What proof would you need?

[Loudmouth]

We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?

So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?

That is not an anatomically modern human. Skin tone is based on human norms for the lattitude that the fossil was found at. Dark skin is not limited to Africa, by the way.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
God created those too.

“Remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth.” (Deut 8:18).

Sorry but I've seen nothing but humans create all those things. Never seen God do a single thing. You got a video or picture of him doing anything? Better yet, got a place I can go see him doing something?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is real, but the explanation of it is false.

An honest person would actually show why the theory is false. Somehow I doubt you will be showing us this evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

If God backs them up they are.
That is how the Bible remains true for over 3500 years.
God is watching over the written word to perform.

Truth, according to the Bible, has changed quite a bit over the last 3500 years. At one time geocentrism was Truth. At one time a young earth was Truth. Time after time the Bible has been shown to be just as fallible as its human authors.

 

[Split Rock]

We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?

So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?

Nicely racist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ahh yes, it appears that we have plumbed the depths of creationism, and it is quite shallow. If ever there was any doubt that creationists refuse to have an honest debate about evolution this post should clear it up for you.

 

[RickG]

It MATTERS if the FACT and THEORIES don't agree.

There is only one theory of evolution. Would you state what you think the definition of a scientific theory is?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So evolution theory may be false but you have no reason to believe it is, right?

Correct.

Well, some of us have reasons to believe it is false, even if you don't.

Undoubtedly, and I bet I can guess what your reasons are...

We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?

So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?

How disgusting and offensive.

 

[Tiberius]

Does that include you?

I am fully aware of what "theory" means when it is used in a scientific context. Do you? If you do, please provide a definition for "theory" in a scientific context in your own words.

Evolutionists do not know what a theory means most of all. That is why they call the garbage bin of falsified irrefutable evidence past, a fact.

This is laughably false. Scientists have a very clear understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Perhaps you can answer the quandry of how your fossil evidence supports ancestry to chimp like as well a ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp?

Would you care to elaborate? What is this entirely-unchimplike animal you speak of that we humans are supposedly very closely related to?

Now I again challenge you evolutionists to do the same thing yourselves. After all this is your scenario of human evolution.

Go on...give us creationists a description of what an intermediate before the rise of modern man should look like as we evolved from some kind of ape?

Human evolution.

Given you have no idea what the comon ancestor looked like you are going to have fun. Are intermediates supposed to have a mix of chimp/human characteristics now that your researchers know the common ancestor was not chimp-like? Perhaps you wil go with ape like. In this case which ape? Mankind shares more morphology with an orangutan than a chimp.

Okay, let's see.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

The study points to things like commonalities between the teeth to show that humans and orangutans are most closely related. However, the teeth reflect the diet and closely related animals need not share similar teeth. In a similar way, the beaks of the finches in the Galapagos islands are very different, yet no one would seriously think of suggesting that this means they are all entirely unrelated species.

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

The first line of this articles says that they aren't looking at genetic traits. Enough said. The same criticism applies as in the first article. They use other arguments, but they are basically the same as the teeth argument. They simply substitute the difference in the mammary glands and how far down the hair comes.

African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray - International - Scotsman.com

And this does not disprove the fact that Humans evolved. Why do you think it does?

Homo Erectus is much more primitive than once thought due to new finding on sexual dimorphism akin to Gorillas.

New fossils reveal different theory on human ancestors - CNN.com

Actually, the article says that Erectus may have been more apelike than more like modern Hmans. It does NOT say that Erectus is more closely related to gorillas rather than chimps.

There is no order in the fossil record of human ancestry at all.

The Supposed Evolution of the Human Skull

Creationist site. I'm not even going to bother with that.

You evolutionists also have no fossil evidence to demonstrate chimp ancestry back to any common human/chimp ancestor.

Yes, unfortunately, the rainforest environments where chimp ancestors likely lived do not lend themselves to the formation of fossils.

However, to claim that the lack of fossils means there is no evidence is ludicrous. It would mean ignoring a wealth of DNA evidence. And why would you want to do that?

You go right ahead and defend your science. None of you will be able to is my expectation. I predict more excuses and no resolution.

evolution is defended by genetic analysis. I dare you to prove that wrong.

Evolutionists all like to sprooke about the huge amount of evidence you have to support evolution. However you evolutionists are unable to put any substance to just one line of evidence re human ancestry.

The genetic analysis does.

At present the research supports creationist paradigms.

Oh yeah? Show me the scientific papers supporting creationism.

Homo erectus is very primitive and ape like. I have already spoken to Turkana Boy and his ape features that demonstrate discontinuity with mankind. Huge ape like sexual dimorphism further supports my claim. Habilis was not the ancestor of erectus as the two coexisted for millions of years apparently and according to your current thinking. Now you need another ancestor 2-3mya. Was it Lucy, Afarensis? Lucy is a 3.5ft ape with curved fingers and likely not the maker of the Laetoli footprints. It is also unlikely that the human femor and human metatarsel belonged to her.

And what is your source for this?

Now you or any evo please tell me what you look for in human intermediates that suggest mankind evolved from a question mark.

A series of intermediates that gradually get less and less ape like and more and more human like.

Please put some substance behind your claims, otherwise creationists are going to win this round on human ancestry to a question mark....by miles.

false dichotomy.

 

[chuck77]

Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!

How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.

 

[Tiberius]

Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!

How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.

You are wrong on several counts.

1.
No animal is an intermediate between two animals that live at the same time as the supposed intermediate. The only way for your argument to be true is if we had seals first, then penguins, and then flying birds, each living one after the other. Since any scientist in the future will see that penguins, seals and flying birds all lived at the same time, they will not think that penguins are an intermediate stage in the evolution from seal to bird.

2
If any decent scientist is going to think that penguins are an intermediate stage between seals and birds, then he will need to show the features that penguoins share with seals, and the features they share with flying birds.

While the features that penguins share with flying birds are numerous (the bone structure in their wings, their beak instead of tooth-filled jaws, a preproductive system that uses eggs instead of a placenta and live birth), the features that penguins share with seals are very generalised and not enough to establish that penguins and seals are closely related.

For instance, penguins and seals both breathe air (but so do elephants, so if the sharing of this trait meant that seals and penguins were closely related, then all air breathing animals must also be closely related to them), they both have skeletons, and they both eat fish. but these features are not the sort of thing that can only come about because penguins evolved from seals. So while the is a great deal of evidence to support the fact that penguons are cloesly related to flying birds, there is no evidence to say that they are closely related to seals.

So it is possible to tell if an animal represents a transitional stage between two other species.

BTW, those living fossils are no threat to evolution. I;ve never seen any evidence that they are.

 

[cupid dave]

Ahh yes, it appears that we have plumbed the depths of creationism, and it is quite shallow. If ever there was any doubt that creationists refuse to have an honest debate about evolution this post should clear it up for you.

On your side you ignore what Genesis actually says so you can pretend it doesn't agree with evolution.

The heaven were created 13.5 billion years ago, and after a Cosmic Dark Age, light did begin to shine.
A pangea-type "gathering of all the waters under heaven into one place" occurred just before the Plant Kingdom appeared on earth, followed by the Animal Kingdom.

Every actual verse in Genesis conforms to what we now know.

 

[Cabal]

Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!

How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.

It's funny how creos presume those researching evolution know as little about it as they do.

Fossil morphology is a lot more complex than "I 'unno, it looks kinda like that other thing we dug up, therefore related".

 

[cupid dave]

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.

Where in Genesis does it tell us HOW god created plants or animals?

Could he not have used his natural laws the way science speculates?
And hether you agree with that or not, how does it oppose what genesis actually says??

 

[cupid dave]

Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!

How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.

The real living fossils that support our own evolution can be seen in the fetus as the embryo grows through undeniable evolutionary stages of development, retracing its own metamorphosis from earlier species that had fish tails and later, gills, and so on:

 

[Cabal]

The real living fossils that support our own evolution can be seen in the fetus as the embryo grows through undeniable evolutionary stages of development, retracing its own metamorphosis from earlier species that had fish tails and later, gills, and so on:

Erm...I maybe have misread this post, but this sounds a lot like recapitulation theory, which is disproven.

Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tiberius]

On your side you ignore what Genesis actually says so you can pretend it doesn't agree with evolution.

The heaven were created 13.5 billion years ago, and after a Cosmic Dark Age, light did begin to shine.
A pangea-type "gathering of all the waters under heaven into one place" occurred just before the Plant Kingdom appeared on earth, followed by the Animal Kingdom.

Every actual verse in Genesis conforms to what we now know.

Except that it doesn't.

Genesis says light came before the sun, which didn't happen.

Genesis says that man came before animals (chapter 2), which didn't happen.

Genesis says that whales came before land animals, which didn't happen.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!

Except, we could easily identify it as a true bird, not a 'seal to bird' intermediate (such a thing would disprove evolution entirely - according to evolution, species cannot cross taxa, they can only split into sub-taxa).

Skeletons hold a lot more information than you seem to think.

How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Scientists, by and large, don't use the term 'transitional fossil', because they understand that, in evolution, every fossil is a 'transition'. To label a given species as a 'transitional fossil' begs the question as to what makes it a transition, and not a species in its own right. No, we fully understand why Creationists continually demand more and more transitional fossils: they don't understand what it is they're asking for.

That said, we can still present interesting species which exist as vanguards to a large ecological niche. There must have been a 'first land vertebrate', and we used the theory of evolution to deduce when it must have lived, and then used geology to work out which geological stratum that corresponds to. We then looked for an exposed area of that stratum, and we dug. Lo and behold, we found exactly what we're looking for: Tiktaalik. So much for evolution not being able to make predictions.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.[/quote]
Except, of course, we do (there you have TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution site, talking about living fossils). Not only are living fossils discovered by evolutionists, they are used by evolutionists for the theory of evolution. Besides, what's to talk about? Species can adapt to environmental change via evolution, but if the environment doesn't change, then neither will the species.

No one said species have to experience great morphological changes over time.

 

[Belk]

Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!

How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.

Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.

It might help your case a bit more if you came up with concrete examples of errors in the science of evolution rather then making up scenarios in your head and trying to use those to paint science in a bad light. Of course, we also understand why you do not.

So Chuck77, given that the vast majority of scientists accept that the evidence points to the fact of evolution are they all incredibly incompetent or is it a vast conspiracy? It looks from your quoted post that you lean towards incompetent.

 

[cupid dave]

Erm...I maybe have misread this post, but this sounds a lot like recapitulation theory, which is disproven.

Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[FONT='Helvetica','sans-serif'][/font]

Yes, is true that like many hypothesis, over time, they are altered and watered down but also extended into a ifferent direction with te basic idea still intact.

Read your own link for more information and see that basically, the idea is still in tact.

Haeckel’s theory has since been discredited.
However, it served as a backdrop for a renewed interest in the evolution of development after the modern evolutionary synthesis was established.

Edward B. Lewis discovered homeotic genes, rooting the emerging discipline of evo-devo in molecular genetics.
In 2000, a special section of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) was devoted to "evo-devo", and an entire 2005 issue of the Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution was devoted to the key evo-devo topics of evolutionary innovation and morphological novelty