How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

Depends on how far back you'd feel comfortable granting the distinction of "human", wouldn't it?

Nope.

Easy, that's not how anyone arrives at said conclusion, next?

So such examples and observations are not support for Common Descent? I am going to hold you to that now.

We're some of the most genetically homogenous creatures on the planet. All of us are more genetically similar to each other than two distinct populations of chimps living in africa. What, exactly, doesn't add up in this equation to you?

The timetable doesn’t add up. Humans are so genetically similar, even groups that you claimed have been separated for 140,000 years, there’s not enough time to generate the genetic differences we observe between other Primates and Humans in the allotted time frame, you’d need billions of years at that rate, and you do not have it.

You mean, say, we lived in an alternate reality? All bets would be off in Waldorkia, yes.

No this reality, you have not established the fact that the fossils on Earth are a history of death and burial over long periods of time, and yet your entire view of life’s history hinges on that single un-established premise. Establish it.

You also, "have a different beak". Further along this little train ide of change human beings and gorillas are both "still apes".

That’s assuming the proof; you have not demonstrated that Humans and Gorillas are both apes, and no simply calling them primates doesn’t prove anything.

yes, artistic interpretations - and mountains of data on mammalian anatomy, and wear patterns, and placement in the site, and biology. -Merely- that.

That’s only if homology is a result of a common ancestor, that’s something you have not established to be the case yet.

Why wouldn't they? Anatomical modernity was achieved long before they took their little walkabout, to the tune of roughly 140,00 years, and behavioral modernity was achieved a similarly vast (albeit smaller) number of years before.

Do you not understand how Evolution supposedly works? It requires selective pressures; abilities are only preserved when selective pressures select against those organisms that do not have the ability. Humans would not evolve the cognitive ability to be rational and to do analysis such as calculus thousands of years before the selective pressure required them to do so.

More or less convenient then "goddidit - poof"?

More convenient, the existence of God has far more useful and valuable implications than Common Descent.

actually, whenever we go around looking for data to support the theory - it has a nasty habit of turning up.

Such as?

That's why we call it a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis –

A theory is only as strong as its weakest hypothesis, and Darwinian Evolution has some embarrassingly weak hypotheses.

Except that we do observe -it- happening.

Well since you already conceded that phenotypical changes in populations over time are not support for Common Descent, what other observations are you making to support the theory of Common Descent?

There is no creation model, what kind of bullshit is this?

You’re not familiar with the current Creation model? That’s not surprising.

---

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.

How you do observe a species evolving over millions of years? You can't. You can only go by the fossil record, and it's not complete. Of course, we can see evolution take place on a small scale just by having a kid, it will take on characteristics of both parents but it is still a unique creature. And there are plenty of shorter-term studies which show physical changes to humanity over generations (quick, how many Hispanics existed a thousand years ago?). If people afflicted with dwarfism bred exclusively for many generations, might not they become a species of their own? It's a judgement call. Using the term 'species' in this debate just messes things up, because there is no ironclad objective metric to determine if certain life forms have changed enough to merit being reassigned. We're not a different species from our ancient predecessors as much as we are the same creature which has radically altered its characteristics over time. You can't point to any certain individual and say "this is no longer x, it is now y" because the decision is arbitrary and really beside the point. Evolution is not about one species becoming another. It is about one branch of life changing over generations, depending on how much change is necessary for them to thrive. And this is a process which demonstrably happens. Whatever most primitive single-celled organism first lived and reproduced eventually evolved into me, just as red becomes violet as the wave shortens. The only problem is that this appears to be above your head, but thanks to me, it should not be anymore and you can start forming an argument which is worth this much of a response.

I’ll have to respond to this next week Ryantology. I only had a few minutes to spend on here so I decided to give Rhythm’s response a shot since it was a lot simpler than yours. Have a great weekend!

-SW