What are the Holes in Evolution?

[FishFace]

Well then you should get another "plug" labeled correctly.

It's incorrect, is it? And why should I believe you?

 

[Inan3]

Apparently, God looks like a monkey. Have a look at the taxonomy of a human:

1. Homo - Human
2. Hominidiae - Great apes
3. Hominoidea - Apes
4. Catarrhini - Old World Monkeys
5. Haplorrhini - Simians
6. Primates
7. Eutheria - Placental mammals
8. Theria - Mammals bearing live young
9. Mammalia - Mammals
10. Amniotes
11. Tetrapods - Four-legged animals
12. Vertebrates
13. Chordates
14. Animals
15. Eukaryotes

You are claiming that a fly will always be a fly. Yes, this is true. And a human will always be a human - but that human will also always be an ape, a simian, a primate, a placental mammal, a livebearer, a mammal, an amniote, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a chordate, an animal and a eukaryote.

The fly never stops being a fly, even if it eventually looks completely different. That's how evolution and taxonomy works.



You are so similar to a monkey that you could have a blood transfusion with one. Well, a chimp, anyway. You are so similar that you can teach it a portion of your language. You both have a social structure, you both use tools, you are both intelligent.
You are focusing on the differences, when those differences pale into insignificance if you consider the similarities.



If you sat next to a chimp, and you sat facing an alsatian and a chihuahua, which looks most similar? You and the chimp.

Yet you accept that the the dogs are the same species! You say a fly will always be a fly, does that mean that you accept that these chaps are related:

They look completely different! That is, if you concentrate on the differences. Of course, they both have wings, they both have a chitinous exoskeleton, they both have six legs... But chimps and humans share much more.

And of course, if you want to claim chimps are not related to humans, you ignore swathes of incontrovertible genetic evidence such as human chromosome 2, which can only be explained by common ancestry.

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

That's not an explanation; it's a cop-out.

 

[birdan]

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

Ah yes, one of the 3 mainstays of creation "science" when it finally runs out of room to move the goalposts:

Goddidit
thefalldidit
theflooddidit

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

What is God, and how did he do it? You have exlpained nothing; you have merely invoked an implausable entity and proclaimed that it did it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

Except that that doesn't actually "explain" anything.

 

[TheLightbulbHeretic]

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

Leprachauns did it! That explains just about as much about the universe as "Goddidit" does. It completely halts questioning or advancement.

 

[FishFace]

Nice Pictures. No, you can also, explain it this way, God did it!

I'm sorry, but you must have forgotten to include an explanation in your post.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am NOT a modified monkey. I am from Adam who was created in the likeness and image of God.

The person who founded taxonomy was Carl Linnaeus who also happened to be a creationist. He is the guy who put humans in with primates. Why? Because we have all of the features that other primates share. You can not describe a primate without also describing humans. Even more, Linnaeus thought that humans and chimps should be in the same genus, that's how close we are in anatomy.

Whether or not we were created separately this does not change the fact that we are apes, primates, mammals, etc.

Not only DO I look differently than a monkey, I am different than a monkey.

You are different from every single human being, also. Does this mean that you are not human? Of course not. The only meaningful way of grouping species is by their similarities.

 

[Inan3]

You are different from every single human being, also. Does this mean that you are not human? Of course not. The only meaningful way of grouping species is by their similarities.

And yet, humans are still humans and chimpanzees are still chimpanzees.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And yet, humans are still humans and chimpanzees are still chimpanzees.

And both are apes. Inan3, how do you define 'Ape'?

 

[dukeofhazzard]

So I suppose YEC's consider the ToE to be "Holey"?

Muahahaha

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet, humans are still humans and chimpanzees are still chimpanzees.

But at the same time you have no problem lumping chimps, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans into the group "great apes". You are still you and I am still me, and yet we are both humans. Differences do not exclude species from a group. We do not exclude bobcats from the cat group because they do not have a mane like a lion. We do not exclude dalmations from the dog group because they have spots. Species groups are organized by similarities. If you define "great apes" by the similarities that all great apes share then you will also describe humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

I second this request.

We are referred to as mankind --- not to be confused at all with the other kinds in the Bible.

 

[TheOutsider]

We are referred to as mankind --- not to be confused at all with the other kinds in the Bible.

What the heck is a "kind"?

 

[MoonLancer]

We are referred to as mankind --- not to be confused at all with the other kinds in the Bible.

and also not to be confused as a scientific classification. If i recall birds and bats are also the same "kind"

 

[AV1611VET]

What the heck is a "kind"?

Click here for the answer.

 

[TheOutsider]

Click here for the answer.

I remember that thread. I loved this part:

Molal: "Define "kind"."
AV1611VET: "A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Maximum alleles? What does that mean?"
AV1611VET: "Beats me."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Do you even know what alleles are?"
AV1611VET: "I absolutely do not - (for about the fifth time)."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Which taxon would the animal be at the top of?"
AV1611VET: "I haven't a clue."

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember that thread. I loved this part:

Better check ur memory then --- that's not in that thread.

 

[TheOutsider]

Better check ur memory then --- that's not in that thread.

Technically you are correct. I just stole that from MrGoodBytes's sig. Your definition from that thread was :

A kind is a plant or animal at the top of (term you couldn't define) that contains all the genetic blueprints necessary to replenish the earth as God intended.

It was purely guesswork by your part anyways.

Now, without using your Bible, why are humans not in the Ape "kind"?