Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

And its my contention that you are to quick to label variation with in the one species as transitional.

The two are not mutually exclusive. H. erectus is a transitional species. Variations within the H. erectus population are all transitional.

Why should I or anyone accept fossils as transitionals based on a persons observations.

Why should we base conclusions on empirical observations? Because that is how science is done.

There is no definite proof that they are transitionals so why should I just take someones interpretation.

I already gave you that definite proof. H. erectus has ape features not found in modern humans. That makes H. erectus transitional by definition. All individuals within the variable H. erectus species have ape features not found in modern humans. They are all transitional. All of them have a prognathous. All of them have heavy brow ridges. All of them have a sloping forehead. All of them are transitional.

Especially when the people who are determining the status are in disagreement themselves about what is ape and what is human.

That's exactly what we should see if there is a gradual evolutionary transition between ancestral apes and modern humans. Thank you for pointing to more evidence for my claims.

Not just that there have been many cases where the reconstruction of fragmented fossils were made out to suit the transitionals they wanted only to be later found that their true shape was either completely ape or human. [FONT=&quot]Skull KNM–ER 1470 is an example.
[/FONT] The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

KNM-ER 1470 has NEVER been classified as H. sapiens. Never.

If you have 5 skulls lined up with differing features. Some showing more apelike features and some humans features. But all these features are things that fall within humans and can even be found in the modern human.

No, they can't. Now you are lying. No modern human has features like H. erectus. None.

This is what gets tiring in our discussions. You tell falsehoods, and continue to tell them in thread after thread even after being corrected. This is yet another one. I have shown you time and time again that these fossils are not modern humans.

There have been finds that have shown variety within one species which covers several named species from what evolutionists have named in the past as transitional ape men.

Whether you group them into one species or split them into many, they are still transitional. Their mixture of ape and human features does not go away when you change their name. A rose by any other name . . .

They have been to quick to label them as another species when it was just variety with the one species.

Variety within a single transitional species is still transitional. When will you understand this?

 

[Loudmouth]

This where some have a different view of how animals can change over time. Take the horse example used. It shows pictures of a horse like creature. Apart from size and a couple of other features like the amount of toes and the placement of teeth they all look similar.

This isn't a different view. This is denial, and a refusal to address the evidence.

The patter shows that its not just a case of the horse going from small to the larger horse we have today.

You forgot about the digits and limb features.

The ancestor(s) of these horses probably possessed latent (i.e. unexpressed) genetic information that gave the horse type tremendous potential for variety.

That is a made up fantasy. This type of nonsense is spread by creationists who don't understand genetics or developmental biology. It's not as if a different stimulus will cause human embryos to turn into chimps or macaques. Changes in fetal development require a change in the SEQUENCE of DNA. It requires mutations. Mutations in gene promoters and transcription factors is what accounts for the difference in gene regulation between species, and what accounts for the observed difference in morphology. That is why humans with identical genomes look identical, otherwise known as identical twins.

or example, horses may have a genetic ‘switch’ that determines whether they develop side toes. Other regulatory genes may control size, shape of the teeth, and so on.

In order to change that regulation, you have to change the DNA sequence of the DNA involved.

 

[stevevw]

The two are not mutually exclusive. H. erectus is a transitional species. Variations within the H. erectus population are all transitional.

That doesn't make sense. What if the variation is in the opposite direction of the features that are needed to transform to the next transition you want to show the creature has changed into.

Why should we base conclusions on empirical observations? Because that is how science is done.

Thats how it was done in the past without any additional support to check if this was correct. Evolutionists would pick out certain features they felt suited their pre existing inclinations for evolution and ignored all the ones that didn't support their views. Reconstructions and interpretations of bone structures were slanted in favor of evolution. Often one or two features were pointed out showing the links for transition but many other features that didn't show any connections and even contradicted the animals links to each other were overlooked. Thats why observational evidence has often been found to be wrong.

Now we have genetic evidence to see if that matches what was thought and quite often it doesn't. The tree of life which was based on those observations is more like a hedge. It shows connections with animals that were on distant branches of the tree that was made with Darwinian evolution and breaks down some of the links of supposed close related creatures. As the genome is being mapped out it is showing more and more individual complexity with each creature.

I already gave you that definite proof. H. erectus has ape features not found in modern humans. That makes H. erectus transitional by definition. All individuals within the variable H. erectus species have ape features not found in modern humans. They are all transitional. All of them have a prognathous. All of them have heavy brow ridges. All of them have a sloping forehead. All of them are transitional.

The problem is like with the skulls found at Georgia they cover all the variations from modern humans to homo erectus in the one group at the same time. In other words what was used as a transitional and separate species in the past is not the same species. It is just that the same species has all those different shapes at the same time. If evolution is a slow and gradual transformation then one shape should transform into another showing steps for the changes. Even today we can show many of the features erectus has in modern humans. Thats shows the great variation one species can have that is mistaken for a separate species.

That's exactly what we should see if there is a gradual evolutionary transition between ancestral apes and modern humans. Thank you for pointing to more evidence for my claims.

So under that interpretation because a lawn mower has a couple of similar parts to a ford mustang the lawn mower must have morphed into the mustang.

The disagreements are normally about a couple of features that are questionable anyway. The rest of the creatures looks fully ape or fully human. But evolutionists pick out one or two features they think may indicate some similarity with the other. But there is disagreement with that anyway between scientists. Often it is found later that the particular feature was within the normal variation of the ape and therefore the creature is deemed what it mostly looked like an ape.

KNM-ER 1470 has NEVER been classified as H. sapiens. Never.

It doesn't say that. It was saying that originally evolutionists tried to make out that it was a transitional or missing link. They based this on a couple of features which were later found to be either measured wrong or interpreted wrong. It ended up being completely ape as what happens with many of these specimens.

No, they can't. Now you are lying. No modern human has features like H. erectus. None.

This is what gets tiring in our discussions. You tell falsehoods, and continue to tell them in thread after thread even after being corrected. This is yet another one. I have shown you time and time again that these fossils are not modern humans.

It is not me that is stating this but the experts.
In their original incarnation, Neanderthals were viewed as the primitive, backward cave dwellers of Eurasia, far less complex than the sophisticated Homo sapiens who used language and developed sophisticated art as they migrated out of Africa and conquered the world.
"It's increasingly difficult to point to any one thing that Neanderthals did and Homo sapiens didn't do and vice versa," said John Shea, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University in New York.
Neanderthals ... They're Just Like Us?

The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.
The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian

Whether you group them into one species or split them into many, they are still transitional. Their mixture of ape and human features does not go away when you change their name. A rose by any other name . . .

Then what do you call it when a human displays ape like features such as a low brow or ridged brows. Is that now a variation within humans. They are still fully human but have some of these features.
According to Molnar, the modern human brain range runs from about 700–2200 cc,27 and this puts every adult erectus specimen comfortably into the range of modern humans, and this range also covers every adult example of archaic sapiens, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon Man.

Variety within a single transitional species is still transitional. When will you understand this?

The variety of dogs is not transitional for anything but dogs. Its just a variety of shapes and sizes with dogs. There is a fine line between what you call variety within a species and a transitional. Sometimes that variety goes in the opposite direction of evolution. Transitions should point in the direction of the new shape its turning into. But many variations have different features.

One of the defining features that evolutionists use to show transition from ape to human is the brain size. yet with Neanderthals we have a larger brain than humans. Thats because they are humans who were bigger and stronger than us but fully human. If anything we have reverses evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

That doesn't make sense. What if the variation is in the opposite direction of the features that are needed to transform to the next transition you want to show the creature has changed into.

Being transitional does not mean that they are in the direct ancestral line to a modern species.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.--Darwin, Origin of Species​

A side branch may become more like it's ancestors, but as long as it preserves those gradations, it is still transitional.

Evolutionists would pick out certain features they felt suited their pre existing inclinations for evolution and ignored all the ones that didn't support their views. Reconstructions and interpretations of bone structures were slanted in favor of evolution. Often one or two features were pointed out showing the links for transition but many other features that didn't show any connections and even contradicted the animals links to each other were overlooked. Thats why observational evidence has often been found to be wrong.

Which features support evolution and which don't? Why would derived features in a sister taxa do away with the transitional features preserved in that sister taxa?

Again, transitional does not mean that it is a direct ancestor. There can be side branches that evolve their own unique morphology, but still preserve the transitional features found in the ancestor that is in the direct lineage.

Now we have genetic evidence to see if that matches what was thought and quite often it doesn't. The tree of life which was based on those observations is more like a hedge.

False. All life is rooted to a universal common ancestor.

It shows connections with animals that were on distant branches of the tree that was made with Darwinian evolution and breaks down some of the links of supposed close related creatures. As the genome is being mapped out it is showing more and more individual complexity with each creature.

Examples?

The problem is like with the skulls found at Georgia they cover all the variations from modern humans to homo erectus in the one group at the same time.

None of them were classified as H. sapiens. None. They don't cover that variation because none of them were anatomically modern humans.

In other words what was used as a transitional and separate species in the past is not the same species. It is just that the same species has all those different shapes at the same time.

None of those shapes are anatomically modern humans, and they are all transitional being that they all belong to the same transitional species.

If evolution is a slow and gradual transformation then one shape should transform into another showing steps for the changes. Even today we can show many of the features erectus has in modern humans. Thats shows the great variation one species can have that is mistaken for a separate species.

We can show many of the shapes in anatomically modern humans THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN H. ERECTUS. You keep failing to mention that. All H. erectus fossils have a mixture of modern human and ancestral ape features which makes all of the H. erectus fossils transitional.

So under that interpretation because a lawn mower has a couple of similar parts to a ford mustang the lawn mower must have morphed into the mustang.

Lawnmowers and Mustangs do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

The disagreements are normally about a couple of features that are questionable anyway. The rest of the creatures looks fully ape or fully human.

Then what features would a true transitional need to have but these fossils lack? I keep asking this, and you can't name one. Why is that?

It doesn't say that. It was saying that originally evolutionists tried to make out that it was a transitional or missing link. They based this on a couple of features which were later found to be either measured wrong or interpreted wrong. It ended up being completely ape as what happens with many of these specimens.

Look at them yourself. Look at the brow ridges. Look at the prognathous. Look at the backwards swept lower chin. Look at the lack of a forehead. Show me an H. erectus skull, and then show me a modern human that has those same features.

It is not me that is stating this but the experts.
In their original incarnation, Neanderthals were viewed as the primitive, backward cave dwellers of Eurasia, far less complex than the sophisticated Homo sapiens who used language and developed sophisticated art as they migrated out of Africa and conquered the world.
"It's increasingly difficult to point to any one thing that Neanderthals did and Homo sapiens didn't do and vice versa," said John Shea, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University in New York.
Neanderthals ... They're Just Like Us?

Neanderthals are not H. erectus, and they were a separate species.

The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.

They are not saying that the Dmanisi skulls are within human or chimp variation. They are saying that there is as much variation as seen in other species, but they are still a separate species. If they had said that there is as much variation in H. erectus as there is in house cats, would you say that H. erectus spans the gap between cats and humans?

The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.

Notice that they were not classified as modern humans, as H. sapiens. They are still part of the transitional species called H. erectus.

The variety of dogs is not transitional for anything but dogs. Its just a variety of shapes and sizes with dogs. There is a fine line between what you call variety within a species and a transitional. Sometimes that variety goes in the opposite direction of evolution. Transitions should point in the direction of the new shape its turning into. But many variations have different features.

I mentioned this in another thread, and it belongs here as well.

Chihuahuas evolved from ancestors that resemble modern wolves. In that transition from wolves to chihuahuas there had to be a transition that was neither wolf nor chihuahua.

Would you have classified this group of in-between dogs as being a variation of dog?

 

[stevevw]

There are more differences between Eohippus and Equus than you are apparently prepared to accept. If they are the same basic "kind" than so are us and Lucy.

Ok then lets break it down. How does Lucy show that its a transitional between us and apes.

 

[FredVB]

Good design is characterized by simplicity, durability, ease of construction, and ease of repair.
Close scrutiny of living things shows that the "designer" does not "go back to the drawing board" for new forms, but tinkers with the related forms. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for instance travels from the brain down into the chest where it loops around the aortic arch leaving the heart and then turns back into the neck where it envervates the larynx. Any engineer submitting such a ridiculous design would be fired, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolutionary theory. (This is nonsense, there is greater design to human beings than any design that humans can come up with.)

The fossils show evidence of deposition of extremely long periods of time, and so does geology. For instance the Capitan Reef formation in the Guadalupe Mountains could not have been formed in a catastrophe but must have take considerable time to grow from coral deposits, be buried, and then uplifted and eroded. The Karoo formation is of such size that the number of organisms in this one single deposit would have been impossible for the Earth to support simultaneously and so must have been deposited over an extremely long time. (Remains require rapid burial any way for fossilization, and there are many fossils, but great catastrophe would explain all this.)

But I can point out evidence supporting geological and biological theory. Your opinion is supported only by wishful think... er ... faith.
Reptiles and mammals share many traits.
And those groupings are evidence of lines of descent, forming as they do, nested hierarchies that are not found in human design, architecture and engineering. (I can't explain the Creator as I cannot say what limits there should be to creation and design. God is greater than us and will know more, that we can't second guess.)

Theories explain observation. The observation comes first, at least in science. In religion the explanation precedes the observation and any observation that the religious explanation cannot account for is simply ignored.
So some mammals lay eggs, like reptiles, and in some mammals the eggs develop internally and the undeveloped embryos with no placental support are forced into the world to be protected by the marsupial pouch. It is almost as if we had a snapshot of an egg-laying reptile changing by degrees into a placental mammal.
And "no clear transition" is just what any reasonable person would expect from evolution.

All this just disregards that there are more kinds of mammals, when you would think that to be properly considered a mammal it must be a placental mammal, that is just an opinion.

What makes F and onward human? F certainly looks more like D and E than it looks like L.
What should a transitional look like according to you?

No, F has a human appearing skull. Like L, there is a human forehead, and no muzzle, with this distinct from D and E. I can see it, it is seen with an honest look. Transition, which doesn't exist, might have gradations of a diminishing muzzle toward being absent, along with a forehead forming in gradations to correspond to those of humans.

Why don't these fossils evidence the theory of evolution? What features would these fossils need in order to evidence evolution?
Then why does the platypus have a cloaca like a reptile, and not separate reproductive and digestive tracts as seen in other mammals?
That is why it is evidence for evolution since evolution predicts that we should see organized grouping.
Why would a creator make his designs fit into the same type of organized groups that evolution would produce? What is your explanation for that?
Evolution predicts that placental mammals share a common ancestor with other reptiles. Therefore, evolution predicts that there should have been a transitional stage in the past that had a mixture of placental mammal and reptile characteristics. There is a chance that a side branch of that transitional group of species has preserved that transitional morphology. That is exactly what we have in the monotremes, a mixture of placental mammal and reptile features. How is this not evidence for evolution?
What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional?

Fossils will only be evidence of previous life forms that were existing, they can't be evidence of more than that. Platypuses have characteristics of monotremes, still mammalian and not reptile. And these are characteristic of echidnas too. Argue with Linnaeus about organization not being expected without evolution, he didn't see need of it and expected it in design from the Creator. The Creator that is beyond our small understanding has reasons beyond us too.

Monotremes are still one distinct group of mammals. Therapsids were fully distinct from mammals, being their own group of reptiles. One fossil would not do a job of showing transition effectively. It would take a good sequence of fossils with all gradations between a definite reptile and a definite mammal, in that case.

I demonstrated that H. erectus is intermediate. You ignored it. I met your criteria, and you simply looked the other way.
Here you admit that H. erectus is intermediate because it has a sloped forehead like apes. Even you know that these fossils meet the criteria of being intermediate.

Fred V B did what we have waited for every creationist to do, which is describe what a transitional would look like. He ended up perfectly described H. erectus, and then had to run away from those previous comments.

I did not ignore any such thing. I don't have so much time to spend in arguing points in this section of the forums with all the atheists here. I knew it would be an erectus skull I excluded, I myself never make any case that erectus skulls were from humans like we are, regardless if they are not to be thought of as apes and if they are grouped with us. I don't say it is intermediate and the muzzle and lack of a proper human forehead show the case for that. Erectus skulls are not human and not transitional in what I say, I don't have any need to run, just don't have so much time for you. Too bad for that.

The design is there, but what is the evidence that it is from "the Creator?" The design is by natural selection.
Most fossils are fragmentary. This means they were chewed up and scattered before they were fossilized. This is inconsistent with a catastrophic event quickly burying them.
Ever seen a platypus? It is a mammal with reptilian features (such as leathery eggs). There are also a whole slew of "mammal-like reptiles" in the fossil record.
Can you give us a list of these "organized groupings?" We impose grouping on nature, but nature does not create groupings.
If there is no clear transition, then that is what we expect for a transitional.

What evidence from design? The design goes far beyond what I see can be thought as credible from natural processes without guidance, including natural selection. That you think you can know truth is such a design. I made the point already that fossilization requires rapid burial remains, anyway. Yes, we have been talking about platypuses. And? This was dealt with already. And again, argue then with Linnaeus that there shouldn't be organized groupings found apart from evolution.
This indeed was expected from logical design from the Creator.
What, no clear transition from transitionals?

 

[Loudmouth]

All this just disregards that there are more kinds of mammals, when you would think that to be properly considered a mammal it must be a placental mammal, that is just an opinion.

You are disregarding the observation that there are living species with a mixture of reptile and placental mammal features. More importantly, there are fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features, and they are transitional fossils.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok then lets break it down. How does Lucy show that its a transitional between us and apes.

What features would a fossil need in order for YOU to accept it as being tranistional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

'....Paluxy River "man tracks," then? ....'* * Evolution and the Origin of Races | NCSE

Although I do understand the concept of evolution with regards to adaptation I do not agree with evolution of kinds outside of species.
An example of that would be; I don't believe a fox came from a cat they may share the likeness or be apart of a race of felines, but it was always a fox.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Although I do understand the concept of evolution with regards to adaptation I do not agree with evolution of kinds outside of species.
An example of that would be; I don't believe a fox came from a cat they may share the likeness or be apart of a race of felines, but it was always a fox.

Evolution doesn't work like that, as with human evolution we share a common ancestor with chimps, but we are only distant cousins of those cute little fellas.
I am not familiar with how cats and foxes fit into the tree, but I will have a look and get back to you asap.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Although I do understand the concept of evolution with regards to adaptation I do not agree with evolution of kinds outside of species.
An example of that would be; I don't believe a fox came from a cat they may share the likeness or be apart of a race of felines, but it was always a fox.

Here's what I found on Wiki:

'....Canids have a long evolutionary history. In the Eocene, about 50 million years ago, the carnivorans split into two lineages, the caniforms (dog-like) and feliforms (cat-like). ....'*

…
* Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gracchus]

An example of that would be; I don't believe a fox came from a cat they may share the likeness or be apart of a race of felines, but it was always a fox.

And you would be correct. Foxes belong to the Genus Vulpes, thus:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Subfamily: Caninae
Tribe: Vulpini
Genus: Vulpes


As you see they are more closely related to dogs than to cats, although they do belong to the same order, Carnivora.


"Carnivorans evolved from members of the paraphyletic family Miacidae (miacids). The transition from Miacidae to Carnivora was a general trend in the middle and late Eocene, with taxa from both North America and Eurasia involved. The divergence of carnivorans from other miacids, as well as the divergence of the two clades within Carnivora, Caniformia and Feliformia, is now inferred to have happened in the middle Eocene, about 42 million years ago (mya)." --- Carnivora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There are twelve known extant species of Vulpes or "true foxes" and four known extinct species.


Of course, all of this information entails about thirty seconds on Google, and had toolmanjantzi really been interested, he could have found all that out for himself. Creationists are having a hard time since the internet made such information so conveniently available. They can't send those they are arguing with off on time-consuming trips to the university library to track down the information.



If you have trouble with the big words, toolmanjantzi, and can't figure out how to look them up yourself, there are some people here who can help you.

Or, you could just look at the pictures:

"Various carnivorans, with feliforms (tiger, spotted hyena and African civet) to the left, and caniforms (brown bear, grey wolf and wolverine) to the right." --- Carnivora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Evolution doesn't work like that, as with human evolution we share a common ancestor with chimps, but we are only distant cousins of those cute little fellas. I am not familiar with how cats and foxes fit into the tree, but I will have a look and get back to you asap.

So, you claim to be a follower of Christ who was God who came as a distant cousin of a chimp? I don't think that is biblical or biological with regards to chromosomes and DNA.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

And you would be correct. Foxes belong to the Genus Vulpes, thus: Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae Subfamily: Caninae Tribe: Vulpini Genus: Vulpes As you see they are more closely related to dogs than to cats, although they do belong to the same order, Carnivora. "Carnivorans evolved from members of the paraphyletic family Miacidae (miacids). The transition from Miacidae to Carnivora was a general trend in the middle and late Eocene, with taxa from both North America and Eurasia involved. The divergence of carnivorans from other miacids, as well as the divergence of the two clades within Carnivora, Caniformia and Feliformia, is now inferred to have happened in the middle Eocene, about 42 million years ago (mya)." --- Carnivora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are twelve known extant species of Vulpes or "true foxes" and four known extinct species. Of course, all of this information entails about thirty seconds on Google, and had toolmanjantzi really been interested, he could have found all that out for himself. Creationists are having a hard time since the internet made such information so conveniently available. They can't send those they are arguing with off on time-consuming trips to the university library to track down the information. If you have trouble with the big words, toolmanjantzi, and can't figure out how to look them up yourself, there are some people here who can help you. Or, you could just look at the pictures: "Various carnivorans, with feliforms (tiger, spotted hyena and African civet) to the left, and caniforms (brown bear, grey wolf and wolverine) to the right." --- Carnivora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No need to marvel at the World Wide Web or www.com it is not all truth. I wasn't asking either if the fox was related to a dog or a cat, because the Television covered that on Animal Planet.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

So, you claim to be a follower of Christ who was God who came as a distant cousin of a chimp? I don't think that is biblical or biological with regards to chromosomes and DNA.

Though I do appreciate your point of view, I am trying really hard to stay on topic here -- for this thread is only about the lines of evidence as the relate to Evolution. Savvy?

That being said, I find your question most provocative and shall set to work responding honestly and directly to you in a desperate thread -- so as not to create too many unrelated sidebars here.

IOW, I enjoyed your question enough to think it merits a reply.

 

[Shemjaza]

So, you claim to be a follower of Christ who was God who came as a distant cousin of a chimp? I don't think that is biblical or biological with regards to chromosomes and DNA.

As an atheist I don't have any issues with being the cousin of a chimp.

I often wonder why Christian Creationists get so upset by the comparison. Chimps are creations of God for some specific purpose he thought was a very good idea... while humans are tainted by sin and all deserving of death.

As to your comment about DNA and chromosomes, there's great evidence for humans being related to chimps. They even found the genetic scar, for want of a better word, where the two ape chromosomes fused into one human one.

 

[Euler]

So, you claim to be a follower of Christ who was God who came as a distant cousin of a chimp? I don't think that is biblical or biological with regards to chromosomes and DNA.

You seem surprised and disappointed. You do realize that the vast majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution, don't you?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

So, you claim to be a follower of Christ who was God who came as a distant cousin of a chimp? I don't think that is biblical or biological with regards to chromosomes and DNA.

Okay everyone, rather than tying this thread up -- please bring your responses over to: PART HOMINID? It is a spicy meatball!!!

 

[Split Rock]

Although I do understand the concept of evolution with regards to adaptation I do not agree with evolution of kinds outside of species.
An example of that would be; I don't believe a fox came from a cat they may share the likeness or be apart of a race of felines, but it was always a fox.

So... what "kind" is a fox?

 

[Split Rock]

Ok then lets break it down. How does Lucy show that its a transitional between us and apes.

1. Lucy walked erect, with a forward foramen magnum
2. Lucy's jaws and teeth were intermediate in shape and size
3. Lucy's pelvis was intermediate in shape.
4. Lucy's skull was a big bigger than modern apes, though not by much.
Crania