Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

It's an interesting case: two serial killers of different races were active in the same area at the same time, which the police force was unaware of at the time. It made the investigation particularly difficult, and partly contributed to assuming the culprit was of a specific race, as well as the profile of most serial killers being Caucasian men.

But of course, they didn't test race, but ancestry.

Good attempt at deflection, too bad we already know race can’t be used to distinguish ancestory.

But you didn’t read to well.

“In what appears to be the first use of DNA to extract details of a criminal suspect's appearance, investigators in the case of the Louisiana serial killer shifted their focus away from white suspects after an analysis of tissue from one of the crime scenes determined that the killer was probably black, the developer of the genetic test says.

Never said ancestry couldn't be determined by a genetic test, but to be blunt, the 15% Native American this guy supposedly has in his DNA does not show whatsoever. I encourage you to look up a picture, though, because I do have prosopagnosia and am not reliable in assessing that myself.

And as stated the guy said he was not aware if he had Indian ancestory. But being African genes are dominant... you do know what that means, right?

Why look, if you didn’t know the mother was Caucasian....

Any other straw men?

It actually didn't lead to the suspect, it just made the police force stop assuming the culprit was Caucasian. The suspects criminal record and suspicious behavior ultimately gave him away.

Which they never would of looked for him to begin with, but continued searching for the Caucasian suspect.

Those aren't different species... they are different genera (the plural for genus).

No, Triceratops is just a young Torosarus.

Actually the Torosarus No longer exists in paleontological circles.

It'd help if you knew what you were talking about well enough to make a point I could even assess properly. You know so little about these dinosaurs that you didn't even know you weren't talking about individual species.

No, you know so little you didn’t even realize we are talking about babies and adults of the same species.

It would of helped if you would have watched it the first 10 times I posted it.

I'm going to address the rest later, since I am short on time, so wait a bit to respond.

Ok, In the meantime watch the video and see what real science shows. I’ll answer the rest when you post it.

 

[pshun2404]

They can, yes. What that has to do with platypus bills I don't know.


More or less, yes.


I don't think I've ever stated otherwise.

I don't expect to ever be able to know with certainty what any specific ancestor was. But I fail to see a rationale for claiming creation - this would require that one simply ignore the cumulative evidence from multiple fields of study.



I don't claim that, either - but what I think I see is an inability to interpret phylogenetic trees.
I started a thread on it - give it a try, won't you?

Asking for interpretations of this cladogram



Were neanderthals human? What about this guy:

Or this one:

Modern human skulls are not contemporaneous, so are they 'sub-human'? Or just the Creator's tiral-and-error leftovers?



No - you are claiming that Adam and Eve - with their perfect genomes - mated and produced offspring - who also presumably had perfect middle eastern genomes - and eventually, their offspring mated (incest) and somehow we got Asians AND Africans from this pristine middle eastern genome.

You keep totally ignoring that.

But then you claim that Asians and Africans mate and we get an Afro-Asian.

Great - i agree.

But I am still waiting for your evidence that a breeding pair with near identical perfect genomes mated and at some point, I guess about 2500+ years later, after all but 4 incestuous breeding pairs were allowed to live, we somehow got Asians and Africans and Norse and Inuit and so on.

It is, after all, your claim.



That is your evidence?

That Adam and Eve - perfect middle easterners - gave rise to Asians and Africans by mating and there is no evidence for this in fossils, therefore, you are right?

'Race' can be observed in bone.


So you fail on that part.

Next.



I would consider them other species or subspecies. You keep undermining your own argument for some reason. Are you implying that maybe Asians or Africans are descendants of Neanderthals?



I have not made any specific claims about human evolution, other than that we share a common ancestry with chimps. I read the article - tell me what you think in that article casts doubt on human evolution? Tell me exactly. And why.

Here is what I learned in graduate school, based on my own work on molecular phylogeny - the more recent we get, that is, the shorter amount of time there has been for any group's divergence into other species or subspecies, the less precise our estimates of phylogeny will be. Why? because in molecular phylogenetics, we RELY on mutations to provide signal, and the more recently the hypothesized splits occurred, the less signal there will be. In groups that diverged less than, say, around 250,000 years ago, generating phylogenies with a high degree of precision and reliability (unless you had a large amount of data, which we did not at the time) was not really possible. You could get trees, sure, but they generally had low-ish statistical support.
Something similar is afoot in human evolution, as we are looking at dates of generally less than 1 or 2 million years.

But please - use your linked article and explain what you mean.



Nice circular argument.

Reminds of a post on here from earlier today in which a creationist wrote something like 'the design of X proves it was designed.'

So, I have posted several times those abstracts for papers tested molecular phylogenetics techniques on knowns. I have seen similar articles used and similar concepts discussed for decades, and I have creationists of all stripes dismiss, reject, misrepresent, misinterpret, etc. them. But I have never had a creation EXPLAIN to me why those techniques are suddenly invalid once we look at relationships above the genus level.

Can you be the first?



It is your claim that a pure breeding pair from the middle east produced Asians and Africans.



So which is this:

Human or ape? And how do you know?

Was it fully formed?

What would a half-formed ap look like, and how do you know?


it is so precious how you lump mistakes and hoaxes in with legitimate finds.

And remind us all which creationist was it that discovered those mistakes and hoaxes?

Never mind...



So you won't discuss the Jamal ark hoax that creationists loved? What about the water-stain on the side of a building that evangelicals claimed was the Virgin Mary?

Regarding what we want to see - still waiting for your evidence for a pure breeding middle eastern created Kind that produced all manner of variation in a few thousand years.

Where are Adam and Eve's bones?

Why no fossils of Noah or Ham?

Please Identify your first two skull photos and let us see a source for their opinion, and why are you diverting this thread to a topic not part of the OP?

 

[pitabread]

No, you know so little you didn’t even realize we are talking about babies and adults of the same species.

That's up for debate. Perhaps you should do some research before simply calling others out after you watched a single YouTube video.

Is Torosaurus Triceratops? Geometric Morphometric Evidence of Late Maastrichtian Ceratopsid Dinosaurs

Torosaurus is a distinct and valid taxon. Whether looking at entire skulls, skulls without the frill, frills alone, or squamosals, Torosaurus has different morphologies and distinct allometric trajectories compared to Triceratops. This new approach confirms the taxonomic status of Torosaurus as well as the comparatively low diversity of ceratopsids at the end of the Maastrichtian in North America.

Torosaurus Is Not Triceratops: Ontogeny in Chasmosaurine Ceratopsids as a Case Study in Dinosaur Taxonomy

Torosaurus is a distinct genus of horned dinosaur, not the adult of Triceratops. Our method provides a framework for assessing the hypothesis of synonymy through ontogeny in the fossil record.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please Identify your first two skull photos and let us see a source for their opinion, and why are you diverting this thread to a topic not part of the OP?

Because he refuses to accept a poodle doesn’t look like a wolf, yet is of the same species.

And then finds it surprising we don’t look like our ancestors, yet are of the same species.

I wouldn’t expect us to look like Adam and Eve after 6,000 years of interbreeding, any more than I expect a poodle to look like a wolf after a few hundred.

But unlike him I don’t consider the wolf to be imperfect and part of a trial and error process, just different in appearance....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's up for debate. Perhaps you should do some research before simply calling others out after you watched a single YouTube video.

Is Torosaurus Triceratops? Geometric Morphometric Evidence of Late Maastrichtian Ceratopsid Dinosaurs



Torosaurus Is Not Triceratops: Ontogeny in Chasmosaurine Ceratopsids as a Case Study in Dinosaur Taxonomy

No it’s already settled except for the few diehards.

Let’s see, we got the science of bone growth versus but one is bigger than the other, and has holes in its frill. But then they found a Triceratops with holes developing in its frill.

Not to mention not a single juvenile Torosarus can be found... oh sorry, wasn’t supposed to mention that.

So we got the science of bone growth versus one is bigger than the other. No duh, one is younger as the bone growth reveals. And did we mention no juvenile Torosarus have ever been found?

Oh you got claims, but then they have yet to cut into the bones, which will just show adult females are smaller than adult males. Sort of like most every other animal.

And they won’t cut into the bones, afraid to reveal the truth..... instead they’ll continue to make claims of appearance, even if almost every bird alive the male is different than the female. So smaller with a smaller frill, because like birds it’s that display of the male that courts the female. But let’s ignore all that and just pretend smaller and less ornament means younger.

But even if they were not adult and subadult, they would be merely subspecies, not separate species, like the Husky and Mastiff are not separate species.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Good attempt at deflection, too bad we already know race can’t be used to distinguish ancestory.

But you didn’t read to well.

“In what appears to be the first use of DNA to extract details of a criminal suspect's appearance, investigators in the case of the Louisiana serial killer shifted their focus away from white suspects after an analysis of tissue from one of the crime scenes determined that the killer was probably black, the developer of the genetic test says.


And as stated the guy said he was not aware if he had Indian ancestory. But being African genes are dominant... you do know what that means, right?

Why look, if you didn’t know the mother was Caucasian....
View attachment 214937
Any other straw men?


Which they never would of looked for him to begin with, but continued searching for the Caucasian suspect.


No, Triceratops is just a young Torosarus.

Actually the Torosarus No longer exists in paleontological circles.


No, you know so little you didn’t even realize we are talking about babies and adults of the same species.

It would of helped if you would have watched it the first 10 times I posted it.

Ok, In the meantime watch the video and see what real science shows. I’ll answer the rest when you post it.

0 patience sir, bravo, I even asked in my post for you to wait for me to finish addressing all I wanted to, but you couldn't help yourself.

But, nice of you to bring up Torosarus as if it isn't still considered a genus... or Triceratops for that matter. Dude, neither of those are species or were ever species designations by themselves.

And, since you like using Wikipedia so much (unless it disagrees with you, I guess)
Torosaurus - Wikipedia

"Recently the validity of Torosaurus has been disputed.[4] A 2010 study of fossil bone histology combined with an investigation of frill shape concluded that Torosaurus probably represented the mature form of Triceratops, with the bones of typical Triceratops specimens still immature and showing signs of a first development of distinct Torosaurus frill holes. During maturation, the skull frill would have been greatly lengthened and holes would have appeared in it.[5][6][7] In 2011, 2012 and 2013, however, studies of external features of known specimens have claimed that morphological differences between the two genera preclude their synonymy. The main problems are a lack of good transitional forms, the apparent existence of authentic Torosaurus subadults, different skull proportions independent of maturation and the assertion that hole formation at an adult stage is not part of a normal ceratopsian maturation sequence.

Again, since fossils are rare, it isn't uncommon for issues like this to pop up. That is, having only fossils of juvenile animals to represent a species, or having gender dimorphism and other problems arise with identification.

"Scannella and Horner's [people that claim these are the same species] conclusions have not been unanimously accepted. Several experts, though admitting the possibility that the "toromorph" hypothesis is correct, have denied this is probable."

There's also a guy that later compared all the Triceratops specimens, and through observations in regards to bone growth, concluded that some of those fossils were in fact adults, and thus they could not be the subadults of various Torosaurus species (two recognized, one disputed).

Basically put, you support a wingnut on the matter, and I think you might not have been aware of that.

But hey, I've never said that taxonomy with fossils was easy or certain. If anything, I've said the opposite. However, paleontologists are not idiots, they aren't going to mistake a rabbit fossil for a freaking turtle.

But, alas, now you have to go back and re-reply to my original post if you want to address anything else said, because I am supremely annoyed at your lack of patience.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not without rewriting the dictionary. Which if you have to do to support your argument, only reinforces how terrible an argument it is.

Since you find it necessary to rewrite the dictionary when it comes to discussions of species and subspecies, i would have to agree with your conclusion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

0 patience sir, bravo, I even asked in my post for you to wait for me to finish addressing all I wanted to, but you couldn't help yourself.

But, nice of you to bring up Torosarus as if it isn't still considered a genus... or Triceratops for that matter. Dude, neither of those are species or were ever species designations by themselves.

And, since you like using Wikipedia so much (unless it disagrees with you, I guess)
Torosaurus - Wikipedia

"Recently the validity of Torosaurus has been disputed.[4] A 2010 study of fossil bone histology combined with an investigation of frill shape concluded that Torosaurus probably represented the mature form of Triceratops, with the bones of typical Triceratops specimens still immature and showing signs of a first development of distinct Torosaurus frill holes. During maturation, the skull frill would have been greatly lengthened and holes would have appeared in it.[5][6][7] In 2011, 2012 and 2013, however, studies of external features of known specimens have claimed that morphological differences between the two genera preclude their synonymy. The main problems are a lack of good transitional forms, the apparent existence of authentic Torosaurus subadults, different skull proportions independent of maturation and the assertion that hole formation at an adult stage is not part of a normal ceratopsian maturation sequence.

Again, since fossils are rare, it isn't uncommon for issues like this to pop up. That is, having only fossils of juvenile animals to represent a species, or having gender dimorphism and other problems arise with identification.

"Scannella and Horner's [people that claim these are the same species] conclusions have not been unanimously accepted. Several experts, though admitting the possibility that the "toromorph" hypothesis is correct, have denied this is probable."

There's also a guy that later compared all the Triceratops specimens, and through observations in regards to bone growth, concluded that some of those fossils were in fact adults, and thus they could not be the subadults of various Torosaurus species (two recognized, one disputed).

Basically put, you support a wingnut on the matter, and I think you might not have been aware of that.

But hey, I've never said that taxonomy with fossils was easy or certain. If anything, I've said the opposite. However, paleontologists are not idiots, they aren't going to mistake a rabbit fossil for a freaking turtle.

But, alas, now you have to go back and re-reply to my original post if you want to address anything else said, because I am supremely annoyed at your lack of patience.

Like I said, the science of how bones grow versus mere studies of external features.

With that reasoning we’d conclude a Husky is of a separate species than the Mastiff.

You mean external like a male and female peacock? You mean external in that most females in animals are smaller and less ornamented. I notice they didn’t cut those bones open which would settle the claim, just kept relying on external features which is what is being debated in the first place.... which brings us full circle and back to finches based on external features....

I said I’d answer the rest when you posted the rest....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like I said, the science of how bones grow versus mere studies of external features.

With that reasoning we’d conclude a Husky is of a separate species than the Mastiff.

You mean external like a male and female peacock? You mean external in that most females in animals are smaller and less ornamented. I notice they didn’t cut those bones open which would settle the claim, just kept relying on external features which is what is being debated in the first place.... which brings us full circle and back to finches based on external features....

I said I’d answer the rest when you posted the rest....

I asked you to not address it at all until I was done. Which I am. Go ahead.

I specifically asked for that because I often find that at times, contentions I have with earlier parts of posts are resolved later on in it, so I wanted to be sure to look through it all first before finalizing my response. I couldn't save my progress and didn't want to start over.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I asked you to not address it at all until I was done. Which I am. Go ahead.

I specifically asked for that because I often find that at times, contentions I have with earlier parts of posts are resolved later on in it, so I wanted to be sure to look through it all first before finalizing my response. I couldn't save my progress and didn't want to start over.

I’m done too. I mean we have a guy claiming bone growth calls into question descisions based on external features, and what do his opponents use? Why decisions based on external features. The very thing being questioned. Who refuse to cut up those bones which would settle things one way or another once and for all. Instead they just regurgitate what is being disputed.

And I love the one guy that says he thinks it’s correct, just not probable. This from people that work with probabilities too astronomical to accept as if they were fact.

I wonder what the probability of life starting from non life. I bet he thinks that astronomical number is probable though.

I should rephrase that, life from non life randomly, since we both agree it started from non life.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Edit in because of a comment you made in another post:
pfft, African genes are dominant? ALL of them? Hahahahahahahahahahaha no.

And yet do a google search on african and Caucasian babies. Look for yourself which features dominate.

If I wanted to read the Wiki, I would have found it for myself.

Might have done you some good.

Wait, what? "Created by man?" From what? You think that species can't transition into other species, so where'd this dog come from? Some original dog breed? That doesn't fly with your assertion that the ONLY way new breeds can be produced is via crosses. And wolves simply do not have the variety of traits that dogs do. Webbed feet, black tongues, etc.

Keep ignoring the reality that all dogs come from wolves.

How Lamarckian of you, and also incorrect because there are plenty of dogs and wolves which have to traverse rocky areas.

And of those, how many were bred to climb cliff faces after birds? One?

The source was questionable due to the fact that anyone could give an answer without demonstration of accuracy or peer review. If, for example, the number of fossils discovered was an actual quantifiable number, surely you could find it from somewhere else? But to be blunt, if you could have easily found a more reliable source, you would have.

Can, just grabbed the first one that popped up. But here, let’s show how wrong you are since you insist on not checking your facts before opening your mouth.

How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A

“In terms of the number of individual fossils there are probably countless billions. Most large Natural History Museums will have a collection of several million.”

No, I asked you to do something I knew wouldn't yield much, since you ignored my comment about redundant fossils. It doesn't matter if there are a ton of fossils if there are quite a few which are redundant. It's not like every fossil found belongs to a newly discovered species. In light of that, you need to justify your continued assertion that there should be fossils for every transition.

Except they estimate they’ve found about all the genus.

Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones?

“Using a statistical technique known as the abundance-based coverage estimator, scientists estimate that in the 165-million-year period that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there were some 1,844 different genera, from carnivorous dinosaurs like the Velociraptor to herbivores like the Stegosaurus. Since humans started searching for dinosaur bones in 1824, it's estimated that we've found remnants from 29 percent of these types, mostly in the last 20 years (a jump largely attributable to increased manpower and discoveries in Argentina and China). If we keep at the current pace of new discovery, it's likely that we'll hit something like "peak dinosaur," with 50 percent of all dinosaur genera discovered, by 2037. Within the next 100 to 140 years, we will have found 90 percent.”

I’ll still be alive in 2037 and we still won’t have found transitional or common ancestors.

What are you even talking about? YOU are the one that tries to claim various fossils that aren't considered to be the same species are, and I dispute it. I am the one that claims that fossils aren't the best evidence for evolution in the first place, and that only a select few modern organisms have a decent fossil record for their evolutionary history. Humans happen to be one of those lucky organisms, so when people start claiming "nuh uh, no evolution 'cause no transitional fossils", I internally scream, try to bottle up my frustration, and calmly present the transitional fossils relevant to human evolution.

You got no transitional fossils. Present away, every single one will be human or ape.

Fossils are never my go-to evidence for evolution

Then present your best go-to and let’s get it done already....

If your scared and just want to make claims, just say so.

But, humans, whales, and horses, among a few others, do have very extensive fossil records pertaining to their evolutionary history.

And yet when it comes down to the nitty gritty all you’ll do is show me humans, whales and horses. Never will you show me a single common ancestor that split to become ape and man. Lots of apes, lots of men, but zilch on the common ancestor.

Back it up, produce it, you are being called out on your claims...

I looked up the origin of Chinook (the original individual) and have already told you that his lineage is unclear; he may or may not have been the product of crossbreeding, and neither of us can claim for sure one way or the other. I suggest never using that breed as an example again.

You didn’t look up anything.

Chinook (dog) - Wikipedia
“The Chinook is a rare breed of sled dog, developed in the state of New Hampshire during the early 20th century. The Chinook is New Hampshire's official state dog.

The Chinook owes its existence to one man: Arthur Treadwell Walden of Wonalancet, New Hampshire. The breed derives principally from one male ancestor born in 1917, named "Chinook", who was Walden's lead dog and stud. "Chinook" derived from a crossbreeding of husky stock from the Peary North Pole expedition with a large, tawny Mastiff-like male. Photos of "Chinook" show a drop-eared dog with a broad Mastiff head and muzzle. Walden's leader was bred to Belgian Sheepdogs, German Shepherd Dogs, Canadian Eskimo Dogs and perhaps other breeds; the progeny were bred back to him to set the desired type and was apparently a strong reproducer of his own traits. “

Ever get tired of not doing research and continually be shown to be wrong. Won’t call it what it really is....

-_- the most hilarious thing about your idea of how new species arise is the fact that it isn't even a form of creationism.

Oh that’s right, once creation stops the world quits turning.

from the guy that wouldn't participate in an evolution experiment when I was begging him to.

Don’t try that line especially when I offered to let you pick any traits you wanted, even if most favorable to you. That’s how positive I am, and yet you haven’t taken me up on that, pretending you can’t do it because someone doesn’t pick the traits for you. Sorry excuse, as I’ll get back with your other falseh... I mean non research tomorrow.

But you can answer this in the meantime. You don’t need to wait.

 

[Jimmy D]

Interesting on that he says fossils agree them we find out their actual dating does not. By 30 million years.

Would you care to quote the part that says that please? I can't find it.

 

[tas8831]

so a walking robot that its made from organic components and has a self replicating system cant be consider as a robot if it evolved by a natural process?

No, because a robot, by definition, does not evolve and is not the product of natural processes.

It is, by definition, something that is manufactured by humans.

 

[tas8831]

Please Identify your first two skull photos and let us see a source for their opinion,

No.

I asked the creationist (non)expert whether or not they were humans or apes.

Apparently, neither of you can draw your own conclusions without seeing what the evo said first, and then only to argue the opposite.

and why are you diverting this thread to a topic not part of the OP?

I was unaware than actually answering each point a creationist makes would be considered diverting.

Then again, since you and most creationists have a distinct tendency to ignore most of what other people write, I can see how this level of integrity is troublesome.

But as I am being accused of going off-topic for replying to what a creationist wrote, how about this - can YOU interpret this cladogram:

You do, afterall, write a lot about such things and portray yourself as having sufficient knowledge of them and the methods that produce them to dismiss and mischaracterize it all.

And even more diversion - hoping you can address your laughably inept depictions of the coccyx that I lay bare here:

The Coccyx


You totally omitted it from your replies there, and then went so far as to foolishly reiterate a few claims you made later on.

How does that work?

Do creationists think that if they just ignore being proven wrong that they are magically still right?

 

[tas8831]

I wouldn’t expect us to look like Adam and Eve after 6,000 years of interbreeding, any more than I expect a poodle to look like a wolf after a few hundred.

WHY???


Assertions are for losers - let us see your rationale and supporting evidence.

WHY would you expect the offspring of a breeding pair with perfect middle eastern genomes to take on Asian, African, Nordic, etc. features over a few hundred generations?

What is your EXPLANATION for why you expect this?

But unlike him I don’t consider the wolf to be imperfect and part of a trial and error process, just different in appearance....

And unlike you, I understand WHY closely related things have differing appearances.

You still cannot explain where the Asian and African came from in the first place if your assertion that new variation only comes from hybridization has merit.


You keep running away from that like a frightened child... for some reason...

I also notice that you could not tell which skull was 'fully human' and which was 'fully ape' despite pretending to know.

 

[tas8831]

Were neanderthals human? What about this guy:

Or this one:

Modern human skulls are not contemporaneous, so are they 'sub-human'? Or just the Creator's tiral-and-error leftovers?



No - you are claiming that Adam and Eve - with their perfect genomes - mated and produced offspring - who also presumably had perfect middle eastern genomes - and eventually, their offspring mated (incest) and somehow we got Asians AND Africans from this pristine middle eastern genome.

You keep totally ignoring that.

But then you claim that Asians and Africans mate and we get an Afro-Asian.

Great - i agree.

But I am still waiting for your evidence that a breeding pair with near identical perfect genomes mated and at some point, I guess about 2500+ years later, after all but 4 incestuous breeding pairs were allowed to live, we somehow got Asians and Africans and Norse and Inuit and so on.

It is, after all, your claim.
So which is this:

Human or ape? And how do you know?

Was it fully formed?

What would a half-formed ape look like, and how do you know?

No response from Justa, yet he wrote this reply to Sarah's post:

You got no transitional fossils. Present away, every single one will be human or ape.

Hmmmm....


Draw your own conclusions.

I know I did.

 

[tyke]

You still cannot explain where the Asian and African came from in the first place if your assertion that new variation only comes from hybridization has merit.

As I said in the OP, these people tap dance around and avoid answering anything that goes against their belief system. I doubt very much you will receive a fully evidenced reply.

 

[tas8831]

This is the truth however a generation in most ancient times was probably only about 15 years (when people mated and bore offspring) so based on that assumption (could have been 13 or 14) 80,000 x 15 = 1.6 million years and in even that time there has not been a single cross over from Ape (some say the autralopithicene) to human...we have them (who are now extinct) and humans who are not.

Tell me exactly how a BONE can be stimulated by the parasympathetic nervous system?

Regarding the 1.6 million years - you must know that the estimates for the most recent split between the lineage leading to humans and that leading to chimps is about 5-6 million years, yes?

 

[xianghua]

No sensible person would.

ROBOT:

a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
-(especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
-used to refer to a person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.
"public servants are not expected to be mindless robots"

MACHINE:

an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
"a fax machine"
synonyms: apparatus, appliance, device, contraption, contrivance, mechanism, engine, gadget, tool
"a threshing machine"
a coin-operated dispenser.
"a candy machine"
technical
-any device that transmits a force or directs its application.
-an efficient and well-organized group of powerful people.
"his campaign illustrated the continuing strength of a powerful political machine"
synonyms: organization, system, structure, arrangement, machinery; informalsetup
"an efficient publicity machine"
-a person who acts with the mechanical efficiency of a machine.
"comedians are more than just laugh machines"
synonyms: powerhouse, human dynamo; More




Unless you are employing an idiosyncratic definition of machine AND robot, then there is no rationale for considering a penguin ( or any other living thing) as a robot.

Give it up.

ok. so a robot need a designer by definition?

 

[pshun2404]

No.

I asked the creationist (non)expert whether or not they were humans or apes.

Apparently, neither of you can draw your own conclusions without seeing what the evo said first, and then only to argue the opposite.

I was unaware than actually answering each point a creationist makes would be considered diverting.

Then again, since you and most creationists have a distinct tendency to ignore most of what other people write, I can see how this level of integrity is troublesome.

But as I am being accused of going off-topic for replying to what a creationist wrote, how about this - can YOU interpret this cladogram:

You do, afterall, write a lot about such things and portray yourself as having sufficient knowledge of them and the methods that produce them to dismiss and mischaracterize it all.

And even more diversion - hoping you can address your laughably inept depictions of the coccyx that I lay bare here:

The Coccyx


You totally omitted it from your replies there, and then went so far as to foolishly reiterate a few claims you made later on.

How does that work?

Do creationists think that if they just ignore being proven wrong that they are magically still right?

You are diverting by trying to make this a discussion of some creationist point and about the veracity of God (absolutely nothing to do with the OP or discussion in general)....

And the first two, regardless of how they have been "classified" are ape (or a mix match hodge podge reconstructed invention). the protruding lower jaw (and slanted face) together with a heavily protruding brow ridge, ape-like eye sockets, and a distinct sagital crest all spell APE.