[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Heidi]

I've been told that i don't understand the theory of evolution, so let me get this straight. Did we or did we not evolve from apes? If we did, then how did this happen? Did an ape breed with a "missing link"? If so, then how do we know that if this link is still missing? How was this missing link created & how did it cross-breed with an ape?

If we did not come from apes, then who are our ancestors except humans?Another missing link? Again, if this link is still missing, then how do we know what we looked like thousands or millions of years ago?

I've also heard evolutionists say we came from mutations. Mutations from what? An ape? A dog? This contradicts the other evolutionistst who say we didn't come from apes. So what did we mutate from? :o If we did mutate from an ape, then how did this happen? How did our cognition, ability to conceptualze, form analyses, etc. suddenly appear in the gene? How can something not present in a gene suddenly appear? If this happens, then again, why haven't characteristics superior to humans suddenly appeared in human genes? Why haven't characteristics superior to animals suddenly appeared in animal genes? If they haven't, then how can the theory of evolution be considered a fact? On what basis is it even credible? The notion that anything is possible? :o That's like me saying that aliens are green because...welll...why not?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I've been told that i don't understand the theory of evolution

,

From what I have seen, it is true. YOu appear to have a great deal of misconceptions about evolution.

Did we or did we not evolve from apes?

We evolved from ape-like creatures. "Ape" refers to present day chimps, gorillas and orangutangs. Our distant ancestors were very similar.

If we did, then how did this happen?

When - over the past 7 million years. How - by the process of evolution. Evolution is ongoing and never stops.

Did an ape breed with a "missing link"? If so, then how do we know that if this link is still missing? How was this missing link created & how did it cross-breed with an ape?

There is no cross-breeding involved in evolution.

If we did not come from apes, then who are our ancestors except humans?Another missing link? Again, if this link is still missing, then how do we know what we looked like thousands or millions of years ago?

Fossil evidence, comparitive anatomy. It is like knowing how King Tut looked based on a few artistic renderings, or how Jesus looked based on a few lines of scripture.

I've also heard evolutionists say we came from mutations. Mutations from what? An ape? A dog? This contradicts the other evolutionistst who say we didn't come from apes. So what did we mutate from? If we did mutate from an ape, then how did this happen? How did our cognition, ability to conceptualze, form analyses, etc. suddenly appear in the gene? How can something not present in a gene suddenly appear?

YOu don't seem to understand what mutations are. Mutations are changes to the genetic code. Insertions, additions, deletions, swaps ... they happen all time. How did a dashound come from a wolf like creature, or a dairy cow from an auroch - by mutations occuring and being selected for (in those cases selected by humans instead of natural forces).

If this happens, then again, why haven't characteristics superior to humans suddenly appeared in human genes? Why haven't characteristics superior to animals suddenly appeared in animal genes?

I don't know what you mean by superior. Mutations are happening every time an organism reproduces. YOu seem to be asking something akin to "why hasn't human like intelligence evolved before". Well there has to be a first time for everything. How come a human society with modern levels of technology never developed before? (it is really the same kind of question).

If they haven't, then how can the theory of evolution be considered a fact? On what basis is it even credible? The notion that anything is possible? That's like me saying that aliens are green because...welll...why not?

It is based on evidence. Fossil evidence, genetic evidence, other forms of biological evidence. Some support for evolutionary thoery also comes from other fields of science like geology, astronomy, physics. If there was no evidence for evolution, it wouldn't be a theory.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Alright, here's an explanation of evolution:

In a population of animals genetic traits have the ability to raise or lower the ability to reproduce for the individual that has them, they don't all do this, but some do. If a trait raises the likelihood of reproduction. Then in the next generation there will be a greater ratio of those that have it than before, until after a while most of the population has the trait.

This is evolution, no birds coming from iguanas or snakes coming from lawyers strawman business here.

Assuming that this process occurs for a species that is split into two groups, say by a mountain range and they cannot reproduce with the others. Group A has all the same traits as Group B in the beginning, however slight differences in conditions might lead to different forces on evolution. For A the climate is slightly drier and the trees they eat from have fruit that's slightly tougher than the climate for B. And B has a nicer climate, soft fruit but has predators.
A's environment favors stronger eating equipment, tougher teeth, stronger bills, what have you, and better water retention, slower metabolism, and other traits that would make it more likely to survive. It has a few of these traits already, all animals do, but it is favoring these traits.
B's environment favors better defensive measures, something to hurt predators(poison, horns, etc) or something to make them harder to get, camofluage, speed, higher metabolism etc.

Eventually, a few hundred years down the line they'll have developed along different enough lines so that they will look different, perhaps even be subspecies. After a climate change or two, say A's climate becomes colder, B's stays the same but the predators have adapted to their defensive mechanisms, whatever, they become even more different.

At some point their genetic differences and reproductive differences will be pronounced enough that offspring of an A and a B will not be able to produce fertile offspring of its own, if any at all. If it doesn't die outright. Or can be concieved.

This is speciation. We have observed this occur. This is what is refered to as macroevolution, when some animal population becomes so much more different than animals that were formerly of its population that it cannot produce viable offspring.

Mutations are another matter, but highly important.
Say Animal X has a piece of code GTGTAC and it's offspring has a mutation that makes it GTGTCC and the offspring mates with a GTGTAC, then it's offspring will have two different lines of code GTGTCC GTGTAC. If this new structure is better than all the other animals with GTGTAC GTGTAC, then that animal will be more likely to have children who are GTGTCC GTGTAC.
Now any population analyst knows that if you keep going back in time with a geneology then inbreeding occurs. Otherwise there would have to be quintillions of people around during the Roman Empire. 2 parents->4 grand parents ---- 281,474,976,710,656 at 48 generations ago, assuming ~25 years per generation that makes this the population of world directly related to you in 800 CE.

So you can assume that eventually there are going to be some GTGTCC GTGTCC carriers out there, who, incidentally are even better at surviving. So they suddenly there's a new trait, and by suddenly over a bout 10-20 generations.

There that's a fairly basic explanation of the the way biological evolution works. Any questions?

 

[Heidi]

I've been told that i don't understand the theory of evolution

,

From what I have seen, it is true. YOu appear to have a great deal of misconceptions about evolution.

[quote:5ca7d] Did we or did we not evolve from apes?

We evolved from ape-like creatures. "Ape" refers to present day chimps, gorillas and orangutangs. Our distant ancestors were very similar.

If we did, then how did this happen?

When - over the past 7 million years. How - by the process of evolution. Evolution is ongoing and never stops.

Did an ape breed with a "missing link"? If so, then how do we know that if this link is still missing? How was this missing link created & how did it cross-breed with an ape?

There is no cross-breeding involved in evolution.

If we did not come from apes, then who are our ancestors except humans?Another missing link? Again, if this link is still missing, then how do we know what we looked like thousands or millions of years ago?

Fossil evidence, comparitive anatomy. It is like knowing how King Tut looked based on a few artistic renderings, or how Jesus looked based on a few lines of scripture.

I've also heard evolutionists say we came from mutations. Mutations from what? An ape? A dog? This contradicts the other evolutionistst who say we didn't come from apes. So what did we mutate from? If we did mutate from an ape, then how did this happen? How did our cognition, ability to conceptualze, form analyses, etc. suddenly appear in the gene? How can something not present in a gene suddenly appear?

YOu don't seem to understand what mutations are. Mutations are changes to the genetic code. Insertions, additions, deletions, swaps ... they happen all time. How did a dashound come from a wolf like creature, or a dairy cow from an auroch - by mutations occuring and being selected for (in those cases selected by humans instead of natural forces).

If this happens, then again, why haven't characteristics superior to humans suddenly appeared in human genes? Why haven't characteristics superior to animals suddenly appeared in animal genes?

I don't know what you mean by superior. Mutations are happening every time an organism reproduces. YOu seem to be asking something akin to "why hasn't human like intelligence evolved before". Well there has to be a first time for everything. How come a human society with modern levels of technology never developed before? (it is really the same kind of question).

If they haven't, then how can the theory of evolution be considered a fact? On what basis is it even credible? The notion that anything is possible? That's like me saying that aliens are green because...welll...why not?

It is based on evidence. Fossil evidence, genetic evidence, other forms of biological evidence. Some support for evolutionary thoery also comes from other fields of science like geology, astronomy, physics. If there was no evidence for evolution, it wouldn't be a theory.[/quote:5ca7d]

Sorry, but you haven't explained a thing. So we evolved from "ape-like" creatures? How did that happen? How did a gene mutate and become a human being if there is no cross-breeding? In case you didn't know, offspring come from fertilized eggs of the same species. So again, how did an ape'like creature form into a human being? :o It is you who does not understand that a cell cannot produce superior characteristics on its own. So again, how did ape-like creature DNA's turn into human DNA?

Ape DNA today does not turn into human DNA. So why do you claim it did millions of years ago? :o

Mutations are when characteristics already present in the cell become damaged. Mutation is not a spontaneous acquisition of new charcteristics that fell out of the sky. And that is precisely why human beings have not turned into another species superior to the human being. But evolutionists are saying that human characteristics somehow got into the DNA of an ape but they can't explain how.

Fossil evidence? You mean if i go into the moutains and find a rock I can make it say anything I want to provided I have alphabet soup after my name. Physics? Again, what scientific evidence proves that an ape-like creature can turn into a human? Sketchings of what some men think humans looked like millions of years ago? How did they know humans had hair all over their bodies? How can they prove that without hair fibers? The only reason the sketches of primitive men have hair all over their bodies is because men wanted them to, period. If you take all the hair off their bodies, then primitive men look a lot like human beings do today.

On the contrary, it is precisely because there is no evidence that evolution is considered a theory and not fact. If it could be proven, it would no longer be a theory, my friend, it would be a fact.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Are you going to ignore my explanation of evolution Heidi?

 

[jwu]

Ape DNA today does not turn into human DNA. So why do you claim it did millions of years ago?

Because that's not how evolution works. What you are describing there would be a reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Mutations are when characteristics already present in the cell become damaged. Mutation is not a spontaneous acquisition of new charcteristics that fell out of the sky.

What would you call bacteria gaining immunity to antibiotic? The ability to digest nylon?
See this post made by "The Barbarian" for more evidence
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=75

And that is precisely why human beings have not turned into another species superior to the human being.

Humans do continue to evolve. Immunity against certain diseases which didn't even exist fifty years ago and so on.
It's just speciation that is very unlikely to happen for humans anymore, as there isn't really reproductive isolation in our times anymore, and a continuous mixing of the gene pool.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Heidi, you just keep on knocking down those strawmen!

 

[Heidi]

Are you going to ignore my explanation of evolution Heidi?

I already showed you why your explanation is ridiculous. But since you can't see why, then I guess you'll have to wait until you die to see why. You have asserted that at one time, animals could cross-breed, simply in theory, which has zero to do with reality, my friend. Since animals have never cross-breeded since recorded history, you've simply decided that they did before there were any witnesses.

I can say anything I want happened before there were any witnesses! that's easy. I can say that humans came from aliens who also died out or flew back into space. I can say that these aliens looked exactly like human beings and they left 1 or 2 offspring, flew back into space, that's where we came from! You can't prove me wrong. There's no way you can prove me wrong because evolutionists count on the fact that there were no witnesses! Since they don't require any evidence for their beliefs, only theories, then I can use theories for my assertions.

In fact, my alien theory is air tight because it doesn't require fossil evidence or bones. It doesn't require any contradictions of the reproductive prosesses like evolution does. And it also explains why apes are only breeding apes today. There is no "missing link" to get around or voluminous explanations of how an ape DNA can turn into a human DNA which is contrary to the way animals reproduce today. My alien theory is also air tight because, even though there is no evidence of it today, all I have to do is claim that there will be some day, just like evolutionists claim. That aliens will come back some day, just like evolutionists claim that some day we will evolve into a different superior species.

There is zero evidence that we came from apes or ape-like creatures, only speculation that contradicts the way animals & humans reproduce today. And that is precisely why there are tombs of explanations to try to explain how one animal can turn into another. If it was the truth, it would be verified by reality. If evolution exists, the process would not conveniently be stopped when there are witnesses. We humans would have evolved into a superior species just like we evolved from apes.

Sorry, but the theory of evolution is an embarrassment to the human mind. It came about initially to prove that God did not create us, & the fact that people noticed that apes looked more like people than birds do. So the typical uneducated mind would say; "Hey we must have come from apes"! Very predictable.

 

[jwu]

There is zero evidence that we came from apes or ape-like creatures, only speculation that contradicts the way animals & humans reproduce today.

Zero Evidence?
How about the error in the cytochrome C gene which we share with primates, the fact that one human chromosome looks exactly like two ape chromosomes fused together (even with telomeres which normally mark the ends found in the middle where they fused), ERV, et cetera?

And that is precisely why there are tombs of explanations to try to explain how one animal can turn into another. If it was the truth, it would be verified by reality. If evolution exists, the process would not conveniently be stopped when there are witnesses.

It hasn't stopped. Speciation has been directly observed.

We humans would have evolved into a superior species just like we evolved from apes.

Evolution isn't about evolving into "superior" species. Furthermore, human evolution continues. Evidence for this has been presented to you, you keep ignoring it.

Please tell me how you imagine this "evolving into a superior species" should happen according to your understanding of evolution. How long should it take and how would we recognize that it happened?

 

[Heidi]

Ape DNA today does not turn into human DNA. So why do you claim it did millions of years ago?

Because that's not how evolution works. What you are describing there would be a reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree. Evolution doesn't work that way.

[quote:d64d9]Mutations are when characteristics already present in the cell become damaged. Mutation is not a spontaneous acquisition of new charcteristics that fell out of the sky.

What would you call bacteria gaining immunity to antibiotic? The ability to digest nylon?
See this post made by "The Barbarian" for more evidence
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=75

And that is precisely why human beings have not turned into another species superior to the human being.

Humans do continue to evolve. Immunity against certain diseases which didn't even exist fifty years ago and so on.
It's just speciation that is very unlikely to happen for humans anymore, as there isn't really reproductive isolation in our times anymore, and a continuous mixing of the gene pool.[/quote:d64d9]

Sorry but humans are still humans today. They produce defective babies just like they always have and apes are still producing apes today. Humans have not produced offspring so different from humans as humans are from apes. :o This is a no-brainer and throws evolution out the window.

You still have not explained how the DNA of a primate turned into a human being. You say it "mutated" but mutation cannot produce new and superior charcteristics than what was already present in the cell. My genes cannot suddenly become dog genes. The genes of a bird cannot suddenly become tiger genes. But that's what evolutionists claim happened to primates but have not explianed how that's possible. There is no cause-effect in the theory of evolution, only suppositions that contradict basic reproductive facts. How did cognition, the ability to analyze, speak, form analyses, have blue yes, and on and on get into the DNA of primates? Believeing the evolution theory is like me saying that gene characteristics will suddenly jump inside the DNA of any animal which is science fiction fantasy.

 

[jwu]

Sorry but humans are still humans today. They produce defective babies just like they always have and apes are still producing apes today. Humans have not produced offspring so different from humans as humans are from apes. This is a no-brainer and throws evolution out the window.

You still have not explained how the DNA of a primate turned into a human being. You say it "mutated" but mutation cannot produce new and superior charcteristics than what was already present in the cell. My genes cannot suddenly become dog genes. The genes of a bird cannot suddenly become tiger genes. But that's what evolutionists claim happened to primates but have not explianed how that's possible. There is no cause-effect in the theory of evolution, only suppositions that contradict basic reproductive facts. How did cognition, the ability to analyze, speak, form analyses, have blue yes, and on and on get into the DNA of primates? Believeing the evolution theory is like me saying that gene characteristics will suddenly jump inside the DNA of any animal which is science fiction fantasy.

So in other words you say that the theory of evolution says that an ape gave birth to the first human, and that some humans meanwhile should have given birth to super-humans?
A member of a species giving birth to a member of a different species?

You say it "mutated" but mutation cannot produce new and superior charcteristics than what was already present in the cell.

That's wrong. for instance, bacteria gaining immunity to antibiotics is a case of acquisition of superior characteristics, isn't it?

 

[Heidi]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? According to evolutionists, a "primate" although they haven't defined this primate, gave birth to a "homonid" which gave birth to "homo sapiens' & on down the road to the human being. My question is, how did the genes of a "homonid" get into the genes of these "primates" to produce a "homonid"? This mutation theory is as erroneous as me saying my husband & I will produce tigers as children! Again, how did the genes of a "primate" develop into the genes of a "homonid"?

And may I remind you, that humans are still producing humans & apes are still producing apes today. So why do evolutionists declare that the human being came from a "primate" other than to say there is no God?

 

[Drew]

You say it "mutated" but mutation cannot produce new and superior charcteristics than what was already present in the cell.

Can you please defend this claim by providing specific reasons as to why mutation cannot lead to new and superior characteristics.

I know almost nothing about evolution but I will pose the following as a rough explanation as to why I think mutation can produce new and superior characteristics.

I am going to assume that my DNA is essentially the "code" that specifies many of my physical characteristics (what my eye colour will be, whether my hair will be curly or straight, etc.).

Sometimes there are "copying" errors or other "mutations" (e.g. caused by high energy cosmic rays, etc.). The result - a change to the coding at the DNA level. Of course, these changes will be manifested in the physcial and functional properties of the organism as it develops. Some of these changes will be favourable to the organism and some will be detrimental, depending on the constraints of the environment in which the organism lives. If the changes are favourable the organism is more likely to survive and produce offspring which will inherit this "better" DNA code. In this manner, mutations can lead lead to superior characteristics.

What is incorrect in the above, and please be specific.

 

[jwu]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

No, i don't.

According to evolutionists, a "primate" although they haven't defined this primate, gave birth to a "homonid" which gave birth to "homo sapiens' & on down the road to the human being. My question is, how did the genes of a "homonid" get into the genes of these "primates" to produce a "homonid"? This mutation theory is as erroneous as me saying my husband & I will produce tigers as children! Again, how did the genes of a "primate" develop into the genes of a "homonid"?

And may I remind you, that humans are still producing humans & apes are still producing apes today. So why do evolutionists declare that the human being came from a "primate" other than to say there is no God?

Oh dear...

We are primates. A specific type of primate (and that's quite a well defined term as far as i know). That's why a primate gave birth to every human on earth, his or her respective mother.
Evolution does not claim that one species gives birth to individuals of another species. If it'd say that, then i'd completely agree to you - that'd be ludicrous.
Instead evolution says that an individual of a species will give birth to an individual of the same species, with tiny modifications. Despite of these small changes, it will still be a member of the same species as its parents. And as its grandparents, and great grand parents and so on.

But ultimately the changes accumulate, and an individual of generation 122132 can be a member of a different species than its ancestors in generation 345 or so. That, despite of every generation always only haven given birth to a member of the same species as themselves.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Are you going to ignore my explanation of evolution Heidi?

I already showed you why your explanation is ridiculous. But since you can't see why, then I guess you'll have to wait until you die to see why. You have asserted that at one time, animals could cross-breed, simply in theory, which has zero to do with reality, my friend. Since animals have never cross-breeded since recorded history, you've simply decided that they did before there were any witnesses.

What do you mean animals can't cross-breed, you want evidence, look at bloody horses and donkeys, they are two different species, their genetic make up is similar but highly different, as one has two more chromosomes than the other. Thus Mules end up with an odd number of chromosomes and cannot reproduce.

I can say anything I want happened before there were any witnesses! that's easy. I can say that humans came from aliens who also died out or flew back into space. I can say that these aliens looked exactly like human beings and they left 1 or 2 offspring, flew back into space, that's where we came from! You can't prove me wrong. There's no way you can prove me wrong because evolutionists count on the fact that there were no witnesses! Since they don't require any evidence for their beliefs, only theories, then I can use theories for my assertions.

You're being facetious, the process I have described is based on evidence showing it to occur now. As it is based on statistics and chemistry that hasn't changed in the past 500 million years, unless you want to argue that the laws of physics are fundamentally different now than they were at some arbitrary time in the past. It is inevitable that it would occur to any organism that lived in the past. The fact that species come and go and new species take their place is explained very simply by this process. And we have a great deal of evidence that it occured in the past despite the lack of observers.

In fact, my alien theory is air tight because it doesn't require fossil evidence or bones. It doesn't require any contradictions of the reproductive prosesses like evolution does. And it also explains why apes are only breeding apes today. There is no "missing link" to get around or voluminous explanations of how an ape DNA can turn into a human DNA which is contrary to the way animals reproduce today. My alien theory is also air tight because, even though there is no evidence of it today, all I have to do is claim that there will be some day, just like evolutionists claim. That aliens will come back some day, just like evolutionists claim that some day we will evolve into a different superior species.

No your conjecture requires that the existence of extraterrestrials with genetic make up that has a >99% similarity with apes living in the place they landed. There is no reason to believe your conjecture, it cannot explain the variety of llife on the planet.
Evolution has huge amounts of evidence in the fossil and genetic reccord.

There is zero evidence that we came from apes or ape-like creatures, only speculation that contradicts the way animals & humans reproduce today. And that is precisely why there are tombs of explanations to try to explain how one animal can turn into another. If it was the truth, it would be verified by reality. If evolution exists, the process would not conveniently be stopped when there are witnesses. We humans would have evolved into a superior species just like we evolved from apes.

You have an irritating inability to understand the difference between a population and an individual. The way you keep saying "humans can't be born out of apes" is evidence of this. When evolution proponents say "came from" it is implied to mean "a population of the parent species evolved in such a way that they broke off and formed a new species."

Sorry, but the theory of evolution is an embarrassment to the human mind. It came about initially to prove that God did not create us, & the fact that people noticed that apes looked more like people than birds do. So the typical uneducated mind would say; "Hey we must have come from apes"! Very predictable.

It came about initially to explain why there are all these animals that look similar but can't have children together. It was built on Malthusian population theory, which talks about how a population can overpopulate unless checks occur on population growth.
Anyone can believe in god and evolution, with natural selection it is unnecessary that one believe in god, but it doesn't mean you can't.

If you won't actually take evolution seriously, won't look at the REAL theory of evolution instead of the cartoonish version that you find so easy to pick apart, then I'll find a nice label for you and write you off.

 

[Heidi]

There is zero evidence that we came from apes or ape-like creatures, only speculation that contradicts the way animals & humans reproduce today.

Zero Evidence?
How about the error in the cytochrome C gene which we share with primates, the fact that one human chromosome looks exactly like two ape chromosomes fused together (even with telomeres which normally mark the ends found in the middle where they fused), ERV, et cetera?

[quote:a778d] And that is precisely why there are tombs of explanations to try to explain how one animal can turn into another. If it was the truth, it would be verified by reality. If evolution exists, the process would not conveniently be stopped when there are witnesses.

It hasn't stopped. Speciation has been directly observed.

We humans would have evolved into a superior species just like we evolved from apes.

Evolution isn't about evolving into "superior" species. Furthermore, human evolution continues. Evidence for this has been presented to you, you keep ignoring it.

Please tell me how you imagine this "evolving into a superior species" should happen according to your understanding of evolution. How long should it take and how would we recognize that it happened?[/quote:a778d]

So then why don't apes produce humans today? :o As i said earlier, I don't care if there is a fraction of a centimeter difference between ape chromosomes & human chromosomes, apes cannot breed human beings. It is genetically impossible or they would be doing that today. That is a no-brainer that you fail to understand. But reality shows us what's true, not the imagination, my friend.

And again, what have humans evolved into except other humans? :o

 

[jwu]

So then why don't apes produce humans today?

Are you aware that that would actually falsify evolution? Reunification of branches of the phylogenic tree is not allowed in evolution.

Apes can evolve into something different slowly. Not within one generation, not within ten, it takes longer than that. Much longer. Eventually the seperate populations of one species of apes can speciate into one different species. That process, speciation, has been observed many times in case of species with shorter generations.

As i said earlier, I don't care if there is a fraction of a centimeter difference between ape chromosomes & human chromosomes

In other words, you don't care for the actual evidence. It's not about the length of the chromosome, but way more complicated and better evidence.

apes cannot breed human beings. It is genetically impossible or they would be doing that today.

Why do you keep saying that one species would give birth to a member of another? That is not what evolution proposes!

That is a no-brainer that you fail to understand. But reality shows us what's true, not the imagination, my friend.

Reality has provided a lot of evidence, which you said yourself you don't care about.

And again, what have humans evolved into except other humans?

Different humans. Humans with increased resistance to yersinia pestis, for example. And currently there is a mutation spreading which provides better protection against arteriosclerosis.

Speciation is not to be expected for humans anytime soon, as 1. it doesn't work that fast and 2. there is no reproductive isolation in our globalized world.

 

[Heidi]

Oh, how convenient that nothing has evolved into a different species when there are witnesses. This apparently only happened with one primate that evolved into a homonid that evolved into a homo sapiens that evolved into a human being, only when there were no witnesses. Is that correct? So what you're saying is that reality has not proven evolution so the only explanation left is that evolution stops for a while and will continue in thousands or perhaps millions of years? In that case, how can you prove that things are evolving & not staying the same? :o Other scientists say we are all in a state of decay. So which is it?

In that case, I can say that aliens came and deposited some human beings, then flew back into space & will return thousands or millions of year from now. And even though there is no evidence of this, I can say this all happened before there were witnesses and millions of years from now it will be shown to be true. So how is this theory any less valid than the theory of evolution?

 

[jwu]

Oh, how convenient that nothing has evolved into a different species when there are witnesses.

Heidi, did you even read my post?

It has been said several times that speciation has been observed. Both in laboratories and in nature.

 

[Heidi]

Unfortunately, yes. As I pointed out, your posts doesn't make any sense. You have so many leaps to conclusions that contradict today's reality with zero proof that everything happened the way you say it did! Your idea of proof is seeing a human and an ape and saying we came from the ape! Sorry but that is no proof at all.

You also said that evolution takes a long time to which I responded that it is a very convenient explanation. It's again the same explanation that I can use to say that aliens depostied offspring and we will prove that by waiting millions of years from now until they come back!

Evolution actually contradicts the way humans & apes have bred since recorded history, my friend. So in order to prove your theory, you're going to have to come up with some strong evidentiary proof, not in theory, but in today's reality, otherwise it's as speculative as my saying we came from aliens. And that is a fact.