popeyespappy]

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

[Abishalom]

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Similarities of noncoding DNA or protein coding DNA? If it's the former then we do need to know the function seeing the 99% of noncoding DNA function is unknown. If it's the latter, well that only makes up 1% of the 3+ billion base pairs so it is not an accurate representation of the whole genome (yet scientist still base said claim on it).

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

I actually am aware of that. Are you aware that 99% of the noncoding DNA function is unknown? So good luck trying to pinpoint which sequence controls tail function (or lack thereof). Which is my point. If you are going to prove humans evolved from an ape (or that humans are apes) you are going to have to crack that region and compare the known function to come to an accurate conclusion. It seems like scientist are just dragging their feet in the mud or just plain ignoring it.