Formal debate proposal: accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

[mark kennedy]

Out of curiosity (and since this probably wouldn't come up in our debate) I've seen you assert before that rapid species change can happen but you've never put a number on that rate. Do you have one?

There is no point in trying to establish a rate at this point. My interest has been adaptive evolution for some time not just single nucleotide differences and gaps. I really don't have the energy or the patience right now to pursue it to be honest.

Also, complete human genome sequences have been made for an African, an Asian, and a cancer patient (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081105/ts_afp/healthbiotechgenome, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/05/236212&from=rss). This article from ScienceMag (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5903/838?) has the full lowdown but requires subscription access. A revealing paragraph:

I didn't know what to make of the others but a whole cancer genome does not impress me as being particularly helpful to Darwinism.

Bentley and colleagues sequenced the genome of a Yoruba man from Nigeria whose DNA has already been extensively studied, enabling them to check the accuracy of their technology. In the third Nature paper, Jiang Wang of the Beijing Genomics Institute in Shenzhen, China, and colleagues sequenced the genome of a Han Chinese male. The Yoruba analysis uncovered almost 4 million SNPs, including 1 million novel ones. The Chinese genome had about 3 million, including 417,000 novel SNPs. As anticipated, the African genome had greater variation per kilobase than either the Chinese or sequenced Caucasian genomes, indicative of its ancestral status.

Wonder if your model can churn out that many SNPs in six thousand years.

What makes you think it took six thousand years? These differences are most likely cyclical and if there are random mutations resulting in changes on an evolutionary scale I have yet to see any suggestion of it. His genome is still within 1 percent of your own and if they look closely at your genome and mine they would probably have similar differences.

What do I think? Not much, I have been puzzling over CVNs and other things in genomics for a while. I think it's a little early to come up with some kind of a model when these differences my not even be inheritable. Some probably are but when you are looking at evolution it makes sense to focus on adaptive evolution and by the way, it need not include random mutations.

 

[shernren]

Define this "adaptive evolution" you speak of.

 

[RobertByers]

OK, I am trying to get clear what you are saying here. It seems you agree these various fossils are transitional in form. So you are not looking for something in the fossil that is not there. You agree that we can arrange fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, and modern whales in a sequence of form that any observer would take to be transitional in terms of their morphology. Is that right?

But--you say--it is not just that the forms must show a transition. In order to be transitional, they must also show a chronological sequence. Descendants cannot precede ancestors, right?

And, according to you, these fossils are not found in a chronological sequence. They were "all fossilized together" "various whale types all living together" "mere varieties around some area."


So, basically, you deny all the work that geologists---many of them Christian--have put into determining the sequence in which rock strata were laid down.

It is not really transitional fossils you have a problem with. It is deep time.


The transitions have been shown. And they have been shown to correlate correctly over time. The chronological sequence is part of the understanding of what makes them transitional. No paleontologist would agree that the various whale/protowhale species were all fossilized at the same time. The species in the reptile to mammal transition cover over 300 million years of geological history with the sequence of form correlating to the time sequence. They were not all fossilized at the same time. They do show

You simply deny that scientific evaluations of the geological history of the planet have any validity. And you have nothing but an ideological commitment to a dubious form of scriptural interpretation on which to base this denial.

No transitions here. I didn't agree there were transitions. Only different kinds of whales including land ones.
Yes we say the geology is incompetent. It was not laid down in a strange cooperation between time and dirt but was all rounded up and squeezed at once.
Yes you must show a healthy chronological fossil items to make the incredible case that a cell turned into a cow. No minor pinpricks of speculated kinds of creatures along the path. meat and potatoes. If evolution wasn't true it still would seem true to you just by a few pinprick examples.
A great claim requires great evidence.

Whales/sea mammals to this creationist are just post flood land creatures who took to water quickly. Instant innate adaptation within a generation or so. No evolution. i welcome evidence of leggy whales but insist the fossils came from a post flood sudden envelopment. Catching these whale kinds. One by sea, two by shore, three by inland. cousins living at the same time with just different results in leg length.

 

[RobertByers]

I have no idea what you're saying here. How can you be so certain that fossil whales and snakes with legs represent the ancestors of each of these groups, whereas, say, a fish with legs doesn't represent the ancestor of tetrapods? Or a dinosaur with feathers doesn't represent the ancestor of birds?
Methinks you suffer from confirmation bias.

No I'm not saying that.
I mean that present living snakes/whales etc have anatomical evidence of a previous different anatomical reality They have evidence of legs that one can touch.
This is a unique thing in the fauna throughout history.
This is because it is true that snakes/manatees had a leggy past. The snake at creation and the others up too the first century after the flood. In fact this is a pregnant fact of the poverty of the claims of evolution.

Any other claims of intermediates is mere interpretation of different kinds of creatures. Not the same thing.

Dinos with feathers, if so, are just dinos with feathers. Not birds with some dino.

 

[Melethiel]

No transitions here. I didn't agree there were transitions. Only different kinds of whales including land ones.
Yes we say the geology is incompetent. It was not laid down in a strange cooperation between time and dirt but was all rounded up and squeezed at once.
Yes you must show a healthy chronological fossil items to make the incredible case that a cell turned into a cow. No minor pinpricks of speculated kinds of creatures along the path. meat and potatoes. If evolution wasn't true it still would seem true to you just by a few pinprick examples.
A great claim requires great evidence.

Whales/sea mammals to this creationist are just post flood land creatures who took to water quickly. Instant innate adaptation within a generation or so. No evolution. i welcome evidence of leggy whales but insist the fossils came from a post flood sudden envelopment. Catching these whale kinds. One by sea, two by shore, three by inland. cousins living at the same time with just different results in leg length.

That IS evolution...on a scale much more dramatic than that accepted by an evolutionist...

 

[Mallon]

No I'm not saying that.
I mean that present living snakes/whales etc have anatomical evidence of a previous different anatomical reality They have evidence of legs that one can touch.

Ah, so it's vestigial characters that hold weight with you. Well, we're full of them. Check out our coccyx. Check out our appendix. Check out our Darwin's point. Check out our goosebumps. Those are all evidence of vestigial conditions that one can touch.
Surely you must be convinced of common descent now.

If you want to talk about dinosaurs and birds, check out the scaly legs of birds. Check out the manual claws of baby hoatzins. Check out the atavistic birds with teeth. Those are all evidence of vestigial conditions that one can touch.
Surely you must be convinced of common descent now.

Vestigial characters are found throughout the animal kingdom, Robert. They're not restricted to whales and snakes alone.

 

[RobertByers]

Ah, so it's vestigial characters that hold weight with you. Well, we're full of them. Check out our coccyx. Check out our appendix. Check out our Darwin's point. Check out our goosebumps. Those are all evidence of vestigial conditions that one can touch.
Surely you must be convinced of common descent now.

If you want to talk about dinosaurs and birds, check out the scaly legs of birds. Check out the manual claws of baby hoatzins. Check out the atavistic birds with teeth. Those are all evidence of vestigial conditions that one can touch.
Surely you must be convinced of common descent now.

Vestigial characters are found throughout the animal kingdom, Robert. They're not restricted to whales and snakes alone.

Fine that there are a few. Only a few and what you mention here are not.
Not hoatzins. The claw is usefull. Not scaly legs or teeth of birds as they are needed

Not claims again of human tails or goosebumps. The latter is a natural responce and not relative to apes. just a reaction to keep warm and imitated when in fear because warmth of the body is concentrated.
These are minor details and common descent is a major claim needing major evidence.

 

[Mallon]

Fine that there are a few. Only a few and what you mention here are not.

Actually, they are. Perhaps you could define your understanding of what you think a vestigial character is so we could focus our discussion. I suspect you are not using the same definition used by biologists.

Not hoatzins. The claw is usefull.

Whether or not the character remains useful does not mean it is not a vestige. Vestigiality refers to a loss or reduction in the original function of a character. The claws of hoatzins and other birds (swifts, ducks, screamers, rheas, ostriches, etc.) are vestigial, and in fact, are usually lost/resorbed before the birds are even out of the egg (that is, the claws often aren't even used). I think you would have a hard time arguing for the usefulness of claws that exist only in unborn chicks. Sure, hoatzins retain their claws some time after hatching (paedomorphosis), but they're lost eventually.

Not scaly legs or teeth of birds as they are needed

Birds don't need teeth. That's why they have gizzards. I said the few records there are of birds with teeth are atavisms. You see, while no living bird species normally has teeth, many species do retain the primitive genetic information for making teeth -- the gene that codes for them is simply turned off. All it takes is a simple point mutation to turn them back on again and you get a bird with primitive dinosaur-like teeth. So yes, bird teeth are atavistic vestiges. Like dolphins that sprout the occasional hindlimbs.
And out of curiosity, what do you suppose birds need scaly legs for, Robert?

Not claims again of human tails or goosebumps. The latter is a natural responce and not relative to apes. just a reaction to keep warm and imitated when in fear because warmth of the body is concentrated.

I agree that goosebumps are a natural response, but they do little to warm the body, as you say. Shivering warms the body. Goosebumps do nothing since we no longer have body hair to raise in fear/for insulation (at least, not much). They are an excellent example of vestigiality. As is the coccyx, which you did not address. And the Darwin's point on each of our ears. And the plica semilunaris of our eyes. Again, we're full of vestigial characters left over from our ape ancestors.

These are minor details and common descent is a major claim needing major evidence.

Actually, these details are no less minor than the ones you use to infer common ancestry of whales and snakes with walking ancestors. They are all vestigial characters. You don't get to pick and choose which vestiges to confirm and ignore as you see fit. That's not honest.

 

[RobertByers]

Actually, they are. Perhaps you could define your understanding of what you think a vestigial character is so we could focus our discussion. I suspect you are not using the same definition used by biologists.


Whether or not the character remains useful does not mean it is not a vestige. Vestigiality refers to a loss or reduction in the original function of a character. The claws of hoatzins and other birds (swifts, ducks, screamers, rheas, ostriches, etc.) are vestigial, and in fact, are usually lost/resorbed before the birds are even out of the egg (that is, the claws often aren't even used). I think you would have a hard time arguing for the usefulness of claws that exist only in unborn chicks. Sure, hoatzins retain their claws some time after hatching (paedomorphosis), but they're lost eventually.


Birds don't need teeth. That's why they have gizzards. I said the few records there are of birds with teeth are atavisms. You see, while no living bird species normally has teeth, many species do retain the primitive genetic information for making teeth -- the gene that codes for them is simply turned off. All it takes is a simple point mutation to turn them back on again and you get a bird with primitive dinosaur-like teeth. So yes, bird teeth are atavistic vestiges. Like dolphins that sprout the occasional hindlimbs.
And out of curiosity, what do you suppose birds need scaly legs for, Robert?


I agree that goosebumps are a natural response, but they do little to warm the body, as you say. Shivering warms the body. Goosebumps do nothing since we no longer have body hair to raise in fear/for insulation (at least, not much). They are an excellent example of vestigiality. As is the coccyx, which you did not address. And the Darwin's point on each of our ears. And the plica semilunaris of our eyes. Again, we're full of vestigial characters left over from our ape ancestors.


Actually, these details are no less minor than the ones you use to infer common ancestry of whales and snakes with walking ancestors. They are all vestigial characters. You don't get to pick and choose which vestiges to confirm and ignore as you see fit. That's not honest.

The bird things are fine. If they have abilitys to have teeth, claws, scaly legs then its because they once had them like whales once had legs. Its only a minor thing in the body and not a sign of evolution anymore then a whale having legs is.
Many birds do use their teeth to break out of eggs and if the detail is used then its just a interpretation that its a reused detail. Prove it.
Scaly legs are probably just to keep their legs free of stuff clinging and adding weight.

The human claims are just claims. Goosebumps and the others are needed or were for our ancesters but not a ape connection. The common blueprint of our bodies allows a sameness with apes etc and duplication of any ability apes have but I'm sure closer examination would reveal these things are needed or just off boundary a little. for example we have hair on our bodies that is of no need but is simply a reaction of our body, in error, to promptings. hair in our armpits is just a quick reaction of the body to fix a loss of heat by wetness. Let not evidence of a hairy past.

The sea mammals/snakes are completly different as they have bones showing a former anatomical reality. what you claim are not bones but interpretations of presently useful things or minor cases of some abberation.
Its not the same thing.
Vestigel bits and pieces are either evidence of a previous type of body or just previous uses of the same body.
Whales etc are the former. The latter are minor variety within present species.
I can't argue every point about the human body, some are new too me here, but the great fact is that if evolution was true then vestigel organs etc should be the biggest characteristic of bodies. Instead only in a few creatures is this true and they are special cases. Snakes by the curse and water mammals by the emptying of the sea after the flood.

 

[Mallon]

The bird things are fine. If they have abilitys to have teeth, claws, scaly legs then its because they once had them like whales once had legs. Its only a minor thing in the body and not a sign of evolution anymore then a whale having legs is.

You call these changes "minor"? Going from terrestrial animals to fully fledged swimmers and flyers?

I don't think you appreciate the many adaptations to their respective modes of life that birds and whales have undergone. It's not simply a matter of loosing legs or growing wings. If developing feathers, hollowing bones, loosing teeth, fusing vertebrae, dramatically rearranging the lungs, and growing neomorphic bones isn't evolution, I don't know what is.

Many birds do use their teeth to break out of eggs and if the detail is used then its just a interpretation that its a reused detail. Prove it.

Chicks don't use their teeth to break eggs. As I said, the teeth are usually resorbed before the chick has hatched. Some birds do use egg teeth to break the shell, but those aren't actually teeth.
Again, bird teeth are evolutionary holdovers. They (currently) serve little adaptive value.

Scaly legs are probably just to keep their legs free of stuff clinging and adding weight.

But why scales, if they're not evolutionary holdovers from reptilian ancestors?

The human claims are just claims. Goosebumps and the others are needed or were for our ancesters but not a ape connection. The common blueprint of our bodies allows a sameness with apes etc and duplication of any ability apes have but I'm sure closer examination would reveal these things are needed or just off boundary a little. for example we have hair on our bodies that is of no need but is simply a reaction of our body, in error, to promptings. hair in our armpits is just a quick reaction of the body to fix a loss of heat by wetness. Let not evidence of a hairy past.

I have no idea what you just said here, but it' is upon "closer examination" that the man-ape connection is made. Even at the genetic level, the similarities between apes and men are striking. I'm sure I don't have to tell you about chromosome 2.

The sea mammals/snakes are completly different as they have bones showing a former anatomical reality. what you claim are not bones but interpretations of presently useful things or minor cases of some abberation.
Its not the same thing.

It's the exact same thing. You simply refuse to admit it. That one feature has bones in it and another doesn't is of no consequence.

I can't argue every point about the human body, some are new too me here, but the great fact is that if evolution was true then vestigel organs etc should be the biggest characteristic of bodies. Instead only in a few creatures is this true and they are special cases. Snakes by the curse and water mammals by the emptying of the sea after the flood.

Vestigial characters ARE everywhere. I just finished naming you six or so in the human body alone. A Google Scholar search for "vestigial" turns up over 60,000 hits. I don't know why you think vestigial characters ought to be "the biggest characteristic of bodies", though. We do still use most of our bodies, after all.

 

[shernren]

You call these changes "minor"? Going from terrestrial animals to fully fledged swimmers and flyers?

It's still a chordate. You haven't proved goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution.

^^

 

[Melethiel]

If they have abilitys to have teeth, claws, scaly legs then its because they once had them like whales once had legs. Its only a minor thing in the body and not a sign of evolution anymore then a whale having legs is.

May I ask what you think "evolution" is? Because that sure sounds like evolution to me...

 

[gluadys]

The bird things are fine. If they have abilitys to have teeth, claws, scaly legs then its because they once had them like whales once had legs. Its only a minor thing in the body and not a sign of evolution anymore then a whale having legs is.
Many birds do use their teeth to break out of eggs and if the detail is used then its just a interpretation that its a reused detail. Prove it.
Scaly legs are probably just to keep their legs free of stuff clinging and adding weight.

The human claims are just claims. Goosebumps and the others are needed or were for our ancesters but not a ape connection. The common blueprint of our bodies allows a sameness with apes etc and duplication of any ability apes have but I'm sure closer examination would reveal these things are needed or just off boundary a little. for example we have hair on our bodies that is of no need but is simply a reaction of our body, in error, to promptings. hair in our armpits is just a quick reaction of the body to fix a loss of heat by wetness. Let not evidence of a hairy past.

The sea mammals/snakes are completly different as they have bones showing a former anatomical reality. what you claim are not bones but interpretations of presently useful things or minor cases of some abberation.
Its not the same thing.
Vestigel bits and pieces are either evidence of a previous type of body or just previous uses of the same body.
Whales etc are the former. The latter are minor variety within present species.
I can't argue every point about the human body, some are new too me here, but the great fact is that if evolution was true then vestigel organs etc should be the biggest characteristic of bodies. Instead only in a few creatures is this true and they are special cases. Snakes by the curse and water mammals by the emptying of the sea after the flood.

This sounds like a bad case of "E-phobia". Evolution is described, but the poster refuses to call it "evolution".

A rose by any other name still smells like a rose. Evolution, no matter how it is described or labeled, is still evolution. If you accept the reality, why duck the terminology?

 

[RobertByers]

You call these changes "minor"? Going from terrestrial animals to fully fledged swimmers and flyers?

I don't think you appreciate the many adaptations to their respective modes of life that birds and whales have undergone. It's not simply a matter of loosing legs or growing wings. If developing feathers, hollowing bones, loosing teeth, fusing vertebrae, dramatically rearranging the lungs, and growing neomorphic bones isn't evolution, I don't know what is.


Chicks don't use their teeth to break eggs. As I said, the teeth are usually resorbed before the chick has hatched. Some birds do use egg teeth to break the shell, but those aren't actually teeth.
Again, bird teeth are evolutionary holdovers. They (currently) serve little adaptive value.


But why scales, if they're not evolutionary holdovers from reptilian ancestors?


I have no idea what you just said here, but it' is upon "closer examination" that the man-ape connection is made. Even at the genetic level, the similarities between apes and men are striking. I'm sure I don't have to tell you about chromosome 2.


It's the exact same thing. You simply refuse to admit it. That one feature has bones in it and another doesn't is of no consequence.


Vestigial characters ARE everywhere. I just finished naming you six or so in the human body alone. A Google Scholar search for "vestigial" turns up over 60,000 hits. I don't know why you think vestigial characters ought to be "the biggest characteristic of bodies", though. We do still use most of our bodies, after all.

I'm not agreeing birds changed except they may of had teeth. Fine so what.
Yes water mammals changed post flood.
Scales just show a common blueprint of whats usefull . they are not evidence of a previous reptile life. Thats interpretation and NOT the same as hidden leg bones.
The man/ape thing I explained as common blueprint and genetics too.
Vestigal features are rare despite google. Six is rare. I don't accept these anyways but having studied it to answer.
Your just seeing what you think you should find. You should see the man/ape connection as the result of common blueprints because the ape body was the best one to put a being in the image of God into. Any detail can be explained away upon better observation and analysis then evolutions usual incompetence,
Vestigal remnants proving a previous anatomical life are so rare that its a problem for evolution to explain away. Saying they are there as you do makes my case.
Find a horse with gills. Well even then.

 

[shernren]

Find a horse with gills. Well even then.

... wait, what is this "reality" that you speak of?

 

[Melethiel]

the ape body was the best one to put a being in the image of God into.

Why?

 

[Mallon]

I'm not agreeing birds changed except they may of had teeth. Fine so what.

Why are you willing to admit that modern whales developed from terrestrial ancestors, but modern birds did not? What single piece of evidence do you have for the one that you don't have for the other? The dinosaur-bird transition is much better preserved in the fossil record than the Pakicetus-whale transition.

Scales just show a common blueprint of whats usefull . they are not evidence of a previous reptile life. Thats interpretation and NOT the same as hidden leg bones.

Why? Why are vestigial limbs in whales evidence of common ancestry, but, say, vestigial tail bones in humans are not? I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time understanding your position as consistent. Instead, you appear to be picking and choosing what evidence to accept.

The man/ape thing I explained as common blueprint and genetics too.

You explained it AWAY. You did not provide an explanation, though. You have yet to provide a consistent, coherent picture of what constitutes evidence of common ancestry and what constitutes evidence of "a common blueprint of what's useful". Perhaps you could provide a rationale in your next post. Perhaps you could clearly explain why God would use a "common blueprint" for apes and humans that contained the same retroviruses, or that made it look like He formed the human chromosome 2 by fusing two ape chromosomes.

Vestigal features are rare despite google. Six is rare. I don't accept these anyways but having studied it to answer.

That vestigial structures exist at all should be enough to convince you of common ancestry, so why you're insisting on x amount to convince you doesn't make any sense. A vestige is a vestige. ONE vestige is evidence of common ancestry because the very word itself dictates that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Maybe 6 is rare, maybe it's not. But I named you six, and each one attests to common ancestry.

Your just seeing what you think you should find. You should see the man/ape connection as the result of common blueprints because the ape body was the best one to put a being in the image of God into. Any detail can be explained away upon better observation and analysis then evolutions usual incompetence,

That's quite the admission. The ape body was the best one to put a being in the image of God into. Sounds like something an evolutionary creationist might say. If you're willing to go that far, why are you so adverse to the idea of God creating men bearing His image from evolved apes? What's the difference?

Find a horse with gills. Well even then.

Don't be childish, Robert. For someone who claims to know enough about evolution to say it's wrong, you should know that a horse with gills is NOT something the evolutionary theory predicts. Horses evolved from immediate ungulate ancestors that did not have gills. The closest horse ancestor that would have sported gills is from the Devonian, well over 300 million years before horses evolved. Tetrapods lost their gills LONG before horses showed up. In fact, the kind of chimera you propose would be evidence AGAINST evolution because this is not something the theory predicts. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you have such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the theory of evolution?

 

[RobertByers]

Why?

There was first all the creatures on earth and they all are from a common blueprint. Eyes, ears, butts, hearts etc. clear;y.
so gods options are to either make a man so unrelated to everything that no connection with this common blueprint for everything else can be drawn OR to pick as it were the best type of body for a being that is in the image of GOD.
The ape body lets us swim, dance, play, climb stuff,etc.
What other body form on earth now or in the past could be as good or better then the ape form? Chicken rhino, ant.
Nothing is better to have such a great creature as man to express and enjoy creation.
Man could only be like other creatures in basic form and couldn't be anything else then what he is.
Creationism is at peace with the closeness, yet biologically unrelated, of ape bodies.

 

[RobertByers]

Why are you willing to admit that modern whales developed from terrestrial ancestors, but modern birds did not? What single piece of evidence do you have for the one that you don't have for the other? The dinosaur-bird transition is much better preserved in the fossil record than the Pakicetus-whale transition.


Why? Why are vestigial limbs in whales evidence of common ancestry, but, say, vestigial tail bones in humans are not? I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time understanding your position as consistent. Instead, you appear to be picking and choosing what evidence to accept.


You explained it AWAY. You did not provide an explanation, though. You have yet to provide a consistent, coherent picture of what constitutes evidence of common ancestry and what constitutes evidence of "a common blueprint of what's useful". Perhaps you could provide a rationale in your next post. Perhaps you could clearly explain why God would use a "common blueprint" for apes and humans that contained the same retroviruses, or that made it look like He formed the human chromosome 2 by fusing two ape chromosomes.


That vestigial structures exist at all should be enough to convince you of common ancestry, so why you're insisting on x amount to convince you doesn't make any sense. A vestige is a vestige. ONE vestige is evidence of common ancestry because the very word itself dictates that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Maybe 6 is rare, maybe it's not. But I named you six, and each one attests to common ancestry.


That's quite the admission. The ape body was the best one to put a being in the image of God into. Sounds like something an evolutionary creationist might say. If you're willing to go that far, why are you so adverse to the idea of God creating men bearing His image from evolved apes? What's the difference?


Don't be childish, Robert. For someone who claims to know enough about evolution to say it's wrong, you should know that a horse with gills is NOT something the evolutionary theory predicts. Horses evolved from immediate ungulate ancestors that did not have gills. The closest horse ancestor that would have sported gills is from the Devonian, well over 300 million years before horses evolved. Tetrapods lost their gills LONG before horses showed up. In fact, the kind of chimera you propose would be evidence AGAINST evolution because this is not something the theory predicts. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you have such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the theory of evolution?

We've been over the bones in whales thing. It shows a previous important anatomical difference. The bird is minor , if true, details about eating. its still a bird in all matters. Water mammals are quite changed. Very different and unique and so a glaring embarrasment of evolution which would like to find these bone evidfences in everything but doesn't. cause it never happened.

The horse/gill thing makes my point of how much creatures should be showing their past body types in their long evolution. Yet they don't.
Otherwise show it. teeth or toes don't count. Its trivial adaptation.

The bible says man was created and not born. What else could man look like but like everything else on earth that has the same basic blueprint.

I haven't studied these claims of vestigal ape stuff for our bodies but remember creationists have dismissed them as minor cases of error unrelated to ape ancestry.

 

[checkmate]

I agree completely.