Why are there still apes?

[April_Rose]

With all this chitchat, I had to doublecheck to make sure this thread was not called "Study Hall".

Hehe sorry my bad. (I think a lot of us are guilty for going way off topic though. Tone had us singing Apples and Bananas so,.. umm,.. yeah LOL XD)

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember when I asked AV if he could give a list of his family tree stretching back to Adam and Eve? That would be a lot easier than what he's demanding (probably less than 200 generations, as opposed to 4.5 billion years of fossils), yet he refused to even try.

You wanna buy ancestry.com for me?

 

[Jok]

With all this chitchat, I had to doublecheck to make sure this thread was not called "Study Hall".

I believe that my post #383 unleashed all of this mayhem. I guess upon my exit I felt the need to annoy you one last time haha

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God created the earth with age embedded in it.

Trees fully grown, Adam fully grown, rocks fully aged, etc.

Maturity without history.

But there is history (apparent history, if you like). Why fill the rocks with billions of years of apparent evolution of a tree of life - creatures that, by your, assertion could never have existed, and why fill them with radioisotopes giving a consistent picture of billions of years of radioactive decay?

GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) again?

 

[coffee4u]

If it is all wrong, why do we keep finding all this evidence for evolution? See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Its evidence because you want it to be evidence. It wouldn't matter if every single life form on earth was separated by 1%. None of this is proof one thing changed into another over millennia, it is simply a good story, one that fits what the eye sees when a person is without God.
We know it didn't happen that way because God told us otherwise.
Just because things look a certain way does not make them so. Just because a person is found with a knife over a body does not mean they did the murder.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Its evidence because you want it to be evidence.

Uh, no it was evidence even when I did not want it to be. It was evidence even when I was a creationist.

How, for instance, do you explain all the transitional fossils from reptile to mammals?

 

[AV1611VET]

How, for instance, do you explain all the transitional fossils from reptile to mammals?

How do you explain all the transitionals from the Model A to the Dodge Charger?

 

[Tone]

How, for instance, do you explain all the transitional fossils from reptile to mammals?

Do you guys factor in the rate at which species die off?

 

[Shemjaza]

How do you explain all the transitionals from the Model A to the Dodge Charger?

There aren't.

Cars don't form nested hierarchies and they don't reproduce.

If a Ford engineer develops a new form of engine modification that increases profitability then Ford can apply that to their entire range... it doesn't have to be independently and separately developed for each line.

That's why the evidence of life fits common ancestor better then common designer. It still doesn't rule out common designer because nothing ever could, which is why it's a difficult proposition to demonstrate.

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you guys factor in the rate at which species die off?

How does that change the evidence or interpretation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you guys factor in the rate at which species die off?

Rates can be negotiated behind closed doors and adjusted accordingly.

Remember the moondust argument, and how deep it was supposed to be?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cars don't form nested hierarchies and they don't reproduce.

But parts can be force fit into other models, can they not?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you explain all the transitionals from the Model A to the Dodge Charger?

There were people who learned from previous cars and built improvements.

How do you explain all the transitional from reptile to mammal?

 

[Tone]

How does that change the evidence or interpretation?

Well, I would imagine that those transitionals are extinct species.

So if you knew these rates, you could see if it adds up.

 

[Shemjaza]

But parts can be force fit into other models, can they not?

That's the point. That's how machines work... it's not how the evidence shows life has worked.

It can work that way, when we transpose genetic structure for dissimilar species (like research animals with human cancer genes or glow in the dark rabbits) we can see the genetics of separate branches. But that doesn't happen naturally to large scale complex animals.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Rates can be negotiated behind closed doors and adjusted accordingly.

Remember the moondust argument, and how deep it was supposed to be?

You would be cured of this erroneous view by spending several hours in a library. When you see what is there, it boggles the mind that all the journals could be nothing but sheer fabrication.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, I would imagine that those transitionals are extinct species.

So if you knew these rates, you could see if it adds up.

They are literally both extinct and transitional.

Most transitional species we discover won't be directly ancestral, they just demonstrate that animal families that are now quite distinct were once much more similar.

Languages are a pretty good analogy for change in species. Modern French and modern Italian are similar but not the same... but if you go back thousand years they were both more similar to Latin and each other... and if you go back to the time of Christ they didn't even exist as languages except as regional variations of Ancient Roman Latin.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, I would imagine that those transitionals are extinct species.

So if you knew these rates, you could see if it adds up.

Uh yes, skeletons of creatures that are no longer existing must be extinct species.

Sp why when we arrange them by date do we see this progression of the jaw joint and ear from reptile-like to mammal like?

 

[Tone]

Uh yes, skeletons of creatures that are no longer existing must be extinct species.

Sp why when we arrange them by date do we see this progression of the jaw joint and ear from reptile-like to mammal like?

Okay is the extinction rate then the same as the current rate?

 

[Tone]

They are literally both extinct and transitional.

Most transitional species we discover won't be directly ancestral, they just demonstrate that animal families that are now quite distinct were once much more similar.

Languages are a pretty good analogy for change in species. Modern French and modern Italian are similar but not the same... but if you go back thousand years they were both more similar to Latin and each other... and if you go back to the time of Christ they didn't even exist as languages except as regional variations of Ancient Roman Latin.

Don't mind me. Science and math are not my forte.