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?