Creationists

[UltimateReality]

How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas

Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.

 

[UltimateReality]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE2Fitness.shtml

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

 

[Hollie]

You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.

Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.

Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.

You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.

The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that ID’ers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals to metaphysics as the core of their argument. They’re left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural “designer” god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.

 

[Hollie]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

As usual, you're left to stumble and sputter. Your description of evolution so narrowly defined is typical creationist babble, totally absent an understanding of the process.

 

[newpolitics]

You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.

No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate. Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.

The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory. Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.

You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils. Here's a site, aptly named :
(A few) transitional fossils\

There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist. As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.

Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.

Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]

What larger population are you talking about? Urban dwelling didn't start until the domestication of animals ten thousand years ago. Before that, we were hunter gatherers, living in small groups sized 30 to 150. Before cro-magnon man, there would not have been large populations either, as it would have been unsustainable without a large enough food source, hence smaller groups are easier to sustain (without animal domestication), so I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Therefore, any mutations would not have become too diluted, besides, as long as we're speculating, I would say that if an advantageous mutation did come along that was truly helpful, that individual would be considered extremely sexually attractive and would have no problem passing on his/her genes, and neither would their children, and neither would their children, and so on... there is no reason to believe a mutation would be distributed evenly throughout a population. Like those with money, those with an advantageous genome would want to keep it in close quarters and only among a small group until it became more robust. There are a few theories regarding how a mutation would distribute throughout a population, and they don't all include a homogenous distribution as you mentioned.

As for women not having facial hair... simple, it is sexual selection. Given that there isn't too much sexual dimorphism in the human race, If men found it more attractive for women to have less hair, it wouldn't take long for the hairless female face to be selected for strongly, and female facial hair to be extinguished as a trait rapidly. I am merely speculating, but this seems highly plausible. I don't see the point in actually researching this, because, I am not the one that doubts evolution. Also, No matter what I come back with, you will find some ridiculous way to dismiss.

How do you know there were no communities before Ten thousand years ? How do you know what size the traveling populations were ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.

Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.

How long do you think native americans were isolated from other populations ? or that matter any other race of man ? I believe there is only one race just a few different traits.

 

[newpolitics]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.

Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.

Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.

What evidence do you have that we killed off neanderthal?

Neanderthals, it is mostly speculation,very little is known.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.

No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.

No, the majority of the science community would not allow themselves to accept they believed a lie for so long. The reason is called pride and funding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

 

[Hollie]

you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.

 

[Hollie]

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

 

[newpolitics]

How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas

Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.

What about reading comprehension? I listed literally all but one of these possible explanations for extinction. Seems you missed that part.

What exactly, is this:

"If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? "

First off, This questionable, as it sits, is unanswerable. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, so one did not descend from the other. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding on what evolution actually is.

Moving on. Am I missing something? Would you mind clarifying exactly what you are asking, if you insist I got it wrong? You ask outright, "why is the less fit ape still around?" This to me, means exactly what you are asking, which I adequately answered. Then it seems you are wondering about transitional forms, so you are asking two different questions. I answered the first one, unless I am simply getting this all wrong. as for the second, there are plenty of transitional forms. In fact, all fossils are transitional forms. We have heaps of humanoid and hominid fossils that display a nice continuum of time over the last 10 million years. It is a complicated history with a lot of dead ends, but we came out victorious in the end. Please, help me out here, because your question is a little non-sensical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.

Nope, i'm shooting holes in yours.

You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.

That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

Where did humans come from ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.

Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?

Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg

 

[newpolitics]

Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

Evolution 101: What about Fitness?

Evolution and Natural Selection

You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Why would apes evolve into humans? I don't even understand how your last sentence is relevant to reality, and I already did go throw a scenario where a species would split into two, and requires that neither die out, necessarily. Your question, along with Ultimatereality's question, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Therefore, how you can claim that evolution is false when you don't even understand what it is. This is evidence that you have not disproved evolution, but merely, a straw man that you built, unknowingly. This provides further evidence for my claim that creationists are unable to look at evidence honestly, because if they did and found that it made sense, their entire worldview would crumble, resulting in depression, identity confusion, suicidally... there is a lot at stake. Hence, they can not even be honest with themselves. How unbelievably sad. Truth is smacking you in the face, and you continually are obligated, by your own beliefs, to bat them away, because you have nothing to replace those beliefs. I don't blame you. Beliefs are everything to humans. We die for them, because when they are threatened so fundamentally, we feel like we are dying, since they are fundamental to our basic sense of identity. It is for these psychological reasons, that this discussion will never converge. No agreement will ever be reached. It will go on ad infinitum.

 

[newpolitics]

In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?

Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.

Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?

Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg

None of those are apes!!! They are all hominin species (human or ancestral to humans). That timeline on that chart doesn't go back far enough, or "zoom out" enough, to get to the other "branch," which would contain the line that led to the apes we see today. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.