Why Evolution is True

[bhsmte]

you sound angry. just sayin.

You can just say whatever you like.

 

[createdtoworship]

You can stop acting as if we haven't shown you evidence

what evidence? not trying to be rude
but I honestly missed it or something. please be kind enough to repost.

 

[PsychoSarah]

what evidence? not trying to be rude
but I honestly missed it or something. please be kind enough to repost.

Have we not shown you fossils? Have we not mentioned DNA, studies, etc? You can view these as not being enough to make you an evolution supporter, but don't act as if they aren't evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Have we not shown you fossils? Have we not mentioned DNA, studies, etc? You can view these as not being enough to make you an evolution supporter, but don't act as if they aren't evidence.

you beg the question as to what evidence they are for. You must present your entire argument at the time of submittal.

 

[PsychoSarah]

you beg the question as to what evidence they are for. You must present your entire argument at the time of submittal.

We are mad because you act like we have shown you nothing. Again, regardless as to whether or not it is convincing or complete in your view, or even supports evolution, it is still evidence.

 

[CabVet]

you got two different things here. first plant evolution is another topic. which we could migrate to if you want to change the bars. secondly flies do evolve. fruit flies are still flies regardless of how their eyes evolve. thirdly, you can migrate to plants as soon as you own the fact that you dont think vertebrates share common ancestry. are you willing to do that?

Now, where is that facepalm image again? Oh, yeah, here:

 

[createdtoworship]

I just want to be fair here, cabvet. You can change the bars as much as you like, but remember we need closure on our old topic. Are you willing to accept defeat, and be intellectually honest here? No evidence of macro evolution exists to date amongst vertebrates? If so we can move on.

 

[CabVet]

I just want to be fair here, cabvet. You can change the bars as much as you like, but remember we need closure on our old topic. Are you willing to accept defeat, and be intellectually honest here? No evidence of macro evolution exists to date amongst vertebrates? If so we can move on.

No, you don't. If there is anyone here "moving the bars", that person is you. When you started asking about evidence, you mention nothing about vertebrates, and you know I can quote every single one of your posts. You first moved the bar to "animals" when I gave you the plant example. Then you moved it to "vertebrates" when I gave you the fly example. I could give you evidence on fish, but what for? Just for you to say that evolution is fully accepted in fish and that is a non-issue and then move the bar to primates? And when I give you a primate example, you move it to apes? No, thanks.

For your information, if macro-evolution can be shown to have happened in one type of organism, there is no reason why it couldn't have happened in others.

 

[lasthero]

you beg the question as to what evidence they are for

She is not begging the question.

Why do you keep using terms incorrectly like that?

 

[CabVet]

She is not begging the question.

Why do you keep using terms incorrectly like that?

He obviously doesn't know what they mean. According to him, the lie of evolution is only a lie when applied to animals. Plant evolution is fully accepted by everyone and a non-issue.

 

[stevevw]

I have already addressed this multiple times now. Those scientists agree that the tree of life still applies to complex life. The tree only breaks down for the root of the eukaryote tree and for prokaryotes.

Well as far as I have read it also applies to more advanced and complex life as well. This can be done via viruses and cross breeding.

Lateral gene transfer events between bacteria and animals highlight an avenue for evolutionary genomic loss/gain of function. Herein, we report functional lateral gene transfer in animal parasitic nematodes.
Interdomain lateral gene transfer of an essential ferrochelatase gene in human parasitic nematodes

Lateral gene transfer (LGT) from bacteria to animals occurs more frequently than was appreciated prior to the advent of genome sequencing.
PLOS Genetics: A Review of Bacteria-Animal Lateral Gene Transfer May Inform Our Understanding of Diseases like Cancer

Human evolution is looking more tangled than ever. A new genetic study of nearly two thousand people from around the world suggests that some of our ancestors bred with other species of humans, such as Neanderthals, at least twice.
Short Sharp Science: Early humans may have bred with other species – twice

And yet you claim that there is not a single transitional fossil. If it isn't black and white, how can you make such a black and white judgement?

I never said there wasn't a single transitional, I said Where is the evidence for them and that its hard to tell what is a transitional and what is not. Whether its variation within a species.

The problem is that what you reference is either creationist propoganda sites, or it doesn't support what you claim.

No thats what you say because you dont like the answers. All or at least most of the sites I quoted were scientific sites like the above pnas, newscientist and plosgenetics.org.

For example, placing three transitional hominid fossils in the same species does not take away their transitional status. They are still transitional. Variations of a transitional species are still transitionals. The ability to interbreed with a transitional species does not take away their transitional status.

They are variations of the same species. Just like there is variation within the dog species of a sausage dog and a great Dane. Completely different shapes and sizes. Just like there is variation within the human species of a dwarf and the Watusi tribe who are the tallest people on earth. A transitional will have variation as well but it will continue to change and morph across species barriers and then into another type of animal. Though for example dogs can vary a lot they will still be dogs. They wont change their shape and become a cat or pig. Variation within a species can be great as seen with different dogs and even to the point where you may think that it doesn't look like a dog anymore. But its still a dog.

But if a dog or any animals would change into another then would we have see or be seeing now animals that are 1/2 and 1/2 or 1/4 and 3/4. Wouldn't we see limbs and wings and other body parts in the process of forming into new creatures. This is the vital difference in macro and micro evolution because the tradition model that Darwin proposes needs all creatures to have morphed from others and split off to form even new ones. All creatures originally came from 1 or 2 or 3 animals and created the entire animals kingdom.

Variations within a transitional species are still transitional.

No they are not. They are the genetics that we inherit from our parents that are already there. Transitions come from new features that were not there. Though I suppose there can be a combination but new features have to be added with new genetic info so that the creature gradually changes into something that they are not and become something that is new from the rest of the group. If you look at the variety in humans we have tall people, short people, flat noses, big noses ect ect. In a generation we can be tall but within that same line the generations can go back to be small or whatever feature they use to have if the genetics were there originally. So they can become tall in one generation and go back to small in future generations. Transitions will take on a new feature and keep it if its beneficial. Then over a very long time a creature will add more and more new changes until it is a completely different and new creature. This normally will happen when the changes are taken on by the group or they become isolated.

You are arguing just the opposite. If there are gradual variations then you say they belong to the same species, and therefore can not be transitional. For any gradual series, you will draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the series and declare everything on one side to be an ape, and everything on the other side of the line to be human.

Every species has to have variations otherwise we would all be the same. That variety is the normal variety within a group of animals and their gene pool. All the genetic info is there and it will depend on what is passed on and who the parents are. But transitions will need new genetic info to make new features that were not there from the original group. So variety is not really a transition but normal differences that can come and go depending of the parents ans line line that you inherit them from.

A gradual series is exactly what we have, and exactly what you are citing as casting doubt on the fossils being transitional.

No I am questioning whether a creature can take on new genetic info and make new features he never had. If they cant breath underwater and havnt got the genetics to do so I am questioning whether they can get that from natural selection. That comes from mutations so that eventually positive mutations will give the creature the ability to breathe under water. But this is a slow and gradual process. So it wont get the ability in one go. It will get a small step towards that over thousands of years. But like I said Just like with wings if they get a bit of a wing how is that beneficial to keep on for the next generations. I think darwins evolution takes what is limited evolution within creatures like the ability to change size and color ect and says that you can extend that to changing into another new and completely different creature. Its the same sort of logic but they take it to the extreme where it hasn't been proven. This is need because they believe that all life is self creating and there is not God. So nature is the God which has the ability to do the impossible.

According to your logic, if we dug up dog fossils that had a lot of variation then they would be considered modern humans.

No I'm saying that some of the variation is so great within some creatures that you could mistake them for something completely different. Even though they are still the same creature but with different variations like a poodle and a great Dane.

There are over a 1,000 species of bats. There is way, way more genetic differences between two bat species than there are between humans and chimps. WAY MORE!!!

But they all still look like bats. Yet humans and chimps look so much different.

So if we use bats as your limitation, then humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps is well within your limitations.

No this is where I believe they step outside the limits. Humans are humans and though we may have many variations even to the point where some fossil humans of the ancient world may have looked a little like apes they are still humans.

The problem is that you would just call those stages either dinos or birds by drawing an arbitrary line in the series. You would call transitionals on one side of the line "variations of dinos" and transitionals on the other side of the line "variations of birds". It is the same thing you are doing with hominid transitionals.

Well dinos would be dinos and though there would be great variation within the dino group even to the point where some dinos have feathers. Then you would have birds and they would have great variation as well even to the point where they may have features like dinos such as their feet and claws. All animals have some similar genetics and features because the blueprint for life is basically the same. So the same basic genetics to make hair and nails is in all of us. But that doesn't mean we came from each other. That there was this bacteria that spawned all life and thats why we all have the same genetics because we grew out of each other. If you make something you can make separate creatures for each group of animals but use the same blue print over and over again and just change some of the genetics to get the different animals. If you make a cake with flour and eggs and water you would change that recipe to much to make scones and then bread and then muffins. Its basically the same just with some adjustments. But that doesn't mean the scones came from the cake or the muffins came from the scones. No you keep using the same reciepe because its was sucessful in making the cake and you just adjust it to make the other items.

You would have a stage where the arms are functional, but don't provide fully powered flight.

Well then how are they beneficial for one and where are the transitional fossils for creatures that have wings that are not quite wings. All we have are creatures with full wings or creatures with no wings and nothing in between.

I will answer the rest later as the post is getting a bit to long.

 

[CabVet]

Jesus did write lots of lines. His words were recorded and He made sure of that as He Himself said He would.

Jesus didn't write a single line. There is no "Gospel according to Jesus". Careful now.

To back up your claim no one has seen an angel you have to prove the millions who dis wrong and know every person that lived to see who saw what. You are talking out of your depth.

Using your logic, the Yeti, Leprechauns, Thor and Zeus all exist because I can't interview every single person in this planet to prove that nobody saw them.

 

[stevevw]

Your objections read more like simple rejection of the findings based on faith instead of reasonable objections. What can one fossil have in relation to another . . . except similarities?

Genetics is not showing the lines and trees made in the past are coming into qeustion. Genetics is confirming the lines and trees made in the past.

Ok well I keep reading over and over again how genetics is showing that the tree that darwin made is wrong. The branches of that tree are being removed and the links between some creatures is being undone. Where two animals were linked through the similarities of anatomy and bone structure it was found that they were not linked through genetics. There have been some creatures linked to a line in the tree where scientists thought they didn't belong. So groups of creatures are being lumped together with parts of their gnome when scientists said they should belong together. The tree of life that Darwin had made which showed verticle passing of genes is wrongs and genetic results are showing a more horizontal movement. HGT is more widely at play than scientists though. So changes through mutations alone is not the only way genes can be passed from one creature to another to account for changes in features.

"If there is a tree of life it's a small irregular structure growing out of the web of life." More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.
Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph

Darwin used the image of a tree of life to illustrate how species evolve, one from another. Even today, branches sprouting from lower branches (representing ancestors) is how many people view the evolution of species.
However, for some time, evolutionary biologists have known that the picture is not quite so clear. A recent feature article in New Scientist investigates the current views of biologists - that organisms may pass traits not just to their offspring, but to other living organisms - and suggests that uprooting the tree of life may be the start of a revolutionary change in biology.
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket


Modern scientists and geneticists are now saying that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading. A more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an “impenetrable thicket.”
Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram - Buffalo Top News | Examiner.com


Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.
Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Evolution News & Views

And you continue to sport ear wiggling muscles that our species no longer uses at all. How many species back was it that those vestigial muscles were actually useful, do you suppose?

Not sure what you mean here but many of the so called vestigial organs have been shown to be use for something else.

 

[biggles53]

this is another ad hominem fallacy. But anyway, the truth is that I am providing an example of macro evolution by stating two objects and one transition between. For simplicity only, what I didn't state is that you can have as many intermediaries as you wish, but document the common ancestry as it become important the more steps you take. Thats all, thanks for the comment.

And you still don't understand ad hominem...

That comment was not an example of the fallacy....it was simply an insult.

I didn't say your argument was wrong BECAUSE your thinking was backward...

Do try to learn please....

 

[biggles53]

see my last post, that was one example of many, but you document no examples so I don't feel bad. thanks for the comment.

There was no example in that post of macroevolution being the result of two distinct species interbreeding...

But, we're used to your confused thinking/ lying......

 

[stevevw]

No, there isn't. None of the studies you keep pointing to have classified H. erectus skulls as H. sapiens skulls. Even the original Neanderthal specimen found in Germany was found to be genetically different than anatomically modern humans. Since then, numerous studies have demonstrated that neanderthals and humans were different species with very little cross breeding. For example, no neanderthal mitochondrial DNA lineages survive in modern human populations. If neanderthals were just a variation of modern humans then we would expect to see these lineages at the same frequencies as other mtDNA lineages, but we don't.

Well according to the latest info and discoveries thats not the case.
But, by biologists’ most common definitions, we, our Homo sapien ancestors, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are all part of the same species.
Neanderthals & Homo sapiens: the same species? | IFS

Were Neanderthals a different species? | Genetic Literacy Project

By "some" do you mean the creationists on creationist sites?

No scientists. Why is it that any time someone disagrees with what evolutionists say it has to be creationists. There is a lot of research going on in this area at the moment and I'm not going to make any definite statements. But as more data comes in we will see and learn more. But from what I have read there are some scientists saying that there are similarities between some of the so called different species that were made in the past. They were finding skulls that covered a few of the different shapes that were attributed to different species in the past together. This brought into question some of the skulls that were said to be a different species and a transitional. It was suggesting that they were just variations within the same species. Now they are getting some genetic evidence. Certainly some of the species have been brought together one way or the other and it has indicated that there were possibly less species going around. To me this is showing that scientists were quick to label a new species all the time because they needed to to make links with transitions.

That is false. All of the neanderthal DNA studies have demonstrated that there is very limited interbreeding which would classify them as separate species.

Refer top above.

Confirmed: All non-African people are part Neanderthal

The evidence has been mounting for years that early humans and Neanderthals interbred,
How did Neanderthal genes affect humanity? Here are some answers.
Is there evidence for Neanderthal life?: How did Neanderthal genes affect that of Human genes?

And yet creationists say that there are definitely no transitional fossils. Go figure.

I am not sure. Its hard to tell and be confident. What is a variation within the same species and what is a transition.

Again, variations within a transitional species are still transitional.

That just doesn't make sense and cant be proved. They are two different things as far as I know. How do you tell the difference.

Evolution news and views is not a science site. Please reference real science and not creationist propoganda.

The point is there is still conjecture. Nothing is definite. Australopithecine is definitely very ape like. They focus on a couple of features to link it to humans. One is whether it walked upright. Many say it might have but not very well. But even if it did it doesnt prove that it was a transitional to humans. Some apes can stand and walk upright with some difficulty as well and that is the problem. Is it an ape that can have a couple of human features or abilities or is it a early human.
Few other paleoanthropologists agree with Dr. Berger’s contention that the new species is the most plausible known ancestor of archaic and modern humans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/s...d-forest-foods-fossil-teeth-suggest.html?_r=0

That does not stand to reasons. There were billions of passenger pigeons at one time, but we only have a handful of known fossils, and that is for a very recent species that is present in the most easy to get to sediments. The problems only get worse as we move back in time.

Well the point I was making is that if transitions between creatures takes thousands if not millions of years to happen and many gradual stages then we should have more transitional fossils than complete fossils of creatures that are fully formed. If it takes many stages to get a fully formed and working wing then we should have one lot of fossils with fully formed wings, one lot of fossils of that same creature when it had no wings and many fossils of it gradually getting wings. So there would be more fossils of the gradual stages in between than there would be for it when it had no wings or fully formed wings. So in that case we should have more chance finding fossils of the in between stages than the first stage and last stage.

First, non-advantageous does not mean deleterious. Those include mutations that do not change anatomy or physiology in any way whatsoever. This is another example of how creationists use tactics to mislead their audience.

Well to me its got nothiong to do with creationists and Im not a creationist. Its just a simple and logical question one should ask. If changes to a creatures shape and features apart from that which is already within its genetic code are made through muataions then it would take many mutations to get the right sort of changes needed. Because the process is random and blind and the only reason oneis taken on is because it proves advantagous. But the creature doesnt know that it needs that particular change. It just happens to keep one because it proves beneficial. So to get one beneficial change from a mutation would it need many other trial and error mutations in between to get there. I mean it might fluke the right change in one or two generations but chance are it will take a long time to get all the right changes it needs. If it eventually needed say to lose its legs because it could move better down holes then at first it may get mutation that have nothing to do with losing legs. Thats because it doesn't know it needs to lose its legs. I maybe looking at it to simply or wrong but that is how I understand it.

No, there wouldn't. That is not how genetics work. An entire generation is not suddenly born with the all individuals having the same deleterious mutation.

So the generation will have many different types of muatations. The ones that are beneficial will be kept and eventually become the dominate change in the group. But would there be other mutation changes that were beneficial for a while for other reasons and taken on for a while until they didn't work.

Hold on. If we aren't allowed to use physical similarities, then what in the world are you asking for with respect to transitionals.

No you are allowed to use them.'m saying because they are used to show transitions that its hard to tell whether they are just variations with a species that comes from genetics it already has or if its a transition. Its also hard because some different creatures have similarities and they are not related ie shark and dolphin. So similarities alone dont mean they are transitions.

Transitional does not mean ancestral. When we say that a fossil is transitional we are not saying that it must be a direct ancestor of a living species. Those are two different things. For example, the platypus is a transitional species because it has features of both placental mammals and reptiles. However, no one is claiming that the modern platypus is a direct ancestor to every living placental mammal species.

But the platypus also has similarities of other animal's as well.

 

[dad]

Jesus didn't write a single line. There is no "Gospel according to Jesus". Careful now.

Not true in any way. Jesus promised His spirit would bring things to remembrance whatever He said! You are in NO position to deny that or disprove it, whether you are careful or not.

Using your logic, the Yeti, Leprechauns, Thor and Zeus all exist because I can't interview every single person in this planet to prove that nobody saw them.

Using your logic your mom or granddad didn't exist because we can't interview them. Whether spirits of various names exist is neither here nor there, and certainly above your paygrade.

 

[CabVet]

Not true in any way. Jesus promised His spirit would bring things to remembrance whatever He said! You are in NO position to deny that or disprove it, whether you are careful or not.

Jesus didn't write a single line in the Bible.

Using your logic your mom or granddad didn't exist because we can't interview them. Whether spirits of various names exist is neither here nor there, and certainly above your paygrade.

The logic is yours, not mine. Forgot about it already? I will remind you:

To back up your claim no one has seen an angel you have to prove the millions who dis wrong and know every person that lived to see who saw what. You are talking out of your depth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well as far as I have read it also applies to more advanced and complex life as well. This can be done via viruses and cross breeding.

Lateral gene transfer events between bacteria and animals highlight an avenue for evolutionary genomic loss/gain of function. Herein, we report functional lateral gene transfer in animal parasitic nematodes.
Interdomain lateral gene transfer of an essential ferrochelatase gene in human parasitic nematodes

How much of the human and chimp genome is made up of genes from nematodes? You are talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of the genome, and they are easily detected. This is no different than ERV's which can easily be used to CONFIRM the tree-like pattern.

Human evolution is looking more tangled than ever. A new genetic study of nearly two thousand people from around the world suggests that some of our ancestors bred with other species of humans, such as Neanderthals, at least twice.

Exchange with the nearest branches is not a tangled tree.

No thats what you say because you dont like the answers.

I don't like the answers because they are lies from creationist sites.

Please use real scientific sources.

They are variations of the same species.

Why isn't that same species a transitional species?

Just like there is variation within the dog species of a sausage dog and a great Dane.

Since there is variation within the dog species, does that mean they are human also?

Why does variation amongst individuals in the species H. erectus prevent them from being transitional? Are you saying that there will be zero variation in a transitional species? If so, explain why.

A transitional will have variation as well but it will continue to change and morph across species barriers and then into another type of animal.

So why don't Australopithecines and early Homo species fit this description?

Though for example dogs can vary a lot they will still be dogs. They wont change their shape and become a cat or pig.

Chimps, humans, Australopithecines, and our common ancestor were all primates. It is primates evolving into primates. So why do you have a problem with it since they are still the same type of animal? We are all just variations of primates.

Variation within a species can be great as seen with different dogs and even to the point where you may think that it doesn't look like a dog anymore. But its still a dog.

Why does variation within a transitional species prevent it from being transitional?

But if a dog or any animals would change into another then would we have see or be seeing now animals that are 1/2 and 1/2 or 1/4 and 3/4. Wouldn't we see limbs and wings and other body parts in the process of forming into new creatures.

Thats exactly what we see with Australopithecines and other Homo species.

No they are not. They are the genetics that we inherit from our parents that are already there. Transitions come from new features that were not there.

We each have mutations that are not found in our parents, and the accumulation of these new mutations is what produces new features.

If you look at the variety in humans we have tall people, short people, flat noses, big noses ect ect. In a generation we can be tall but within that same line the generations can go back to be small or whatever feature they use to have if the genetics were there originally. So they can become tall in one generation and go back to small in future generations.

And yet modern humans do not fall within the variation of H. erectus or Australopithecines.

Every species has to have variations otherwise we would all be the same.

Then why do you keep citing variations as a reason why a species is not transitional? By your own admission, a transitional species would have variation within that population.

That variety is the normal variety within a group of animals and their gene pool. All the genetic info is there and it will depend on what is passed on and who the parents are. But transitions will need new genetic info to make new features that were not there from the original group.

That is supplied by new mutations which occurs in every individual in every generation. Why do you ignore them?

No I am questioning whether a creature can take on new genetic info and make new features he never had. If they cant breath underwater and havnt got the genetics to do so I am questioning whether they can get that from natural selection. That comes from mutations so that eventually positive mutations will give the creature the ability to breathe under water. But this is a slow and gradual process. So it wont get the ability in one go. It will get a small step towards that over thousands of years. But like I said Just like with wings if they get a bit of a wing how is that beneficial to keep on for the next generations.

Why don't you ask flying squirrels about half a wing. They seem to be doing fine with theirs. Just because you can't imagine how half a wing could be beneficial doesn't mean they can't be beneficial. Nature is not limited to your lack of imagination.

I think darwins evolution takes what is limited evolution within creatures like the ability to change size and color ect and says that you can extend that to changing into another new and completely different creature.

Evidence shows otherwise.

No I'm saying that some of the variation is so great within some creatures that you could mistake them for something completely different.

Whether we put those 3 skulls in the same Homo species or in 3 different Homo species, what does it matter? It doesn't make their transitional features go away. They all have a prognathus that is intermediate between modern humans and basal apes. They all have brow ridges that are intermediate between modern humans and basal apes. They all have cranium sizes that are below modern humans. They all lack a cleft chin, another feature of transitional hominids.

They ALL have transitional features not found in modern humans, so why aren't they transitional?

Even though they are still the same creature but with different variations like a poodle and a great Dane.

So why isn't that same creature a transitional species?

But they all still look like bats. Yet humans and chimps look so much different.

Baloney.

Tell me you don't see anything human there.

Humans are humans and though we may have many variations even to the point where some fossil humans of the ancient world may have looked a little like apes they are still humans.

Prove it.

Well dinos would be dinos and though there would be great variation within the dino group even to the point where some dinos have feathers. Then you would have birds and they would have great variation as well even to the point where they may have features like dinos such as their feet and claws. All animals have some similar genetics and features because the blueprint for life is basically the same. So the same basic genetics to make hair and nails is in all of us. But that doesn't mean we came from each other.

Then why even ask for transitional fossils if you will not accept them as evidence?

Well then how are they beneficial for one and where are the transitional fossils for creatures that have wings that are not quite wings.

Why do you keep asking for transitional fossils if you will not accept them as evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well according to the latest info and discoveries thats not the case.
But, by biologists’ most common definitions, we, our Homo sapien ancestors, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are all part of the same species.

The Institute for Fixing Society? That is your source? Really?

Are you pulling my leg on purpose, or do you really think that is a valid scientific source?

The truth of the matter is that if we were the same species then there would have been free gene flow between the populations. There isn't. Only a small fraction of our genome is from cross-breeding with other species of Homo. This is what indicates that we were different species.

No scientists. Why is it that any time someone disagrees with what evolutionists say it has to be creationists.

Because you keep citing lies from creationist sites, such as Evolution News and Views.

But from what I have read there are some scientists saying that there are similarities between some of the so called different species that were made in the past.

Of course there are similarities. We would expect modern humans to share similarities with transitionals. Why wouldn't we?

They were finding skulls that covered a few of the different shapes that were attributed to different species in the past together. This brought into question some of the skulls that were said to be a different species and a transitional.

They weren't considered transitional simply because they were classified in 3 separate species. They were considered transitional because they all have transitional features, and those features didn't go away when they lumped them into a single species. They are still transitional.

It was suggesting that they were just variations within the same species.

3 members of the same transitional species are still transitional.

To me this is showing that scientists were quick to label a new species all the time because they needed to to make links with transitions.

Lumping fossils into the same species does not take away their transitional status.

The evidence has been mounting for years that early humans and Neanderthals interbred,

That same evidence demonstrates that interbreeding was rare which means that they are still separate species. If we were the same species then Neanderthal DNA would be indistinguishable from modern human DNA, but it isn't. It is distinct, and that is due to speciation.

I am not sure. Its hard to tell and be confident. What is a variation within the same species and what is a transition.

Can you show me a modern human that falls within H. erectus variation?

That just doesn't make sense and cant be proved. They are two different things as far as I know. How do you tell the difference.

You tell the difference by looking at the fossils. It's not that hard.

The point is there is still conjecture. Nothing is definite.

And now we are back to "fossils don't mean anything".

What's the point of continuing?