|
PrexicKehdaki -> RE: Ask an atheist! (6/27/2008 10:32:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution over a long period of time.
That is a guess, not science.
It's not a guess. It's a definition.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
Evolution is an observable fact. We see bacteria evolving and we use evolution to breed different dogs. Creationists proclaim that evolution cannot create an entirely new species. This usually comes from the misconception that evolution occurs in straight lines. That's not the case. It's divergent. In other words, one group of organism will begin to evolve in TWO DIFFERENT directions. Once these two different directions evolve so much that the two paths cannot mate, then speciation occurs.
Speciation, macro evolution, HAS been observed in finches, fruit flies, types of grass, etc.
Those are changes within same species/geno type - not what Darwinian adherents tout as fact.
Not true, new species were created. That's what speciation is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
In fact, a couple of weeks ago cultures of E. coli that have been maintained for 20 years now by Richard Lenski and recently, in his paper, he describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.
We have many MANY transitional fossils for each homo genus.
While Java man is fictitious and Piltdown man is a fraud. Peking man might be best described as pure fantasy. Like Nebraska man, Peking man was based originally on a dusty old tooth. It was conveniently discovered in China, just as Canadian physician Davidson Black was about to run out of funds for his evolutionary explorations in 1927.
The Rockefeller Foundation rewarded this discovery with a generous grant, permitting Black to continue digging. Two years later, he discovered what he fervently believed was Peking man's brain case, and he estimated Peking man to be half a million years old. Unfortunately, Black's fame was fleeting for at age 49, he died of a heart attack.
Black's death, however did not end his dreams. By the time WWII broke out, the evolutionary community had "discovered" 14 skulls and an interesting collection of tools and teeth. All 14 skulls were "missing in action" by war's end, yet the pretense persisted.
The photographs and plaster casts that remained had some interesting similarities. Apart from the fact that the lower skeletons were missing, the skulls had all been bashed at the base. As Ian Taylor points out, Teilhard de Chardin of Piltdown fame made his former professor, Marcellin Boule, angry "at having traveled halfway around the world to see a battered monkey skull. He pointed out that all the evidence indicated that true man was in charge of some sort of 'industry' and that the skulls found were merely those of monkeys"
Boule was not far from the truth. As Gish has pointed out in debates against evolutionists, it now seems likely that the tools found with Peking man were used on him. It is now clear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind that Peking man was not a distant relative but rather dinner.
To say that "hominids" like Peking man and his partners are closely related to humans because both can walk is akin to saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are closely related because both can fly.
In reality, the distance between an ape who cannot read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a person to the moon is the distance of infinity.
All the evidence in the world, however, is not sufficient to convince those who who do want to be confused with facts. Walter Cronkite, in the TV premiere of Ape Man: The Story of Human Evolution, declared that monkeys were his "new found cousins." Cronkite went on to say, "If you go back far enough, we and the chimps share a common ancestor. My father's father's father's father going back maybe a half million generations - about five million years - was an ape."
In fairness it should be pointed out that not all evolutionists believe humans evolved from monkeys. Some, in fact, believe quite the opposite - that monkeys evolved from humans. Geoffrey Bourne, former director of the Yerkes Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, GA, is a classic case in point. An article in Modern People points out that Bourne, who "is considered one of the world's leading experts on primates", believes that "monkeys, apes, and all other lower primate species are really the offspring of man."
Bourne's beliefs are bolstered by an article in New Scientist in which John Gribbin (sp?) and Jeremy Cherfas say they "think that the chimp is descended from man." Their theory is that "the genetic changes that produced early man from an ape were cleanly reversed to produce early chimps and gorillas from man." The truth, however, is that evolutionosts who believe humans evolved from chimps over millions of years, as well as those who believe chimps evolved from humans, are dead wrong.
No matter how many years the evolutionist postulates, chance operating on natural processes can no more create a chimp than it could create a cell. Sorry for the rant, but so much can be said.
earthless, are you purposely misquoting me to make your response easier? Here's what you cropped out:
quote:
Homo habilis, homo rudolfensis, homo georgicus, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo cepranensis, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo rhodesiensis, homo neanderthalensis, and finally.. homo sapiens
We have many MANY transitional fossils for each homo genus.
You can't just keep repeating yourself and ignore what I said. I never once mentioned some fraud cooked up by some fraudulent people. If that's the only thing you have an argument for, then I'm afraid you have no arguments for factual science.
|
|
|
|