Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[USincognito]

You absolutely refuse to see that you claim a butterfly was always a butterfly and then claim it wasn't.

As usual, all you have to offer is vacuous rhetoric. Order Lepidoptera (which includes moths and butterflies) and order Trichoptera (caddisflies) evolved during the Jurassic.
http://lepcurious.blogspot.com/2010/09/origin-of-butterfly.html
True butterflies evolved from moths during the Paleogene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly#Taxonomy_and_phylogeny

You assume the bones on whales are vestigial hip bones.

Incorrect. The vestigial pelvic bones of whales are identified as pelvic bones because they are pelvic bones. The few times whales have been found with atavistic legs they were identified as leg bones because they were leg bones.

Now you need to explain why, if whales never had hind legs, God created with the gene package for growing hind limbs and why embryonic cetaceans grow limb buds in utero.

 

[USincognito]

Random genetic mutations do not lead anywhere except to sterility and death.

And you know this from your years of study? Or are you just making stuff up?

2. Ever hear of an egg tooth? Necessary to break out of a healthy shell.

The problem with your response is that birds have the genes for teeth not just for a tooth.

DNA only demonstrates similarity, not necessarily
kindred.

Ah, you know nothing about DNA then.

4. degeneration. We used to be larger and grow older.

More making stuff up.

5. A kind is more like species. Most bears come from one kind. Equines are a kind.

Ursidae is a family as is Equidae. You really should read up on subjects rather than just making stuff up.

 

[USincognito]

Actually, at some point it must become something different.

Actually, no. As I stated, lineages never stop being what they were.

Otherwise, how do you get from single-cell to multicellular?

Unicellular and multi-cellular eukaryotes are still eukaryotes.

Asexual to sexual reproduction?

Asexual and sexually reproducing eukaryotes are still eukaryotes.

Plant to animal,

The fact that you think plants evolved into animals is yet another indicator that you have no idea what you're talking about. Animals and fungi evolved from basal Opisthokonta.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151185

fish to amphibian to reptile

All of which are vertebrates.
Amphbians and reptiles are still Sarcopterygiians and terrestrial tetrapods.

I don't understand how this can be so difficult to grasp.

 

[USincognito]

I asked that but I keep getting the evolution happens in populations not individuals, thing---but for crying out loud--it has to happen in individuals before it can happen in a population. And then they say one species can not turn into another yet they say a bear was actually a fish and they say we all began as fish!!

Mutations happen in individuals and those mutations fix on the entire population. When the mutation fixes, that is when the population has evolved.

Do you not comprehend that "fish" is not a species and neither is bear? Do you comprehend that all terrestrial tetrapods are a subgroup of Sarcopterygii? Have you ever even encountered the word Sarcopterygii before?

 

[USincognito]

Never happened. That is a theory, or fairy tale.

Then what is your explanation for the Chicxulub crater and the world wide iridium layer at the K-Pg boundry?

 

[USincognito]

I think somebody forgot to dust their lenses.

You also seem to think making stuff up represents a valid argument. You think a lot of things that aren't true.

Anyhow, a few items does not a vast oort cloud create.

Nice. Goal post shifting. You claimed there was no Oort cloud. We have observed objects that are in the Oort cloud. Therefore your claim is wrong. There's also this thing called trigonometry. It's a type of math used to calculate orbits and guess where long period comets originate.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello USincognito.

Interesting post of yours.

No such "explanation" exists. There are only two viable hypotheses - out of Africa
and multi-regional.

According to the present hypothesis based on a theoretical idea that the fossils of primates,
have a common ancestry with man. There is no clear evidence that we can make this
association. That the primate fossils in the Rift valley, indicate that homo sapiens originated
in Africa.

I reject this speculative hypothesis.

The out of Africa migrations happened about 50,000 years before the advent
of cities.

May I ask how you know when the advent of the first cities occurred?

Ah, the every popular "making stuff up" hypothesis.

Scientists do this all the time, feel free to propose any hypothesis you wish.
Science has made innumerable mistakes in developing hypothesis.

I have hard evidence, that the first human settlements occurred in the Middle
East. You do not have hard evidence of human settlements in Africa before
my evidence, just speculation.

Actually haplogroup analysis would show an African origin for humans only
if it actually happened.

No analysis on earth can state that Africa was the geographical origin of mankind,

That is impossible. It is usually assumed that there is little natural selection for or
against a particular haplotype mutation which has survived to the present day. (wikipedia)
Did you spot one of the assumptions, UScognito?

Haplogroups pertain to a single line of descent, usually dating back thousands of years
(wikipedia)

We are only going back thousands of years.

You have no idea what you're talking about. We have fossils showing anatomically
modern humans along with many other species in Genus homo living in Africa for 2 million
years. There are enough stone tools lying around Africa to build a pyramid.

Monkeys use stone tools.

We also have fossils showing human habitation in the middle east 80,000 years ago.
Further, we have numerous examples of human habitation from Australia, China and Europe
20,000-50,000 years ago long predating your proposed cradle of humankind.

Incorrect dates, I reject this dating methodology.

Since I have no date for the origin of mankind, tell me how any date could predate
my unknown date?

I know enough to recognize inbuilt assumptions and speculation, when I see them.

 

[USincognito]

That assumes that Noah and his family had the same
flawed DNA that we have today, instead of the nearly
perfect DNA that they had.

Oh the irony. You claim the lack of genetic bottlenecks in all terrestrial vertebrate species are due to something you're just making up. My word man, do you even think about this stuff before posting it?

If you have ever read thehistory...

That wasn't history.

 

[USincognito]

I know enough to recognize inbuilt assumptions and speculation, when I see them.

If only you could actually address the evidence rather than try to use magic words like "assumptions" and "speculation" to try and poof it away in a cloud of smoke.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, you don't understand, but instead of asking clarification, you mock.

Considering you've never actually present any actually logical claim to take seriously... yeah.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, we see adaptation within kinds.

No, it's called evolution. Just because you lack the imagination for God being powerful enough to kickstart evolution doesn't mean that you're right.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's called evolution. Just because you lack the imagination for God being powerful enough to kickstart evolution doesn't mean that you're right.

Read 2 Peter 2 and tell me that doesn't describe evolutionists to a tee.

Especially verse 12.

The god who kickstarted evolution is the god of depression, according to Solomon.

 

[Astrophile]

Hello Astrophile.

Impossible to draw any definite conclusion, given that controversy usually surrounds any
proposed ancestor of man. For example, does Lucy belong in the ancestry of man?

This is not actually an answer to my question. The question was whether primates have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years; I was not asking about human ancestry. However, since you mention Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), she does not belong to any living genus of primates; the australopithecines are extinct. Likewise, there are no known fossils belonging to the genus Homo from the time when Lucy was alive. This is what I mean when I ask whether there have been evolutionary changes in the primates over tens or hundreds of millions of years.

I read an article, describing how Lucy might have fallen from a height of 40 feet to
the ground. Apparently there were fractures in the bones of Lucy which indicated
this cause of death. A tree dwelling primate.

How would we ever know for certain, whether we have a common ancestry with the
primate family?

Principally from genetics, and in particular from the near-identity of the ERVs (endogeneous retroviruses) in the genomes of humans and the other apes. You could discuss this with some geneticists. By the way, the Primates are an order, not a family.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read 2 Peter 2 and tell me that doesn't describe evolutionists to a tee.

Especially verse 12.

The god who kickstarted evolution is the god of depression, according to Solomon.

That doesn't describe evolutionists to a tee. It describes people who try and twist scripture to their own ends in the face of God's evidence, but it doesn't describe evolutionists.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't describe evolutionists to a tee. It describes people who try and twist scripture to their own ends in the face of God's evidence, but it doesn't describe evolutionists.

Oh, of course not!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, of course not!

To be honest, did you not see it coming that I would not agree with your interpretation of 2 Peter?

 

[AV1611VET]

To be honest, did you not see it coming that I would not agree with your interpretation of 2 Peter?

Indeed I did see it coming.

I doubt you would agree with just about anything I believe.

I would say about the only thing you and I would agree on is: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

From there ... well ... religion gets in the way.

 

[loveofourlord]

100 years?? Diversity in animals who are actively interbreeding can happen very quickly, may take more than a 100 years, though.---how should I know!---The basic kinds that Noah had diversified and as in everything, including people, they seek out their own kind. We have much interracial marriages now, which is fine---but still, you have people that want to marry those of their own race. Personally, I like the mixed, very pretty, I like variety.

Given that we know most species of cats were within a few hundreds of years after the supposed flood, you have to get just about every species of cat even if just big cats in a few hundred years. Funny you guys reject evolution for being unrealistic then, believe in some hyper evolution that doesn't even make sense. You see it just doesn't work, kinds is a vacuous term used to try to hand wave away problems with the ark, but it doesn't work. You can't get All the species of big and little cats and such in a few hundred years, there is no mechanism for evolution to work that fast.

 

[loveofourlord]

The major problem is that mutations don't work that way.
You can't count on one after another, all having the same
goal in mind. Not to mention the safeguards of DNA and
sexual reproduction. In having offspring, you have a 50%
chance of losing any 'advantageous' mutations.

Anyhow, Darwinism made sense when a cell was a simple
glob of protoplasm and DNA was unknown. When you are
dealing with cells more complex than any man-made object,
and DNA which makes computer software look simple, there
is no longer a place for random chance and mutations to
take the place of God and purposeful creation.

AGAIN it deals with populations, yes not all beneficial mutations will be passed on, but considering that many times, it's multi step mutations they can spread through the population before mutating, and if the pressure that takes advantage of a mutation is still there next time it's appears it will be there.

Remember were not talking about generally a animal suddenly growing scales or something like that, these things happen over time, the changes from pakisetus to whale didn't happen all at once, so any mutations that gave advantages to living more in the water would happen over time, and be selected for, as they have a higher chance of survival.

It's not just that one animal has 0.001% better chance to survive, it's that those that are less addapted are more likly to die, so the average progresses over time if there is pressure. A zebra with a mutation that makes it run faster doesn't have to run super fast, it just has to run faster then the slowest zebra and so on.

 

[ScottA]

That doesn't describe evolutionists to a tee. It describes people who try and twist scripture to their own ends in the face of God's evidence, but it doesn't describe evolutionists.

That is the problem...you are not looking at "God's evidence", but at the manifestations that are a result of a fallen world - the evolution of a world at enmity with God. The contingency is indeed real, but from decay and corruption comes evil and destruction.

Do you not know that the way of the world, is not the Way we know of as Christ? Whom, then, will you hear and follow?

Repent.