[_ Old Earth _] Have evolutionists figured out...

[Heidi]

So...have any evolutionists here figured out why monkeys can't breed human descendants yet? Or not? :o

 

[Slevin]

So...have any evolutionists here figured out why monkeys can't breed human descendants yet? Or not? :o

I don't know, have you figured out that evolutionists don't think that?

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, she knows that, but it's the only argument she has.

If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Orion]

But you would have to assume that if both chimpanzees and homosapiens came from the same common ancestry, there had to be a time when the two parting species line would still be able to interbreed. And really, there had to be some factor that caused two distinct species to even COME from a common line. What would have happened to create the oddity? Which one branched off the other? Chimps still have the basic primate physiology, whereas humans have the upright stance.

Many times I have a hard time buying the "common ancestry" argument. :-?

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Acanthostega is not the first fossil to be called a Missing Link. A creature that has characteristics common to two or more other types of creatures. The platypus for example, has milk glands and fur that classify it as a mammal, but it has a leathery egg, a duckbill, webbed feet, and echo-location ability that it shares in common with animals.

Like Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an evolutionary intermediate (‘missing link’), but leading evolutionists Gould and Eldredge state that ‘Smooth intermediates are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (meaning curious mosaics such as Archaeopteryx do not count).

Gould is one of the most highly cited scientists in the field of evolutionary theory. In 1979 Gould's "spandrels" paper has been cited more than 1,600 times. In Palaeobiology only Charles Darwin and G.G. Simpson have been cited more often. Shortly before his death, Gould published a long treatise recapitulating his version of modern evolutionary theory, written primarily for the technical audience of evolutionary biologists: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002).

The claim of evolutionists that series of fossils illustrating the transition between major types of organisms has proved to be a serious embarrassment to science. God says in His Word that He created separately the different types of creatures to reproduce only ‘after their kind’ (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25).

Don’t expect to find any proof for this claim HEIDI. If this claim were true, evolutionists would be trumpeting the display of these fossils in every museum and university, accompanied by headlines in every major newspaper. ‘If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?†you would have to say, “There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.â€Â

In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega and Archaeopteryx are regarded by some evolutionary palaeontologists as ‘missing links’ not because they are, but because they are believed to be. Patterson says, it is ‘in the mind’, because ‘missing links’ are a philosophical necessity to somehow provide ‘proof’ for evolutionary faith.

‘The systematic status and biological affinity of a fossil organism is far more difficult to establish than in the case of a living form, and can never be established with any degree of certainty. 99% of biology relates to study of organisms residing in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

"post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.)

"Karl Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." Colin Patterson

 

[Slevin]

Acanthostega is not the first fossil to be called a Missing Link. A creature that has characteristics common to two or more other types of creatures. The platypus for example, has milk glands and fur that classify it as a mammal, but it has a leathery egg, a duckbill, webbed feet, and echo-location ability that it shares in common with animals.

Like Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an evolutionary intermediate (‘missing link’), but leading evolutionists Gould and Eldredge state that ‘Smooth intermediates are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (meaning curious mosaics such as Archaeopteryx do not count).

The idea of a missing link is a misnomer. There is no such thing. We have hundreds of fossils that help support the idea of primate evolution, not only that but we have genetic support that corroborates our ideas.

The claim of evolutionists that series of fossils illustrating the transition between major types of organisms has proved to be a serious embarrassment to science. God says in His Word that He created separately the different types of creatures to reproduce only ‘after their kind’ (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25).

No it hasn't.

Don’t expect to find any proof for this claim HEIDI. If this claim were true, evolutionists would be trumpeting the display of these fossils in every museum and university, accompanied by headlines in every major newspaper. ‘If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?†you would have to say, “There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.â€Â

Instead of leafing through Creation websites in order to support your intellectually dishonest criticisms, why don't you actually read up on what evolution says and the evidence for it?

 

[Slevin]

But you would have to assume that if both chimpanzees and homosapiens came from the same common ancestry, there had to be a time when the two parting species line would still be able to interbreed. And really, there had to be some factor that caused two distinct species to even COME from a common line. What would have happened to create the oddity? Which one branched off the other? Chimps still have the basic primate physiology, whereas humans have the upright stance.

Yes, but (assuming that humans and chimpanzees are actually unable to interbreed, AFAIK it hasn't been even tested) evolution occurs through divergences in populations. So let's say that primate species A is one big group of interbreeding societies. A geological or other environmental factor causes primate species A to split into primate species B and C who are able to interbreed potentially, but they don't actually interbreed.

Due to the lack of genetic crossflow between B and C, and the mechanisms of evolution which causes variation and adaptation, B and C change over time into two separate groups that are unable to interbreed.

What is "basic primate physiology"? Could you please define that for me?

Many times I have a hard time buying the "common ancestry" argument. :-?

Why?

 

[Quath]

The idea of a missing link is a misnomer. There is no such thing.

There is a joke about a series of four fossils that all come from the same lineage. Creationists will talk about the huge gaps in time between them and say a missing link needs to be found. So people search and find a 5th fossil in the lineage. But the Creationist claims victory and says that science is proving evolution wrong because they went from 4 gaps that need a missing link to 5 gaps that need a missing link.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

The idea of a missing link is a misnomer.

Well, Gould says it aint! I've read several of his books. I don't thumb through sites. I'm an information gather and dispensor. I Am Sick and Tired of You Evolutionists! Instead of using Ad Hominem attacks on me who is obviously way smarter than you, you might consider studying your own theories, Slippery Snake Man!

It doesn't matter what is Posted, If its disagreable to you or even slighty questions the theories behind evolution you rip it. Yet leading scientists have stated their own misgivings about it. DO YOU PRETEND TO BE MORE KNOWLEDGABLE THAN THEM!

 

[Slevin]

Well, Gould says it aint! I've read several of his books. I don't thumb through sites. I'm an information gather and dispensor. I Am Sick and Tired of You Evolutionists! Instead of using Ad Hominem attacks on me who is obviously way smarter than you, you might consider studying your own theories, Slippery Snake Man!

It doesn't matter what is Posted, If its disagreable to you or even slighty questions the theories behind evolution you rip it. Yet leading scientists have stated their own misgivings about it. DO YOU PRETEND TO BE MORE KNOWLEDGABLE THAN THEM!

No, you've provided quote-mines and misinformation.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Pah

Sha

Ren

Good

Come

Back

 

[Barbarian]

duplicate. please delete

 

[Barbarian]

duplicate please delete

 

[Barbarian]

But you would have to assume that if both chimpanzees and homosapiens came from the same common ancestry, there had to be a time when the two parting species line would still be able to interbreed.

Right. Common ancestor. But there was a divergence, caused apparently by separation in environment. The Pleistocene was cooler and dryer, and the forests retreated with grasslands enlarging.

Some apelike creatures retreated into the diminishing forests. Some tried to make a go of it on the Savannah. The survivors of each group are us and chimps.

And really, there had to be some factor that caused two distinct species to even COME from a common line. What would have happened to create the oddity? Which one branched off the other? Chimps still have the basic primate physiology, whereas humans have the upright stance.

Very perceptive. Being in Savanna (mosly plains, with scattered groups of trees), being upright, and able to move across open ground efficiently was more valuable than climbing. We aren't the only primate group to try it. Oropithecus was also bipedal, albeit in a different way than the group that led to humans, for the same reason. It lived in what is now Italy, in somewhat similar circumstances. Physiology has little to do with it.

Many times I have a hard time buying the "common ancestry" argument.

It's what the evidence shows.

 

[Barbarian]

Acanthostega is not the first fossil to be called a Missing Link.

The term scientists use is "transitional." "Missing link" is a popular slang term.

A creature that has characteristics common to two or more other types of creatures. The platypus for example, has milk glands and fur that classify it as a mammal, but it has a leathery egg, a duckbill, webbed feet, and echo-location ability that it shares in common with animals.

A platypus is an animal. BTW, it doesn't have a duckbill or an echo-location ability. One creationist website wrongly asserted that it did, and since creationists copy each other slavishly, we see it again and again on the web.

Like Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an evolutionary intermediate

It's a transitional, because it has features unique to both fish and tetrapods. Perfect example. A fish with functional legs.

(‘missing link’), but leading evolutionists Gould and Eldredge state that ‘Smooth intermediates are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (meaning curious mosaics such as Archaeopteryx do not count).

What Gould means is that all features in a transitional will not be intermediate. Some will be advanced and others not. What Gould is saying is that transitionals (which is what he called Archaeopteryx) will not be smoothly intermediate, but rather will show a mix of features.

If you thought about it a bit and about genetics, you would see what this would have to be so, if evoution were true.

Gould is one of the most highly cited scientists in the field of evolutionary theory. In 1979 Gould's "spandrels" paper has been cited more than 1,600 times. In Palaeobiology only Charles Darwin and G.G. Simpson have been cited more often. Shortly before his death, Gould published a long treatise recapitulating his version of modern evolutionary theory, written primarily for the technical audience of evolutionary biologists: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002).

I have that book. I'm still trying to get through it. It's the densest, hardest prose I've bothered to read in a long time. Good stuff, but hardly the brilliant, witty stuff of his essays. BTW, he also makes that point about transitions in that book.

The claim of evolutionists that series of fossils illustrating the transition between major types of organisms has proved to be a serious embarrassment to science.

You just named some. Platypuses are intermediate between reptiles and mammals. Acanthostega is intermediate between fish and tetrapods. Archaeopteryx is intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. Would you like to learn more about it?

God says in His Word that He created separately the different types of creatures to reproduce only ‘after their kind’ (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25).

Nope. "Reproduce only after their kind" is your addition to scripture. Because you don't like the way He did it, you changed it to make it more acceptable to you.

No creationist blurb is complete without carefully edited quotes to make it appear that scientists believe something they don't. But these are so overused, even most creationists know better than to try them.

 

[Heidi]

I don't know, have you figured out that evolutionists don't think that?

Yes, I have figured that out because evolutionists don't know that mating and breeding is what produces descendants. : : So they'll have to learn that first before they can know why monkeys can't breed human beings. So I'll leave you guys to try to fiigure out why because I'm sure it will take you a l-o-n-g before you understand the birds and the bees. :

 

[Orion]

What is "basic primate physiology"? Could you please define that for me?

The basic non-upright stance, the feet able to grasp things like branches (something that we have absolutely no ability in doing), the smaller brain, a lot more body hair. . . . .


Why I find it hard is because we are so far removed from normal primates that "just evolution" doesn't really seem to be enough to account for it. Granted, there are many primitive human cultures in the world, but if you take one of their babies and bring it to the United States, give it a proper education, they probably will seem about as American as the next person, given they apply themselves. Even the smartest primate baby will still be just a primate even with exhausting training, and will only have a few learned tricks.

I don't know, it just seems unlikely that the two species were once from the same species line. The facts are, one would go into one area, the other into another. They would have to fight for resources just like the other, would face the same hardships, roughly, yet somehow the eventual homosapien line gets a larger brain? I can't see that happening, based on animal's natural instincts for food, procreation, protection, and it causing future generations to continually receive larger and larger brains.

That is perhaps another reason why I have a hard time with evolution in general. Regardless of whether there is a need for change, two of the same species are still going to produce a smaller version of themselves. I just don't see that sort of (and that many of) mutations as being common enough, even given millions of years, to get from one small single cell to millions of diverse species. :-?

 

[Slevin]

Yes, I have figured that out because evolutionists don't know that mating and breeding is what produces descendants. : : So they'll have to learn that first before they can know why monkeys can't breed human beings. So I'll leave you guys to try to fiigure out why because I'm sure it will take you a l-o-n-g before you understand the birds and the bees. :

Except that at no time do any evolutionists propose that monkeys breed humans. Get it into your head.

 

[Slevin]

The basic non-upright stance, the feet able to grasp things like branches (something that we have absolutely no ability in doing), the smaller brain, a lot more body hair. . . . .

Ok, and are you aware of the similarities? Bone structure, facial features, organs, genetic code being 98% similar to humans?

Why I find it hard is because we are so far removed from normal primates that "just evolution" doesn't really seem to be enough to account for it. Granted, there are many primitive human cultures in the world, but if you take one of their babies and bring it to the United States, give it a proper education, they probably will seem about as American as the next person, given they apply themselves. Even the smartest primate baby will still be just a primate even with exhausting training, and will only have a few learned tricks.

You mean like learning sign language and art? What do you mean by "normal" primates? There is no such thing.

I don't know, it just seems unlikely that the two species were once from the same species line. The facts are, one would go into one area, the other into another. They would have to fight for resources just like the other, would face the same hardships, roughly, yet somehow the eventual homosapien line gets a larger brain? I can't see that happening, based on animal's natural instincts for food, procreation, protection, and it causing future generations to continually receive larger and larger brains.

It's called mutation.

That is perhaps another reason why I have a hard time with evolution in general. Regardless of whether there is a need for change, two of the same species are still going to produce a smaller version of themselves.

Yes...but given a population and thousands of years, with environmental changes and you have generations of change that happens in small steps.

 

[Orion]

Yes...but given a population and thousands of years, with environmental changes and you have generations of change that happens in small steps.

As I see it, . . . that is a LOT of mutations, regardless of number of years it took place. Whether it actually happened or not, I find it to be fantastic at best.

And as for our similar genes, facial, bone structure, organs, etc. I would see that as just the fact that many species have those similar characteristics. 98% of genetic code, I'm not sure what that means as far as non-evolutionists are concerned. I'm not a Bible literalist and I'm not sure how they answer that question. I don't have any good answer for it. Other than, because we were patterned similarly to primates, DNA would play a role in similar features.

I'm curious, do those 2%, that don't match, have anything to do with brain size/intelligence? Have they separated those 2% as to what characteristics they influence?