The creationists are BACK

[logical4u]

no none of them will even mention those three hominid skulls or comment on whether they think those Jackal species are related.

They dance around factual answers.

Q: Are those three different Jackal species related? Y/N

Its a yes or no question friend. Simple.

What do you mean RELATED? As in descended from a common ancestor?

If you're saying are they different species with a common ancestor, I would say NO, as I have already said, repeatedly. If they are different species, there is absolutely no evidence they have a common ancestor.

If that's not what you want, then I have no idea what you're blathering about.

Yup thats exactly what i wanted. So, why is it that the species Canis Lupus has diversified into subspecies but god just made those jackals not changing? Why do you assume they are not descended from a common ancestor, just like you accept that the dog and the wolf, which are in the same species, are.

Based on your theories, man has "diversified" into subspecies?

 

[AllieBaba]

And so you would argue that not all members of the Family Canidae are related, only the small groups of animals that are the same species are related? Animals that are within the same genus, but not within the same species, arent related?

Are you serious?

Are you saying that people are different species?

cbirch still isn't comfortable with the term "species". You'll have to forgive him. He's a little fuzzy.

 

[FA_Q2]

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where. People that find a special link between life and a higher power are just religious, i dont hold them to be crazy or anything. Just the "creationists" as i described before are crazy.

So ... poof this species just changed into two or more species (common ancestor) is way more "believeable".

Not at all but then again, that is not what evolution entails...

 

[logical4u]

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where. People that find a special link between life and a higher power are just religious, i dont hold them to be crazy or anything. Just the "creationists" as i described before are crazy.

So ... poof this species just changed into two or more species (common ancestor) is way more "believeable".

Not at all but then again, that is not what evolution entails...

That is just so .... leftist. When you are pinned with reason, you want to re-define. Sad, sad story that your "belief" is not supportable.

 

[cbirch2]

And so you would argue that not all members of the Family Canidae are related, only the small groups of animals that are the same species are related? Animals that are within the same genus, but not within the same species, arent related?

Are you serious?

Are you saying that people are different species?

cbirch still isn't comfortable with the term "species". You'll have to forgive him. He's a little fuzzy.

Species is a taxonomic rank beneath genus. Dont you get that?

 

[cbirch2]

And so you would argue that not all members of the Family Canidae are related, only the small groups of animals that are the same species are related? Animals that are within the same genus, but not within the same species, arent related?

Are you serious?

Are you saying that people are different species?

Where on earth did you get that from? I didnt mention people one time in that post. Do you understand what i mean by the terms "family", "genus", and "species"? Family canidae is a group of mammals including dogs, wolves, and coyotes. I was trying to point out that every member of the Family canidae is related despite the Family Canidae is composed of many Genus's, and each of those Genus's is composed of several Species. Those separate species are undeniably related.

 

[cbirch2]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

I was not aware there was a complete skeleton from a neanderthal man. Have they just discovered one? Pieces found all over the world from different animals put together to fullfill some scientist vision does not count as "fact".

1886: Two nearly perfect skeletons of a man and woman were found at Spy, Belgium at the depth of 16 ft with numerous Mousterian-type implements.
1908: A nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton was discovered in association with Mousterian tools and bones of extinct animals.
1953–1957: Ralph Solecki uncovered nine Neanderthal skeletons in Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq.

 

[cbirch2]

So kindly explain why it's called the theory of evolution?

Who's stupid here? You're the one who keeps arguing to points that have never been made.

Its called the theory of evolution because its an explanation of an observation not because its an untested thought experiment. Anyone whose point hinges on "evolution is just a theory" is a fucking idiot.

How about you tell my why its called "the theory of electricity". Just because its called a theory doesnt mean we dont know what electricity is.

Explain electricity, since "we" know what it is?

What? Electricity is the movement of electrons across a conductor. Point please?

 

[cbirch2]

God created biology, and evolution...to the extent that it exists, within each species.

So of course they are perfection, silly.

And how do the dinosaurs fit into your cool little fantasy....?

That topic is for those that have the strength to deal with evil, not to be casually discussed with people that deny evil exists.

LMAO what!? That sounds like your explanation is that the devil put those fossils there. Lol ok. I think arguing with you is over...

 

[cbirch2]

Hey JS..there's a Mexican wolf, too!

This is more likely to put in an appearance in Texas than the Maned Wolf...

Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

"Mexican wolves are native to western Texas, southern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona and Mexico. However, there are no known Mexican wolves in the wild today."

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: lupus
Subspecies: baileyi

Height: 26 - 32 inches
Length: 54 - 65 inches
Weight: 50 - 90 lbs
Gestation: 63 days
Offspring: 4 - 6

Whats your point? Congrats on providing the stats for a subspecies of the lupus species. What does that prove? That example is variation within species, no one is arguing that. Of course variation within species exists thats a simple concept. Im trying to prove to you that animals that are not within the same species, are none the less undeniably related.

Are those three Jackal species i posted last page related at all? What about those three hominid skulls i linked to? What do you make of those?

There is not enough evidence with your "skulls". They have not found complete skeletons for most of these sites. The evidence is "filled in" with the scientists "beliefs of what the thing looked like". Could there be any other explanations (disease, famine, poison/disfigurement)? These are not considered or even mentioned. Because scientists have found a few skulls that are different, they are telling us that the species was different species long ago. Theoretically, if that was so, there would be many more skeletons (especially, since men tend to honor/bury their dead).

O and just one last point. Single bones mean nothing? For one, theres more than just single bones. Secondly, single bones mean a lot. What animal do you suppose those three skulls came from? Just some animals that came after primates first arose, before humans came, has humanoid DNA, and is shaped like a mixture of a human and ape?

Im sure its just a coincidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This thread clearly proves that evolution should be taught in biology class and ID and creationism in the humanities classroom. Good grief.

 

[cbirch2]

This thread clearly proves that evolution should be taught in biology class and ID and creationism in the humanities classroom. Good grief.

I know right. No matter how many facts we quote, they just keep up with this pseudoscientific nonsense.

Apparently somehow mutations cant spread throughout the population. They havent coherently explained that one yet. Its always "a dog always makes a dog", and then i hit my head off my keyboard in frustration like 10 times. Its so stupid....

 

[AllieBaba]

You have yet to prove that evolution leads to diverse species.

The facts you have presented have not supported any of your arguments, and in fact, usually have nothing to do with your argument.

You're not a very accomplished debater, and you aren't an organized thinker. You're out of your element.

 

[cbirch2]

You have yet to prove that evolution leads to diverse species.

The facts you have presented have not supported any of your arguments, and in fact, usually have nothing to do with your argument.

You're not a very accomplished debater, and you aren't an organized thinker. You're out of your element.

Why dont you answer that question about those cats? Thats my only question right now. If this is going to be a debate about evolution, and the extent to which different animals are related to each other, i need to get a feel for which animals you feel are related and which you feel arent. I feel all animals are related. You know exactly where i stand, so i wanna know exactly where you stand.

I dont appear to be an organized thinker because i can usually only answer for about 20 minutes at a time and i try to answer all of your posts. Im sorry if several posts looks intimidating and you cant follow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AllieBaba is good people. She mistakes religious opinion as literal fact is all. It's her right to do so.

 

[AllieBaba]

Pshaw, I do not. I know what proven fact is; it is the opposition's inability to comprehend the written word without altering what he hears to suit his agenda that muddies the waters here.

And his insistence that I've challenged the existence of evolution. He argues to a false premise. I find that annoying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AllieBaba, the written word is not fact in the empirically proven sense. Testimony or faith revelation is only personal, in my opinion. And my opinion is not fact, either!

 

[cbirch2]

Pshaw, I do not. I know what proven fact is; it is the opposition's inability to comprehend the written word without altering what he hears to suit his agenda that muddies the waters here.

And his insistence that I've challenged the existence of evolution. He argues to a false premise. I find that annoying.

Im just trying to find out what animals you think are related. Apparently relation has nothing to do with evolution in your mind. But thats not surprising since you dont know what evolution is.

 

[logical4u]

And so you would argue that not all members of the Family Canidae are related, only the small groups of animals that are the same species are related? Animals that are within the same genus, but not within the same species, arent related?

Are you serious?

Are you saying that people are different species?

Where on earth did you get that from? I didnt mention people one time in that post. Do you understand what i mean by the terms "family", "genus", and "species"? Family canidae is a group of mammals including dogs, wolves, and coyotes. I was trying to point out that every member of the Family canidae is related despite the Family Canidae is composed of many Genus's, and each of those Genus's is composed of several Species. Those separate species are undeniably related.

I am sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that "evolution" worked on all species. Therefore under the theories that you are discussing, similar "evolutions" would have happened among men. Or is this another example of: see this hand (other hand moving frantically), its magic and you should "believe".

 

[logical4u]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

I was not aware there was a complete skeleton from a neanderthal man. Have they just discovered one? Pieces found all over the world from different animals put together to fullfill some scientist vision does not count as "fact".

1886: Two nearly perfect skeletons of a man and woman were found at Spy, Belgium at the depth of 16 ft with numerous Mousterian-type implements.
1908: A nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton was discovered in association with Mousterian tools and bones of extinct animals.
1953–1957: Ralph Solecki uncovered nine Neanderthal skeletons in Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq.

Neanderthal or Neandertal is an extinct species (Homo neanderthalensis) of the Homo genus that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia from about 250,000 years ago until as recent as 30,000 years ago. At that point, they disappeared from the fossil record, being replaced by modern Homo sapiens. "Neanderthal" and "Neandertal" are optional spellings, but Neanderthal is more common in English and in scientific literature.

There is continued debate over whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or as a subspecies of H. sapiens, labeled as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The classification as a subspecies was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, but today many list them as separate species (Smithsonian 2007b).

Fossils of Neanderthals were first found in the eighteenth century prior to Charles Darwin's 1859 publication of The Origin of Species, with discoveries at Engis, Belgium in 1829, at Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar in 1848, and most notably a discovery in 1856 in Neander Valley in Germany, which was published in 1857. However, earlier findings were widely misinterpreted as skeletons of modern humans with deformities or disease (Gould 1990). The new species H. neanderthalensis was recognized in 1864.

Mayr claims that Neanderthals arose from Homo erectus, arguing, "There is little doubt that…the western populations of H. erectus eventually gave rise to the Neanderthals" (2001).

The issue of whether or how much Neanderthals contributed to the modern human genome is unsettled and remains vigorously debated (Kreger 2005). At least one group of scientists concludes from genetic studies that Neanderthals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans (Krings et al. 1997). One of the participants of this study argues, "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors" (PSU 1997). However, other scientists working from fossil evidence argue that Neanderthals interbred with humans and this assimilation is why they are extinct (Hayes 2006). Kreger surmises that the issue "is not as cut and dry" as is oftentimes claimed and it seems "highly unlikely that the Neanderthals contributed absolutely nothing to the modern genome" (2005).

Equally unsettled is why the Neanderthals disappeared.

More argument is focused on Neaderthals by academia of paleoanthropology than any other species (Kreger 2005).
from:
Neanderthal - New World Encyclopedia

It sounds like the scientist really don't know, yet you want it taught as absoulute fact?