A simple question for creationists.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming.

This includes thousands of fossils, which show the progressive straightening of the spine, the increase in brain volume, and change in facial features.

Humans inherited their tail bone, a remnant of what was once a human tail, from primate ancestors. All animals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.

Evolution of the great apes
Evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 65 million years, [19] The oldest known primate-like mammal species, [20] the Plesiadapis, came from North America, but they were widespread in Eurasia and Africa during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene.

How is this evidence?? All i see is someone with a preconceived notion telling me what he thinks happened. There is no evidence. But i do want to touch on what is mentioned above. I dont believe it one bit, and even if i did, this is still an example of microevolution. Changes within the kind. On your view, humans are apes. We have share a common ancestor with apes. and that is all what the article above is stating. But it DOESN'T state that we evovled in to a non-ape. So this isn't even an example of macroevolution. T

 

[waitasec]

How is this evidence?? All i see is someone with a preconceived notion telling me what he thinks happened. There is no evidence. But i do want to touch on what is mentioned above. I dont believe it one bit, and even if i did, this is still an example of microevolution. Changes within the kind. On your view, humans are apes. We have share a common ancestor with apes. and that is all what the article above is stating. But it DOESN'T state that we evovled in to a non-ape. So this isn't even an example of macroevolution. T

if we share the same ancestor as apes how are we apes?
i don't follow your logic.

 

[painted wolf]

How is this evidence?? All i see is someone with a preconceived notion telling me what he thinks happened. There is no evidence. But i do want to touch on what is mentioned above. I dont believe it one bit, and even if i did, this is still an example of microevolution. Changes within the kind. On your view, humans are apes. We have share a common ancestor with apes. and that is all what the article above is stating. But it DOESN'T state that we evovled in to a non-ape. So this isn't even an example of macroevolution. T

macroevolution is speciation...

Microevolution is differences between populations of the same species, such as the minor differences between people native to America and people native to Europe.

You don't get to redefine science words just because you don't like them. :slap:

wa:do

 

[shawn001]

This only goes back to 650 million years, the earth is 4.57 billion years old, which coincides with the formation of the solar system at around 5 billion years old. The sun is 5 billion years old and will last to around 10 billion, then go red giant.

Plate tectonics has proven that land masses are plates and move and join together every 400 million years.

The animals living at the time of Pangea are not the animals alive today, but ancestors that evolved from previous ones.


Most people know that Earth is moving around the Sun and that it is constantly spinning. But did you know that the continents and oceans are moving across the surface of the planet? Volcanoes and earthquakes as well as mountain ranges and islands all are results of this movement.

Less than 100 years ago, many scientists thought the continents always had been the same shape and in the same place. A few scientists noted that the eastern coastline of South America and the western coastline of Africa looked as if they could fit together. Some also noted that, with a little imagination, all the continents could be joined together like giant puzzle pieces to create one large continent surrounded by one huge ocean.

It was known that lands now far apart and with very different climates contained the same kinds of fossil plants and animals. For example, certain dinosaur fossils have been found across central South America and western central Africa, and nowhere else. Identical fossil plants have been found in southern South America, southern Africa, India, Antarctica, and Australia. Evidence of an ancient glacier that was once one large ice cap can be found in South America, Africa, India, and Australia. These areas would join if the present continents were moved so that they fitted together into one whole. But no one could explain how or why this movement might happen.



If you look at the top chart to the time of the permian time period there was a mass extintion. Called the permian extintion.

Permian Extinction: When the End of Life Was Near

By Jennifer Viegas

The Permian period, which lasted from 290 to 248 million years ago, ended with the world’s most devastating extinction event of all time. Over 90 percent of Earth’s species, including insects, plants, marine animals, amphibians and reptiles, were destroyed worldwide. The Permian is therefore remembered as the time when life came the closest ever to being wiped off the face of the planet.


Permian Extinction : The End of Life : Discovery Channel

The extintion event was caused by the largest know volcanic event on earth the siberian traps in siberia.

SIBERIAN TRAPS

The gigantic lava flow in Siberia lasted upward of a million years and flooded an area about the size of the lower 48 United States with layer upon layer of dark basalt lava — thousands of feet thick.


Some geologists suspect the eruption was caused by an extra-large plume of hot material welling up from the edge of the Earth's core. But what makes it especially important is that the Siberian Traps is the prime suspect in wiping out 90 percent of all living species 251 million years ago — the most severe extinction event in Earth's history.


Discovery Channel :: Supervolcano


That opened the door for dinosaurs to evolve. They ruled rfor 180 million years and then there was another mass extintion event, although not as big as the permian, caused by a meteorite that hit off of mexico.

" dinosaur-killing Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction (aka the K-T extinction) 65 million years ago,

Geological evidence shows that a giant meteorite about six miles wide smashed into the Yucatan Peninsula close to the current Mexican town of Chicxulub 65 million years ago.

Nothing bigger then a bread box survived it. It was a global event, with gobal effects.

This is none as the K-T extintion event. It left a geologic line around the earth called the KT boundry.

The demise of the dinosaurs after this event, known as the K-T extinction, later brought about a restructuring of the animal world and the rise of mammals.

It took million of years for humans to evolve after that to where we are today.

Human evolution refers to the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes") and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]

The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming.

This includes thousands of fossils, which show the progressive straightening of the spine, the increase in brain volume, and change in facial features. Humans inherited their tail bone, a remnant of what was once a human tail, from primate ancestors. All animals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.

Evolution of the great apes
Evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 65 million years, [19] The oldest known primate-like mammal species, [20] the Plesiadapis, came from North America, but they were widespread in Eurasia and Africa during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene.

I see your quote mining Call of the wild, to fit your beliefs, not the evidence.

 

[shawn001]

The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.

The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".


The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.


The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.


"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

macroevolution is speciation...

Speciation is not a well defined term in biology. But ok, lets go with what you said. On wikipedia, it states "for example..."deer" refers to 34 species, including Eld's deer, Red deer, and elk".
Now notices what it is saying. Despite the fact that the animal we call a deer has 34 different species within it, they are all considered DEER. So you have just made my point for me. They are all deer, and guess what, they all may have had a common ancestor, a DEER.

Microevolution is differences between populations of the same species, such as the minor differences between people native to America and people native to Europe.

Whatever. Native American and Native European people are still HUMAN. All i have ever said was an animal never produced something other than its own kind. For those that want to play stupid, an example of that would be a dog producing a non-dog. Thats all i have ever said.

This is all kind of crazy to me. No one has ever said to me "what are you talking about, that is not what evolution teaches, that a dog could produce a non-dog" No one has ever said this to me, yet, in examples that you people give, all you do is back up my point, that there may be variations of the kind, but the kind will remain the kind. What the the heck are you people getting at??

You don't get to redefine science words just because you don't like them. :slap:

I dont need to redefine words. No one on here has given an example of a dog producing a non-dog. So my point will continue to stand.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Speciation is not a well defined term in biology.

Yes, it is.

Speciation | Define Speciation at Dictionary.com

Also, if you're going to claim that scientific terms are not very well defined, then please provide a testable, practical definition of "kind". Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say I present to you two very similar looking (though still notably different) birds. How do you go about determining whether or not these two birds belong in the same or in different categories of "kind"?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

if we share the same ancestor as apes how are we apes?
i don't follow your logic.

I see where you are going with this but I think you are slightly mistaken. Even on Christian theism, we share a common ancestry with Adam, who we believe to be the first human.

But i think what you are trying to say is the same point that I made earlier. Its a difference between saying that you share a common ancestry with someone and that you EVOLVED from someone. There is no way you can evovle FROM your father and yet your father is sitting in the same room with you. That is a big difference and a huge leap of faith. A leap of faith that isn't backed with empirical evidence.

 

[PolyHedral]

There is no way you can evovle FROM your father and yet your father is sitting in the same room with you.

Well, of course not; you've not reproduced at that point, and so there's no way to measure your success compared to your father.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, it is.

Speciation | Define Speciation at Dictionary.com

Cmon now. I keep getting checked on things as if I dont know what I am talking about. I said that "species" is not a well defined term in biology. I didn't just say that because I wanted to say it, i said it because i did the research first. On wikipedia it is stated "However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[7] and this is called the species problem. I mean, be for real.

Also, if you're going to claim that scientific terms are not very well defined, then please provide a testable, practical definition of "kind".

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. If you dont know the difference between a dog and a fish and you cant determine that they each one is a different kind of animal than the other, then i cant help you. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

Let's say I present to you two very similar looking (though still notably different) birds. How do you go about determining whether or not these two birds belong in the same or in different categories of "kind"?

Um, the fact that they are notably different is indication that they are different kinds of birds, but they are still BIRDS. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? It is the same thing every single time. If someone showed you a picture of a lion, a cheetah, and a whale, and they told you if you picked the different kind of animal of the three, you will get a million dollars. I garantee you wouldnt be trying to get so precise about what "kind" means at that point. You will quickly say "the whale", and collect your money. This is crazy. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Based on what? You find the fossil of an animal that died, and since its bone structure may be similar or it is similiar in size, you interpret that to mean that one evolved in to the other.

Yes. This is exactly how it works...but in this case we find more and more bones and they're studied and the evidence reveals the morphology to be consistent with other specimens found.

my original question invovling the whole reproductions concept has yet to be answered.

I'm not sure if I answered it. Can you link me to the comment in this thread?

Really?? Where?? Show me evidence of macroevolution. I garantee whatever you will show me will be microevolution instead of macro. I bet it will.

I showed you already in a couple of examples. Your misunderstanding as well as most creationist on this forum is that Macroevolution is supposed to mean that an animal can evolve and become a totally different animal (dogs becoming birds etc.). That is not what evolution says and IT IS NOT what Macroevolution says either. If you're getting your definition of Macroevolution from other creationist and/or their websites then you've been looking in the wrong places.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How is this evidence?? All i see is someone with a preconceived notion telling me what he thinks happened. There is no evidence. But i do want to touch on what is mentioned above. I dont believe it one bit, and even if i did, this is still an example of microevolution. Changes within the kind. On your view, humans are apes. We have share a common ancestor with apes. and that is all what the article above is stating. But it DOESN'T state that we evovled in to a non-ape. So this isn't even an example of macroevolution.

Because as PW rightly pointed out...We're still apes.....

You can't understand how they come to the "conclusion" (in science nothing is ever concluded)...they did because you don't seem to understand the scientific methods used for them to have made the determinations they did. Morphologically non-human primates and human-primates are related. This is a fact. Genetically we are related. This is a fact....no matter how many times you put your fingers in your ears trying to ignore the information it doesn't change the facts.

 

[painted wolf]

Speciation is not a well defined term in biology.

Speciation is well defined... species isn't. Which is expected because there isn't a hard immutable line between species in evolution. Unlike the immutable claims of "kinds".

But ok, lets go with what you said. On wikipedia, it states "for example..."deer" refers to 34 species, including Eld's deer, Red deer, and elk".
Now notices what it is saying. Despite the fact that the animal we call a deer has 34 different species within it, they are all considered DEER. So you have just made my point for me. They are all deer, and guess what, they all may have had a common ancestor, a DEER.

Just my point.. "Deer" is a generic term that only has colloquial meaning and not a specific term (the specific name is Cervidae). You will notice that the wiki page also says:

The word "deer" was originally broad in meaning, but became more specific over time. In Middle English der (Old English dēor) meant a wild animal of any kind. This was as opposed to cattle, which then meant any sort of domestic livestock that was easy to collect and remove from the land,

So then, are all wild animals DEER?

Please define "deer"... is this a deer?

How about this?

Whatever. Native American and Native European people are still HUMAN.

Exactly... microevolution is within a species.

All i have ever said was an animal never produced something other than its own kind. For those that want to play stupid, an example of that would be a dog producing a non-dog. Thats all i have ever said.

what the heck is a "kind"?

This is all kind of crazy to me. No one has ever said to me "what are you talking about, that is not what evolution teaches, that a dog could produce a non-dog" No one has ever said this to me, yet, in examples that you people give, all you do is back up my point, that there may be variations of the kind, but the kind will remain the kind. What the the heck are you people getting at??

You can't say that things always reproduce after their kind if you can't define what a kind is.
You already can't tell me what a cat is or isn't... how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you declare that "kinds" can't change?

I dont need to redefine words. No one on here has given an example of a dog producing a non-dog. So my point will continue to stand.

Yet you insist on misusing the word "macroevolution" no matter how many times it's pointed out. So, apparently you do need to redefine words.

How do you expect anyone to show you "a dog producing a non-dog" when you refuse to say what a "dog" actually is?
Until you define it, "kind" is a useless word. But perhaps that the point?

If you refuse to define it then you can keep going :ignore: all you want.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There is no way you can evovle FROM your father and yet your father is sitting in the same room with you. That is a big difference and a huge leap of faith. A leap of faith that isn't backed with empirical evidence.

Yes it is. It's called Descent With Modification (Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and it is definitely backed by empirical evidence and it's just one of many mechanisms of Evolution.....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes. This is exactly how it works...but in this case we find more and more bones and they're studied and the evidence reveals the morphology to be consistent with other specimens found.

If that is how it works than you immediately leave science and go to religion. If you find a fossil and determine that since its bone structures are similar, that certain animals today evovled from it, that is a faith based interpretation because you are relying on the unseen. This is similiar to someone finding the bones of a deceased Shaquille O'neal today, then a million years later a man is born that happen to be 7'2, they determine that this man alive today comes from a lineage of humans that lived a million years ago that were all over 7'0 tall. Do you see how crazy that interpretation is??? That is exactly what evolution is. Finding fossils and adding your own preconceived notions to it without any empirical evidence is faith based and no different than any religion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Cmon now. I keep getting checked on things as if I dont know what I am talking about. I said that "species" is not a well defined term in biology.

No...you actually said "Speciation" (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2776107-post446.html)

 

[painted wolf]

If that is how it works than you immediately leave science and go to religion. If you find a fossil and determine that since its bone structures are similar, that certain animals today evovled from it, that is a faith based interpretation because you are relying on the unseen. This is similiar to someone finding the bones of a deceased Shaquille O'neal today, then a million years later a man is born that happen to be 7'2, they determine that this man alive today comes from a lineage of humans that lived a million years ago that were all over 7'0 tall. Do you see how crazy that interpretation is??? That is exactly what evolution is. Finding fossils and adding your own preconceived notions to it without any empirical evidence is faith based and no different than any religion.

So according to you we can't tell if these two are related at all.

or these two

No way to say they are related at all... it's a total mystery that humans can never solve.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Cmon now. I keep getting checked on things as if I dont know what I am talking about. I said that "species" is not a well defined term in biology. I didn't just say that because I wanted to say it, i said it because i did the research first. On wikipedia it is stated "However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[7] and this is called the species problem. I mean, be for real.

Yet you have no problems with and actually seem quite proud of your hiding behind the word "kind"...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If that is how it works than you immediately leave science and go to religion. If you find a fossil and determine that since its bone structures are similar, that certain animals today evovled from it, that is a faith based interpretation because you are relying on the unseen.

This line of reasoning is asinine. Say I found a human skeleton. How do you suppose we determine what sex it is? How do you suppose we determine the age of the person at the point of their death? If it's a female how do you suppose we determine whether or not she bore a child?

This is similiar to someone finding the bones of a deceased Shaquille O'neal today, then a million years later a man is born that happen to be 7'2, they determine that this man alive today comes from a lineage of humans that lived a million years ago that were all over 7'0 tall.

No...this is not how Osteology works. There isn't much different with O'Neals bones from any other modern human. Take for instance the following.

Can you tell me what this is and how it should be classified?

Do you see how crazy that interpretation is???

Makes more sense than to say man was created fully formed...or that any other animal on the planet was created fully formed. Where's the empirical evidence for that?

 

[gnostic]

Actually the fossil record supports creation. We have fossils of creatures that are alive today with no changes. No fossil can be shown to have any direct ancestor or descendant relationship with any other fossil. We have fossils with DNA which validates a young earth. We have fossils of creatures that were in struggles with other creatures when they died which show a quick burial.

:biglaugh:

DNA in fossils?

Little, if any traces of DNA are ever found on fossils, are minuscule at best, that if we can actually call it "DNA". DNA usually don't survive the process of fossilization.

So it is really nonsense when you speak of DNA surviving in fossils that "supports your creation" or "young earth".

:biglaugh:

You've been watching "Jurassic Park" too much. The film provide only a sprinkle of genuine scientific theory & biological facts, but the rest of it is science fiction.

We have marine fossils on just about every mountain top which validates a global flood.

:biglaugh:

Oh, god. You're a funny one.

Seriously, have you ever read those reports about marine fossils?

If you have, then you will realize those marine fossils are than 4500 years. FAR OLDER!!! OLDER THAN NOAH'S FRICKING FLOOD!!! OLDER THAN YOUR BL@#DY ADAM!!!

Noah's Flood supposed happened in between 2340 BCE (oldest) and 2104 BCE, hence less than 4500 years.

Adam's creation: nearly 4000 BCE (so almost 6000 years ago).

Take the marine fossils found on the Himalaya as an example.

The fossils are not there because of 150 days of raising water caused by global torrential rain, which caused the water covered the highest mountains, like Genesis 7:19-20 said it did.

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

:no: That's idiotic reasoning, without any evidence to support it.

The real reason for those fossils are found (in the Himalaya) is because that part of the mountain range were once part of the ocean floor, where the fossil had already formed millions of year prior to the collision of two massive tectonic plates. What is now the Indian subcontinent was originally the continent itself or more specifically the Indian tectonic plate was moving faster than the Eurasian (or Asian) tectonic plate.

The collision began 70 million years ago, moving at 15 cm per year, which caused the ocean floor to rise up. But the Indian tectonic kept moving, so the 2 plates kept colliding into one another (40-50 million years ago), which cause uplift of land masses or "folding" upward. Much of lifting had already occurred by 10 million years ago.

The Himalaya is still rising today but only at 5mm per year. This may sound small but actually it's what cause all earthquakes on the Himalaya and the Tibetan plateau in the last hundreds of years.

But that's the only thing debunking your young earth creationism. There is also the matter of Damascus and Jericho, which are both older than 4000 BCE. Jericho had fortification walls it's town about 6500 to 6000 BCE. So that's 2000 years before Adam's supposed creation. But Jericho is even older that; there are evidences that there have been human settlements in as far back as 11,000 BCE; and that about 7000 years before Adam.

So forgive me if I am not in any way impressed with your so-called "evidences" of young earth creationism.

So how do you explain that humans have been living years before the Bible's supposed 1st humans?