[_ Old Earth _] How many mutations...

[Heidi]

I still haven't received an answer to these questions: How many mutations had to occur in each subsequent generation of ape offspring for them to turn into human beings as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history? And what are the odds of all of those mutations happening to one animal? :o

And why did those mutations suddenly stop? :o Why have humans not kept breeding mutants so different from ourselves as to be given the name of a new species like evolutionists claim apes did? :o

And thirdly, why have apes suddenly stopped mutating into human beings? Do you think they got sick of it or maybe they were just plain tired? What do you think? :o

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

A mutation is any change in the genetic code that does not result from the combination of DNA during reproduction but because of errors in the reproduction process.

You seem to think that the mutation that evolution proponents talk about is an ape giving birth to a fully developed human baby. This is because you don't know diddly squat about evolution and you're determined not to learn anything.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Species is not a "black and white" idea. It is very hard to say exactly when a new species arises, because they have been, and continue to, evolve.

By analogy, it is like asking when white becomes black. Using the below picture (top line), looking at one extreme versus the other, it is obvious that they are very different. However, looking at the gradations between them makes it tough to decide which is more black and which is more white.

That chart only shows about a dozen changes from black to white, whereas it takes thousands of generations to create a new species. Looking at any one generation verses the next will reveal little of no change, but looking at all the generations, the change is obvious.

 

[Heidi]

A mutation is any change in the genetic code that does not result from the combination of DNA during reproduction but because of errors in the reproduction process.

You seem to think that the mutation that evolution proponents talk about is an ape giving birth to a fully developed human baby. This is because you don't know diddly squat about evolution and you're determined not to learn anything.

Sorry, but my questions show the opposite which is precisely why I asked how many mutations it took to form the human being as we have known it since the beginning of recorded history, which you didn't answer. Since apes didn't give birth to a human being directly, but evolutionists claim it happened over many generations, then again, how many mutations would had to have happened to form the human being? :o

You also didn't answer the question of why apes stopped producing mutants that resemble humans beings. Nor have you answered the question of why human beings have not given birth to mutant offspring so different from ourselves as to be given the name of a different species, but claim that apes did.

So please stick to the topic.

 

[jwu]

Sorry, but my questions show the opposite which is precisely why I asked how many mutations it took to form the human being as we have known it since the beginning of recorded history, which you didn't answer. Since apes didn't give birth to a human being directly, but evolutionists claim it happened over many generations, then again, how many mutations would had to have happened to form the human being?

The human genome and that of contemporary apes differ by about 60 million base pairs, no more than 2%.

Since the last common ancestor seems to have lived about 5 million years ago if i recall correctly, that means that 10 million years of independent development have taken place - 5 million years of the ancestors of humans in one direction, 5 million years of the ancestors of other apes in another direction.

If we set 20 years in average for one generation (which even is high, as other apes reach maturity faster than humans), then we have about 500.000 generations to account for 60 million different base pairs. That equals 120 point mutations per generation - and in fact today we observe 100-150 mutations per generation.

You also didn't answer the question of why apes stopped producing mutants that resemble humans beings.

That's not predicted by evolution!
It takes too many generations to get a visible change like that, and why would the same mutations that happened in the past happen again?

Nor have you answered the question of why human beings have not given birth to mutant offspring so different from ourselves as to be given the name of a different species, but claim that apes did.

Actually, Heidi, that has been answered indirectly many times: Evolution does not work that quickly. It takes many many many many many generations to get such a massive change, and at all times will a child be able to mate with other individuals of its population. If it could mate with individuals of its great great great ..................................................great grandparents generation however is an entirely different question.

What is so difficult about this?

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but my questions show the opposite which is precisely why I asked how many mutations it took to form the human being as we have known it since the beginning of recorded history, which you didn't answer. Since apes didn't give birth to a human being directly, but evolutionists claim it happened over many generations, then again, how many mutations would had to have happened to form the human being?

The human genome and that of contemporary apes differ by about 60 million base pairs, no more than 2%.

Since the last common ancestor seems to have lived about 5 million years ago if i recall correctly, that means that 10 million years of independent development have taken place - 5 million years of the ancestors of humans in one direction, 5 million years of the ancestors of other apes in another direction.

If we set 20 years in average for one generation (which even is high, as other apes reach maturity faster than humans), then we have about 500.000 generations to account for 60 million different base pairs. That equals 120 point mutations per generation - and in fact today we observe 100-150 mutations per generation.

[quote:015ab]You also didn't answer the question of why apes stopped producing mutants that resemble humans beings.

That's not predicted by evolution!
It takes too many generations to get a visible change like that, and why would the same mutations that happened in the past happen again?

Nor have you answered the question of why human beings have not given birth to mutant offspring so different from ourselves as to be given the name of a different species, but claim that apes did.

Actually, Heidi, that has been answered indirectly many times: Evolution does not work that quickly. It takes many many many many many generations to get such a massive change, and at all times will a child be able to mate with other individuals of its population. If it could mate with individuals of its great great great ..................................................great grandparents generation however is an entirely different question.

What is so difficult about this?[/quote:015ab]

You still didn't answer my question; about how many mutations that conicidently all happened to ape offsrping, would there have had to have been to create a human being? And if so many mutations supposedly happened, why did they suddenly stop at the beginning of recorded history when there were witnesses? :o The timing for the cessation of these mutations couldn't have been more perfect then could they? Do you think that timing was planned by apes or that the coincidence is as astounding as the number of mutations that had to happen for an ape to turn into a human being? :o

What's difficult is that this theory contradicts the reality of what apes and humans breed. It is as made up as the notion that my aunt was an ape. Anyone can claim anything happened before there were any witnesses. That's easy. But when it contradicts the reality of what's happened since recorded history, you have a lot of explaining to do. But the biblical account of creation conforms to reality perfectly. Each animals breeds its own kind, and humans rule over the animals. What's so hard to understand about that, particularly when it is confirmed by the reality of how animals and humans reproduce but evolution does not? Once again,the truth can only be found in reality, my friend, not in the imagination. :wink:

 

[jwu]

You still didn't answer my question; about how many mutations that conicidently all happened to ape offsrping, would there have had to have been to create a human being?

Humans accumulated about 30 million different base pairs since the last common ancestor with contemporary apes. So that's 30 million mutations at most. Less in case of mutations which affect multiple base pairs.

And if so many mutations supposedly happened, why did they suddenly stop at the beginning of recorded history when there were witnesses?

They did not stop happening!
You have about 100-150 base pairs that are different than those of your parents. Same about me and any other human. And these mutations do something.

You're just expecting too much to happen in a short timespan. The 5000 years of recorded history are nothing compared to the 5 million years sinced the last common ancestor with today's apes. By the time when history began the humans already had gone through 99.9% of the change from that last common ancestor to what we are today.

The timing for the cessation of these mutations couldn't have been more perfect then could they?

As mentioned, they did not cease.

o you think that timing was planned by apes or that the coincidence is as astounding as the number of mutations that had to happen for an ape to turn into a human being?

There is absolutely nothing astounding about it. DNA replication is imperfect, mutations are inevitable. These mutations just happen to have made us what we are today. If different mutations had happened, then we wouldn't exist as we do today. We'd either be somewhat different, or no human civilization would have come up at all.

Your problem is that you're presupposing that evolution had humans in mind as a goal. It didn't. But something had to evolve, and that happened to be us.

What's difficult is that this theory contradicts the reality of what apes and humans breed.

Not at all. The reality is that any offspring is not a precise copy of its parents, but has mutations.

Anyone can claim anything happened before there were any witnesses.

There are other evidences. Do you know what ERVs are?
Why the human 23rd chromosome looks like exactly like two chromosomes of other apes fused together, including telomeres (which indicate the end of a chromosome) in the middle of it?

Each animals breeds its own kind

Evolution does not predict anything else. Offspring will always belong to the same species as its parents.

Once again,the truth can only be found in reality, my friend, not in the imagination.

Indeed...and that reality confirms evolution.

 

[Heidi]

You still didn't answer my question; about how many mutations that conicidently all happened to ape offsrping, would there have had to have been to create a human being?

Humans accumulated about 30 million different base pairs since the last common ancestor with contemporary apes. So that's 30 million mutations at most. Less in case of mutations which affect multiple base pairs.

[quote:d4ae4]And if so many mutations supposedly happened, why did they suddenly stop at the beginning of recorded history when there were witnesses?

They did not stop happening!
You have about 100-150 base pairs that are different than those of your parents. Same about me and any other human. And these mutations do something.

You're just expecting too much to happen in a short timespan. The 5000 years of recorded history are nothing compared to the 5 million years sinced the last common ancestor with today's apes. By the time when history began the humans already had gone through 99.9% of the change from that last common ancestor to what we are today.

The timing for the cessation of these mutations couldn't have been more perfect then could they?

As mentioned, they did not cease.

o you think that timing was planned by apes or that the coincidence is as astounding as the number of mutations that had to happen for an ape to turn into a human being?

There is absolutely nothing astounding about it. DNA replication is imperfect, mutations are inevitable. These mutations just happen to have made us what we are today. If different mutations had happened, then we wouldn't exist as we do today. We'd either be somewhat different, or no human civilization would have come up at all.

Your problem is that you're presupposing that evolution had humans in mind as a goal. It didn't. But something had to evolve, and that happened to be us.

What's difficult is that this theory contradicts the reality of what apes and humans breed.

Not at all. The reality is that any offspring is not a precise copy of its parents, but has mutations.

Anyone can claim anything happened before there were any witnesses.

There are other evidences. Do you know what ERVs are?
Why the human 23rd chromosome looks like exactly like two chromosomes of other apes fused together, including telomeres (which indicate the end of a chromosome) in the middle of it?

Each animals breeds its own kind

Evolution does not predict anything else. Offspring will always belong to the same species as its parents.

Once again,the truth can only be found in reality, my friend, not in the imagination.

Indeed...and that reality confirms evolution.[/quote:d4ae4]

30 million mutations? :o What are the odds that each generation of offspring would happen to mutate 30 million times? :o They're far mor astronomical than anything in the bible! Sorry, but you make the theory of evolution sound even more impossible.

They didn't stop happening? Sorry, but apes still look pretty much the same that they have since the beginning of recorded history. They certainly haven't exhibited the vast changes that turned them into human beings!! Sorry, but you're not fooling me, only yourself.

So you're saying that animals can breed offspring that turn into human beings. Is that correct? :o Then why haven't dogs bred offspring that turn into human beings. Just luck? Why haven't humans bred offspring with wings? Why are we still only breeding humans?

Sorry, but asking sane people to believe that the biggest evolution in history happened when apes turned into human beings (only some apes, because the rest are still around today) is called science fiction. it has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the imagination. But you can give credit to apes for everything good in your if you like. The only problem is that they are still in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and cannot understand you. So you have no one to thank.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

30 million mutations? :o What are the odds that each generation of offspring would happen to mutate 30 million times? :o They're far mor astronomical than anything in the bible! Sorry, but you make the theory of evolution sound even more impossible.

No heidi 30,000000/500000 = 60. Learn to read.
30 Million base pairs since the last common ancestor 500,000 generations ago, not 1.

They didn't stop happening? Sorry, but apes still look pretty much the same that they have since the beginning of recorded history. They certainly haven't exhibited the vast changes that turned them into human beings!! Sorry, but you're not fooling me, only yourself.

Wow, how about instead of assuming the common ancestor of humans and apes looked like a chimp, assume that it looked something inbetween. Don't see anything that looks like both an ape and human around do you? Nope, they split into two groups, Group A of the common ancestor 500,000 generations later looks like us, Group B 500,000 generations later looks like Apes. Tada.

So you're saying that animals can breed offspring that turn into human beings. Is that correct? :o Then why haven't dogs bred offspring that turn into human beings. Just luck? Why haven't humans bred offspring with wings? Why are we still only breeding humans?

No, populations change slowly over time, individual generational differences are minute, I can't believe you have so much trouble differentiating these ideas.

 

[Heidi]

30 million mutations? :o What are the odds that each generation of offspring would happen to mutate 30 million times? :o They're far mor astronomical than anything in the bible! Sorry, but you make the theory of evolution sound even more impossible.

No heidi 30,000000/500000 = 60. Learn to read.
30 Million base pairs since the last common ancestor 500,000 generations ago, not 1.

They didn't stop happening? Sorry, but apes still look pretty much the same that they have since the beginning of recorded history. They certainly haven't exhibited the vast changes that turned them into human beings!! Sorry, but you're not fooling me, only yourself.

Wow, how about instead of assuming the common ancestor of humans and apes looked like a chimp, assume that it looked something inbetween. Don't see anything that looks like both an ape and human around do you? Nope, they split into two groups, Group A of the common ancestor 500,000 generations later looks like us, Group B 500,000 generations later looks like Apes. Tada.
[quote:99d8a]
So you're saying that animals can breed offspring that turn into human beings. Is that correct? :o Then why haven't dogs bred offspring that turn into human beings. Just luck? Why haven't humans bred offspring with wings? Why are we still only breeding humans?

No, populations change slowly over time, individual generational differences are minute, I can't believe you have so much trouble differentiating these ideas.[/quote:99d8a]

So 60 mutations had to occur in one single ape family to produce a human being, and the rest of the apes simply bred apes. Is that correct? So why did this one particular family of apes mutate so many times when scientists say that mutation is purely chance? :o This is the core of the absurdity of your argument. You are asking people to believe the the first mutants of apes, found other offspring with the exact same mutation they had, and they bred together another mutant, who bred another mutant who bred another mutant, who bred another mutant, who bred another mutant, who bred another mutant, who bred another mutant...all the way through 60 generations of offspring who kept mutating! Meanwhile, all the other apes simply bred apes instead of homonids, homo sapiens, etc. Again, the odds of so many generations mutating, each breeding offspring that were given new names instead of apes, 60 times is more astronomical than anything in the bible!

What you don't realize, is that populations change through what kind of offspring their parents breed, period. Humans are still breeding humans today just like they have since the beginning of recorded history. The type of breeding you're talking about is if my husband and I breed an androlpithecoid instead of a human babay, and our andrilepithecoid offspring then bred creatures called homopitheluli instead of human babies, and on and on. This is as made-up as "Lord of the Rings" only Lord of the Rings" was much more believeable! But this type of mating and breeding is what evolutionists want us to believe all to deny that there's a God. Sorry, but i prefer to believe the reality that humans breed humans and apes breed apes. I will not contradict reality unless other reality supports those contradictions which it hasn't since the beginning of recorded history. Evolution is all in the imagination.

And everything in "Lord of the Rings" all fits together if you believe the premise. But since the premise is faulty in LOTR, then so are the conclusions, just like the theory of evolution. Their faulty premise is that animals can produce offspring that turn into human beings. And once you see that impossibility, then you'll see that all the voluminous conclusions from that premise are faulty as well.

 

[jwu]

So 60 mutations had to occur in one single ape family to produce a human being, and the rest of the apes simply bred apes. Is that correct?

No. The result of the first 60 mutations since the population of our last common ancestor with apes was divided wasn't a human yet, it was still a member of the common ancestor species. As were its children, and its grandchildren and so on for a very long time.

So why did this one particular family of apes mutate so many times when scientists say that mutation is purely chance?

The type and location of mutations is determined randomly, but that mutations happen is basically guaranteed. As mentioned before, in any generation there are about 100-150 mutations happening - today. We can observe it directly.

This is the core of the absurdity of your argument. You are asking people to believe the the first mutants of apes, found other offspring with the exact same mutation they had

I think i see your problem now...that mutated being (everyone is mutated) did not have to find someone with the same mutation. A few mutations don't prevent anyone from breeding in most cases. Even 1000 mutations don't.
So as long as that being didn't have more than let's say 10.000 mutations that the rest of his population did not have, it still can breed with them. Well, and that's what it does, and its children will have the same mutation then, as well as some new ones.

Heidi, the relevant point is that mutations spread through the population. Look at your own ancestral tree. Only four generations ago there are 16 people that are your great great grandparents. You have a mixture of their genes. And similarly, in average each of these people will have even more than 16 great great grandchildren. The genes spread through the populations, including the mutations, and they do faster than they accumulate to prevent breeding. Our common ancestors did not have any problems finding other individuals with the same mutations because they were distantly related to each other.

E.g. your cousins have some of the mutations which happened when your shared grandparents were conceived, as have you. If now more time goes by, and some more generations, it is even very likely that two people will fall in love with each other who both have these mutations too - one of them being a great great....grandchild of you, and one a great great...grandchild of one of your cousins. Or any other relationship, as long as they both also have your grandparents in their ancestral tree too.

Again, the odds of so many generations mutating, each breeding offspring that were given new names instead of apes, 60 times is more astronomical than anything in the bible!

No, the odds are 1. Some mutations had to happen, and these mutations were of course different in the two independent groups that had formed. So naturally they developed into different directions.


I've spent some time to create this picture:

What you see there is basically a speciation event. One generation is about 0.01" vertically on that chart.
A species of common ancestors slowly changes. At no time will a child have a major difference to its parent, it's represented by a very very similar color on that chart. However, over time changes accumulate, and what is in the middle isn't really the same colour as the one at the top or those at the bottoms. In the end, those two colours at the bottom are different from those at the middle and especially from the one at the top, but nevertheless one got there through a series of very slow gradual changes during which a successor colour never was significantly different than its predecessor. They were the same species, but the ends of the upside down Y are not the same species.

 

[reznwerks]

I still haven't received an answer to these questions: How many mutations had to occur in each subsequent generation of ape offspring for them to turn into human beings as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history? And what are the odds of all of those mutations happening to one animal? :o
You are probabley not going to get an answer to that as I don't think one exists. Why does it matter? You have taken the question as an assumption that mutations are required in order to propagate and that is not the case. I have shown repeatedly where other animals and organisms have changed rather quickly and I can give an example of a crocadile which has been on the planet longer than man and has not changed much in millions of years. There is a certain ability in living things to change over time based on environmental or other conditions. If the conditions change faster than the living thing can adapt then they die off or become extinct.

And why did those mutations suddenly stop? :o Why have humans not kept breeding mutants so different from ourselves as to be given the name of a new species like evolutionists claim apes did? :o
Why have they stopped? Because you don't see the change? Change takes place over thousands of years due to needed changes in order to adapt to environmental factors. What has changed in recorded history that you think man should be adapting too? Looking at enviromental factors I think that man will probably be smaller in the future due to the work saving tools he continues to invent. There is no reason to maintain a large body if it is not needed. That is just a personal opinion and will not be seen for some time if it ever develops.

And thirdly, why have apes suddenly stopped mutating into human beings? Do you think they got sick of it or maybe they were just plain tired? What do you think? :o
Still don't get it do you? Man is a species like an ape is a species. "None are so blind as those who will not see."

 

[Heidi]

Nothing in your post, rezenworks, contains any facts but only opinions. That's pretty ironic considering scientists think they have facts. That's another fallacy of science.

Once again, the changes that occur to offspring come from the genetic material passed along from its parents. And since there are a myriad of combinations that are possible in the chromosomes, then the offspring will all differ in looks and characteristics except for identical twins.

That has zero to do with evolution or, with mutation. That simply has to do witht genetic material that has passed along through the generations that each of us is carrying around. And if any of us is carrying the genetic material of apes, then the odds of us not having ape offspring would border on the impossible. But none of us humans has had an ape as an offspring.

So trying to make it true that animals breed human beings only makes the arguments of evolutionists more desperate. But we creationists don't need arguments because we have reality as proof of what humans and animals breed.

 

[Heidi]

I also want to add that when looking for evidence, scientists completely overlook the myriad of other variables that that evidence suggests because they're intent on only looking for what they have decided is the truth. For example, the bible describes a tribe of giants much like Andre the Giant, that existed. Yet scientists completely ignore that possibility and can only understand what they have already decided the evidence is. This is not scientific, this is bias much like a criminal investigator who decides someone is guilty then looks for evidence to prove it instead of first finding the evidence then trying to figure out what it leads to. And this tunnel vision is why scientists change their minds so often.

And it's simply a fact that evolutionists claim that animals breed offspring that turn into human beings. Otherwise, they could not claim we are their descendants.

 

[jwu]

I also want to add that when looking for evidence, scientists completely overlook the myriad of other variables that that evidence suggests because they're intent on only looking for what they have decided is the truth. For example, the bible describes a tribe of giants much like Andre the Giant, that existed. Yet scientists completely ignore that possibility and can only understand what they have already decided the evidence is.

What does this have to do with evolution?

Someone may have had a growth disorder that made him grow 2.5 metres or so tall. Such people are alive today, and the possibility is not in any way denied by science.

This is not scientific, this is bias much like a criminal investigator who decides someone is guilty then looks for evidence to prove it instead of first finding the evidence then trying to figure out what it leads to. And this tunnel vision is why scientists change their minds so often.

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself there? If they were subject to tunnel vision, they would not change their mind that often but stick to old ideas even when contradicting evidence is discovered. Changing one's ideas when new evidence is discovered is quite the opposite of tunnel vision.

And it's simply a fact that evolutionists claim that animals breed offspring that turn into human beings. Otherwise, they could not claim we are their descendants.

And how many generations do us evolutionists say that this takes?
Do you realize that we evolutionists don't think that there is a clear boundary between humans and other animals (or, species would be a better word)? That there is no case of a non-human giving birth to a human, just something that is somewhat like a human giving birth to something that is a tiny little bit more like a human?

 

[follower of Christ]

A mutation is any change in the genetic code that does not result from the combination of DNA during reproduction but because of errors in the reproduction process.

You seem to think that the mutation that evolution proponents talk about is an ape giving birth to a fully developed human baby. This is because you don't know diddly squat about evolution and you're determined not to learn anything.

Now THAT was the best NONanswer I think Ive ever seen.

All you did was give information the poster is obviously already aware of them make some unrelated insult.

 

[follower of Christ]

I still haven't received an answer to these questions:

-How many mutations had to occur in each subsequent generation of ape offspring for them to turn into human beings as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history?

-And what are the odds of all of those mutations happening to one animal?

Look at how evolutionary theory has ''changed'' its ideas over the last few decades.
I think that some are starting to realize the timeframes and the mathmatical odds arent adding up.

 

[reznwerks]

facts

Nothing in your post, rezenworks, contains any facts but only opinions. That's pretty ironic considering scientists think they have facts. That's another fallacy of science.
I don't know what you are reading but I have provided all the facts that are available that I know of. You however are asking for answers for things that may not have answers and more importantly answers may not be needed. WHY does it appear to you that you need to have a concrete answer to "how many " time does it take for a mutation to occur. I have and many others have told you that changes are due to outside stimuli. You again contradict yourself and plead for evidence yet creationists have provided nothing but opinions . That is why it is rejected in the classroom. It is not rejected because it has proof but because it has none.

Once again, the changes that occur to offspring come from the genetic material passed along from its parents. And since there are a myriad of combinations that are possible in the chromosomes, then the offspring will all differ in looks and characteristics except for identical twins.
You fail to realize that genetic material is what is being evolved.

That has zero to do with evolution or, with mutation. That simply has to do witht genetic material that has passed along through the generations that each of us is carrying around. And if any of us is carrying the genetic material of apes, then the odds of us not having ape offspring would border on the impossible. But none of us humans has had an ape as an offspring.
Talk about banging ones head against a wall! LOL ! WE ARE NOT DECENDED FROM APES! WE ARE A SPECIES BY OURSELVES!WE ARE CALLED HOMO SAPIEN COMMONLY KNOWN AS MAN .

So trying to make it true that animals breed human beings only makes the arguments of evolutionists more desperate. But we creationists don't need arguments because we have reality as proof of what humans and animals breed. [/color=blue] Are you now trying to say that man is not an animal?

 

[Heidi]

Re: facts

Nothing in your post, rezenworks, contains any facts but only opinions. That's pretty ironic considering scientists think they have facts. That's another fallacy of science.
I don't know what you are reading but I have provided all the facts that are available that I know of. You however are asking for answers for things that may not have answers and more importantly answers may not be needed. WHY does it appear to you that you need to have a concrete answer to "how many " time does it take for a mutation to occur. I have and many others have told you that changes are due to outside stimuli. You again contradict yourself and plead for evidence yet creationists have provided nothing but opinions . That is why it is rejected in the classroom. It is not rejected because it has proof but because it has none.

Once again, the changes that occur to offspring come from the genetic material passed along from its parents. And since there are a myriad of combinations that are possible in the chromosomes, then the offspring will all differ in looks and characteristics except for identical twins.
You fail to realize that genetic material is what is being evolved.

That has zero to do with evolution or, with mutation. That simply has to do witht genetic material that has passed along through the generations that each of us is carrying around. And if any of us is carrying the genetic material of apes, then the odds of us not having ape offspring would border on the impossible. But none of us humans has had an ape as an offspring.
Talk about banging ones head against a wall! LOL ! WE ARE NOT DECENDED FROM APES! WE ARE A SPECIES BY OURSELVES!WE ARE CALLED HOMO SAPIEN COMMONLY KNOWN AS MAN .

So trying to make it true that animals breed human beings only makes the arguments of evolutionists more desperate. But we creationists don't need arguments because we have reality as proof of what humans and animals breed. [/color=blue] Are you now trying to say that man is not an animal?

So you don't believe that we evolved from apes. Is that correct? If so, I agree with you but it contradicts the theory of evolution big time! I think you need to read "The Origin of the Species" before you declare what evolutionists believe, my friend. :wink:

 

[Loren Michael]

Re: facts

lies about evolution, with a ":wink:"

please don't tell lies, heidi. thanks.