Human & Ape Inquiry

[SLP]

And he ran off to do what he does in a new thread... Standard YEC antics.

The dots that you do not even have for your stories?



Not that I am aware of - why? Do YOU have the remains of the supposed last common ancestor of the Ape-Kind and modern apes?

According to your version of reality, this supposed Intra-Kind split would have taken place fewer than 4500 years ago. If your version of reality had any merit, it should be EASY for, say, the owners of Hobby Lobby to have paid for at least a fake original Ape-Kind by now, seeing as how they shelled out millions for fake Dead sea scrolls in their zeal to prop up bible lore in their museum of lies and nonsense.
In fact, if the bible stories of the flood had merit, we should see ALL SORTS of ancestral remains for all Kinds littering the landscape of the middle east, at least.
Ape-Kind ancestor, Giraffe-Kind ancestor, Elephant-Kind ancestor, Bat-Kind ancestor, etc. - and remains of at least some of the incipient modern offspring of these Kinds, as well.

Where are THEY?

By all scientific, reality-based estimates, the population of the LCA of chimps and humans would have lived somewhere between ~7 and ~4 million years ago. You expect us to have, right now, in our possession, the "remains" (as if there was just one of them...) of this ancestor - that would have had to survive millions of years of geological and biological processes and to have then been found, whereas you do not even pretend to know about the existence of the Kind-ancestors of modern creatures!

We DO, however, have fossils of more chimp-like creatures and more human-like creatures from appropriate times, and of course, we have DNA data.

You have what, besides incredulity and doctrine?


When will you attempt to connect-the-dots - well, you don't even have dots to connect - for YOUR biological tales?

Where is YOUR data indicating massive repetitive rounds of MACROevolution from post-flood Kinds, producing the millions of extant species we see today?
Why on earth do you think you should get a free pass when it comes to evidence?
Why does your supposed science background tell you that only one side has to produce the goods?


And that is why, to us, your "arguments" seem empty and desperate.

 

[loveofourlord]

Okay... look at #4, that's the 'meat' of my question. The difference in attributes are kind of the 'potatoes.' You know I'm going to base that on Genesis, and you're not going to accept it, so let's let it go and tell me what you think about #4.

Congrats you just disproved that canaanites and jews were descended from a common ancestor :> Or any other group of humans that were not like us or least percieved to not be like us, maybe it's religion telling us for 6000 years + that were unique from animals taht gets rid of any such kinship.

 

[SLP]

Crickets...

Within the Ape kind, you mean?

Perhaps you might please deign to condescend for one moment - not that your personal definition will matter to anyone (let's be honest), but how DO you define "evolution within kinds"?

According to AiG, quolls and marsupial mice are of the same Kind:

That looks like an awful lot of "microevolution".
In fact, in science-based taxonomy/phylogenetics, these are in 2 different Families (same with AiG!) - thus, these would be the products of MACROevolution (or, to be more accurate/precise, their evolution from a common ancestor would be described as macroevolution).

So it seems to me that maybe your definition differs even from professional creationists.

Back to this "non-believer's misinterpretation of clues" - seeing as how you seem to misinterpret the same clues that professional creationists look at differently than you (I guess), how is it that you think others are misinterpreting clues, and can you give some solid examples of these "clues" that you are interpreting correctly that others are not, and why anyone should put any value on your interpretations.

 

[Astrophile]

Hey, which one of these creatures seems most out of place, and why?

Be honest now!

The cat (the one on the far right). Its ears are different, and, unlike the others, it has long whiskers around its nostrils. Also, unlike the others, it cannot stand on two feet, although that isn't apparent from the picture.

 

[Nithavela]

The cat (the one on the far right). Its ears are different, and, unlike the others, it has long whiskers around its nostrils. Also, unlike the others, it cannot stand on two feet, although that isn't apparent from the picture.

I think I remember that human picture. If I remember correctly, it's supposed to be a reconstruction of how an average man would have looked like at the time and place of the life of Jesus.