How do you know God isn't dead?

[pocaracas]

4 millions years ago? Really?! Are you sure you read right?

That’s not what I believe, but yes that’s the highest estimate I have seen for the origin of man, it is a wide range though depending upon what you read. You’re right though, most Darwinists put it around 250,000 years.

It's never a clear cut date... as I've said, it's a process that takes a lot of time...
And they determine different species through different fossils, which I assume to be a very tricky business... because you have to account for age, deformations during the fossilization process, incomplete fossils, no DNA....

Why A10 can't mate with A1? because its genetics became sufficiently different for incompatibilities to appear in the DNA... or something like that.

But I thought we were only changing beaks? Shouldn’t the rest of the genes remain very similar and compatible?

It's never just one thing, is it?
The idea is that, at some point, there is sufficient genetic change that these individuals are incompatible with the original ones.

The first homo sapiens would have been able to mate with the population that gave birth to it. The homo sapiens traits simply gave it an edge that enabled its offspring to be more successful turning some genetic features of the previous population recessive, while the homo sapiens' became dominant.

I think we’re really stretching at the definition of a species here, but ok.

Perhaps you're right... but that's how I see the process going.
Perhaps I'm wrong... as I've stated, I'm no biologist, so my view is based on high-school science class and a few documentaries... not exactly an expert, am I?

I read somewhere that some people still have, nowadays, neanderthal genes running around.... recessive that have no influence, but they're still there.

Yes, but that really demonstrates that the Neanderthals were really just Humans right? I believe this is supported by the mapping of the Neanderthal genome recently conducted (which also interestingly concluded that Neanderthals and Humans interbred after Humans moved out of Africa).

Weren't we stretching the definition of species?

I've looked at this list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hum...on_fossils
and I see neandertals at about 250 thousand years ago, so it roughly matches with homo sapiens, so it makes sense that they would be compatible.
It would also make sense that homo sapiens be compatible with homo erectus, but not with homo habilis, while homo erectus would be compatible with homo habilis.
Of course, they are all extinct, so we can't really check. Only guess... unless anyone here knows about some DNA from these extinct species.

That's because no species (or race if we're talking about humans) is 'more evolved' than another species/race.

Would you say that homo sapiens are 'more evolved' than fish? Of course not (try living underwater without equipment). Evolution is about adaption to the environment, not about being more evolved than another species that may or may not exist in a varying habitat.

I realize what you’re saying but I think it’s in error. Many people groups would have kept progressing as others were frozen in time so to speak. According to Darwinian Theory Aboriginals should be a snap shot of what other people groups in Asia and Europe looked like thousands of years ago because the Aboriginals are essentially still living in the Stone Age. Yet, genetically and mentally there’s no significant difference between Aboriginals and say Europeans; so even though the two groups have experienced thousands of years of genetic isolation and completely different selective pressures apparently no actual Evolution has taken place. Thoughts?

Snapshots may not exist... all groups kept evolving to the changing environment....
Although, all humans (not at the same time) have adapted the environment to themselves, so I'd accept that for the past few hundreds of years we stopped evolving.