I did respond to them. I responded by pointing out that being able to point to differences in physiology between different species and classifying them as one thing but not another regardless of the fact that there are similarities too is arbitrary. I'll put it like this. Would you accept me stating that Shaquille O'Neal isn't a human being on account of him being double my height and weight? Or a female not being one because of the obvious biological differences?Some reason you did not respond to my specific points in post 100?First finding things that are still uncertain in something as complex as human evolution in no way undermines the assertion that human evolution happened.Long link - thank you but it is hard to respond to so much, so I will zero in on one point from your link:Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.
I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.
Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?
"Regrettably, development of foot structure in early Homo—i.e., between A. afarensis and Neanderthals—is virtually undocumented by skeletal evidence." The article goes on to discuss theories of bipedalism and admits weaknesses in those theories.
But a much simpler point is that australopithecines are extinct forms of apes, while Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man are human. On the other hand, Orce man may have been a donkey or a horse - or perhaps an ape? (See my thread on this).
I have not researched all of the above fossils but the main point is that species that begin with homo are human while species that begin with australo are apes.
Many do not realize the variation in brain size of current races, btw.
For example, what is the smallest brain size of current races? Are any current races of similar brain size to Homo Erectus?
Here is another link for you to examine:
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
The relevant portion is long - but shorter than the Britannica article you linked to.
To make it easier, here is a shorter excerpt:
"30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”
31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”45 Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”47
32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?
32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”49"
44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.
45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.
46. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 38.
47. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 86.
48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.
49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.
Second, you aren't making points you are making assertions. The article provides a summation of the plethora of fossil evidence of species that have both human and simian characteristics something that is the definition of transitional species. You can not simply state one fossil is simian with human traits and another is a human with ape traits because that's just arbitrary.
Btw - homology (similarities) does not imply decent. Have you researched pleiotropy?
So, what animal blood is closest to that of humans.
What animal is used for heart valves and skin?
What animal brain has the most folds comparable to humans?
What animal has the closest eye to humans?
The hypothesis is simple. Did humankind evolve from apes?
-test one. The fossil record. The fossil record supports this. If you dig you will find in the different strata (deeper means earlier) that fossils are found that display characteristics of both human and ape. As you go later the fossils show that the characteristics start to display more and more of the former and less of the latter, until we come to modern man.
-test two. DNA. Geneticist by the simple expediency of calculating how similar the DNA codes are can calculate how closely related they are.
The two tests are mutually supportive since one can look at chronology in the strata to confirm the divergence of species.