(May 11, 2013 at 1:25 am)Ryantology Wrote: Red becomes violet as a light wave shortens. Show me exactly where red ends and violet begins.
That’s a faulty analogy because the spectrum of life on Earth has never been observed to be a gradual distinction, but rather very classifiable. What gave birth to the very first Human and what made that animal not a Human? I think that’s a rather simple question.
(May 11, 2013 at 4:56 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:
Thanks for the interesting response! Yes, I am not saying that we do not see differences in races of people based upon where they live, all creationists agree that happens. I am just not getting how you go from that observable fact to the claim, “therefore all life on Earth came from one common ancestor.” That seems like the old fallacy of extrapolation. If the different kinds of animals were created as the Bible says they were and then species developed through the years within their Biblical kind we would still expect to see such changes right? It seems like the data actually supports both theories.
I read a paper a few years ago where the genetic match for an organ transplant was actually between an Irish man and an Aboriginal man. So here you have two people groups that have been separated by supposedly 40,000 years and they are still so genetically similar that they are organ transplant matches? There are some siblings that are not similar enough to do organ transplants. It just doesn’t seem to add up.
(May 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm)pocaracas Wrote: 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....
It always seems to come back to the fossils. :-P So would you concede that if the fossil “record” is not truly a record of death and burial over long periods of time then the whole Evolutionary paradigm dies?
Quote: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.
That should involve other selective pressures though, and there really are not many different selective pressures from one island to the next, those ecosystems are very similar. This just seems like storytelling to me, I totally agree that you can get different beak sizes and shapes, but I do not see how that gives you anything other than a Finch with a different beak. Bulldogs and Great Danes are still both dogs you know.
Quote: 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?
No, I think you’re explaining it right, I just have never thought the explanation quite added up.
Quote:
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.
Well they are always finding new DNA in these ancient fossils, so probably someday soon. I have never seen one of these examples that didn’t seem to actually be just a Human or a large Ape, I think Evolutionists overplay their hand a bit with all of these supposed primate linkages (they are often merely artistic interpretations of how the animal ought to have looked based on merely a handful of bones).
Quote:
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.
Well physically that may be true, but why would Aboriginals continue to progress mentally if they are still using Stone Age tools and essentially still possess a Stone Age understanding of their Environment? Mentally they should be a snap shot no?
(May 11, 2013 at 7:54 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:
Thanks for the response Mouse. Most estimates I can find suggest the Aboriginals were isolated around 40,000 years ago.
This just seems all too convenient though, whenever we try to find observable data to support the theory Evolutionists just say, “Well there doesn’t have to be any change.” Or “it takes too long for the changes to occur so that we never actually observe it happening.” When they are really pushed they may offer a few examples of simple adaptations that also support the Creation model like a few changes in skin color or beak sizes. It’s just very underwhelming for a theory that’s so violently championed and defended by its supporters. That doesn’t bother you guys or give you doubts at all?