Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

The whole damnedable thing is backwards... It doesn't make sense to me why people sit and spat over things. Perhaps their all about the cloth and covering up whatever it is they think they know... The chromosomes seem to be obvious proof that the lineage factors are in reverse order. Genetics goal is the 'pure gene'. The alien. But it seriously seems that egos continuously get in the way of fact finding.

I will say this that is a much more interesting point then what the genius presents. That the chimp came after man, much more sense then what the genius argues.

Why would a chimp have more Chromosomes if we evolved from them that contradicts the genius's theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then you misunderstand or have been mis-educated, or misread what exactly science is.
Science is NOT "speculating"! If you fail to understand what constitutes science (as opposed to what you IMAGINE science to be), you missed the train when it pulled out of the station, the boat when it left the pier, and the plane when it took off, all three of which operate upon scientific principles, not speculation. I honestly do NOT know how someone could get the mistaken idea that ANY part of science is "speculation". Again, final answer, Speculation is NOT science, speculation is GUESSING.

You have also failed to grasp the meaning of "theory" in scientific scholarship, and confused it with the words "hypothesis" or "speculation", neither of which mean anything like what the word "theory" means in science.

Confusion of all those terms, using one in place of another, to me, looks like someone has never studied science at all.

Oh boy , I understand a theory can never be proven or so they say but when you spout a speculation as fact its not science.

So are you taking a hard line stance that gravity cannot be proven since it's "just a theory"?



I still see no links showing biologists saying T-Rex was a herbivore, should we just put that into the thick file of "crazy things said by Allie that cannot be proven"?

I was being sarcastic with the teacher, i guess he took me serious. i was in a weird mood yesterday,maybe it was that time of the month .Since the stroke, i'm not sure on some things. I do know this,i need to lighten up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then you misunderstand or have been mis-educated, or misread what exactly science is.
Science is NOT "speculating"! If you fail to understand what constitutes science (as opposed to what you IMAGINE science to be), you missed the train when it pulled out of the station, the boat when it left the pier, and the plane when it took off, all three of which operate upon scientific principles, not speculation. I honestly do NOT know how someone could get the mistaken idea that ANY part of science is "speculation". Again, final answer, Speculation is NOT science, speculation is GUESSING.

You have also failed to grasp the meaning of "theory" in scientific scholarship, and confused it with the words "hypothesis" or "speculation", neither of which mean anything like what the word "theory" means in science.

Confusion of all those terms, using one in place of another, to me, looks like someone has never studied science at all.

Oh boy , I understand a theory can never be proven or so they say but when you spout a speculation as fact its not science.

So are you taking a hard line stance that gravity cannot be proven since it's "just a theory"?



I still see no links showing biologists saying T-Rex was a herbivore, should we just put that into the thick file of "crazy things said by Allie that cannot be proven"?

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oh boy , I understand a theory can never be proven or so they say but when you spout a speculation as fact its not science.

So are you taking a hard line stance that gravity cannot be proven since it's "just a theory"?



I still see no links showing biologists saying T-Rex was a herbivore, should we just put that into the thick file of "crazy things said by Allie that cannot be proven"?

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

Correct, your T-Rex is a herbivore theory is the same as your anti-evolution theory, factless and completely based on the Bible.

Which is why I don't understand why you're worried what the scientific community has to say, when it's totally meaningless to you.

 

[Iridescence]

The whole damnedable thing is backwards... It doesn't make sense to me why people sit and spat over things. Perhaps their all about the cloth and covering up whatever it is they think they know... The chromosomes seem to be obvious proof that the lineage factors are in reverse order. Genetics goal is the 'pure gene'. The alien. But it seriously seems that egos continuously get in the way of fact finding.

I will say this that is a much more interesting point then what the genius presents. That the chimp came after man, much more sense then what the genius argues.

Why would a chimp have more Chromosomes if we evolved from them that contradicts the genius's theory.

I don't understand sarcasm, are you being sarcastic?

What makes the most sense to me is that we are given the specifics and what seems to be the thorn for science is that they have yet to do the reverse. What is the opposite of Orgasm? Splitting hairs it is and it has clearly been said that what God united as one no man can separate. Is that something some take to be a challenge? There comes a mark...

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't know. I'm puzzled by the new fad of saying I say things I absolutely never said.

I never said TRex was an herbivore. I never contested the existence of evolution. there are a few other things I never said that have been attributed to me as well.

Puzzling. But not surprising.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So are you taking a hard line stance that gravity cannot be proven since it's "just a theory"?



I still see no links showing biologists saying T-Rex was a herbivore, should we just put that into the thick file of "crazy things said by Allie that cannot be proven"?

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

Correct, your T-Rex is a herbivore theory is the same as your anti-evolution theory, factless and completely based on the Bible.

Which is why I don't understand why you're worried what the scientific community has to say, when it's totally meaningless to you.

Let's compare our theories shall we.





Send This







Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[Youwerecreated]

The whole damnedable thing is backwards... It doesn't make sense to me why people sit and spat over things. Perhaps their all about the cloth and covering up whatever it is they think they know... The chromosomes seem to be obvious proof that the lineage factors are in reverse order. Genetics goal is the 'pure gene'. The alien. But it seriously seems that egos continuously get in the way of fact finding.

I will say this that is a much more interesting point then what the genius presents. That the chimp came after man, much more sense then what the genius argues.

Why would a chimp have more Chromosomes if we evolved from them that contradicts the genius's theory.

I don't understand sarcasm, are you being sarcastic?

What makes the most sense to me is that we are given the specifics and what seems to be the thorn for science is that they have yet to do the reverse. What is the opposite of Orgasm? Splitting hairs it is and it has clearly been said that what God united as one no man can separate. Is that something some take to be a challenge? There comes a mark...

Not sarcasm, i was agreeing with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know. I'm puzzled by the new fad of saying I say things I absolutely never said.

I never said TRex was an herbivore. I never contested the existence of evolution. there are a few other things I never said that have been attributed to me as well.

Puzzling. But not surprising.

I also told him that the T-rex could have been a scavenger and not a predator.

But i guess he just kinda ignored that. Well i have read nothing in the bible to suggest the animals were eternal, so it would make sense God would have creatures cleaning up dead carcasses. We have that now with various birds, and other animals.

 

[AllieBaba]

They just argue agains the voices in their heads. It has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't know. I'm puzzled by the new fad of saying I say things I absolutely never said.

I never said TRex was an herbivore. I never contested the existence of evolution. there are a few other things I never said that have been attributed to me as well.

Puzzling. But not surprising.

You said T-Rex was just as likely to be a herbivore as a carnivore. I want proof of that craziness.

Macroevolution is a HUGE part of evolution, and you deny macroevolution, so you at minimum deny enormous basic aspects of evolution.

I love irony, everyday on this board you invent quotes people said, then when asked repeatedly you can't offer up any semblance of proof.

 

[Dr.Drock]

They just argue agains the voices in their heads. It has nothing to do with reality.

LOL!!!!!



Now that's comedic irony at its finest .

 

[Iridescence]

Posting this a second time.... irritating blackberry!

I got several books on genetics and such yet skimming through those to get the basic idea didn't give me the understanding that merely reading my bible and using basic common sense seems to have.

The Life force is vibrational. That is the key factor. Our Christian bible does not discredit technological influences more than it prepares us for such. There are so many levels represented within it's texts though and it seems that it takes being provoked for our depths to be triggered toward better understanding 'the deep'.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know. I'm puzzled by the new fad of saying I say things I absolutely never said.

I never said TRex was an herbivore. I never contested the existence of evolution. there are a few other things I never said that have been attributed to me as well.

Puzzling. But not surprising.

You said T-Rex was just as likely to be a herbivore as a carnivore. I want proof of that craziness.

Macroevolution is a HUGE part of evolution, and you deny macroevolution, so you at minimum deny enormous basic aspects of evolution.

I love irony, everyday on this board you invent quotes people said, then when asked repeatedly you can't offer up any semblance of proof.

Just exactly what are we rejecting ? Wild unproven speculations that can't be observed or tested. That does not sound unreasonable does it ? You reject our beliefs for the same reasons.

 

[konradv]

Well that theory is based on my relious beliefs. But heck some people say dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago but we have plenty of evidence man had to see these creatures before their fossils were discovered.

As far as I know there is no such evidence. All the supposed proof has turned out to be misinterpretation of the evidence. A common "proof" is the picture that shows both dinosaur and human prints in the stone of a stream bank. What they don't tell you is that there was differential erosion along the stream and the two sets of prints were actually in different rock layers. other than that "proof", I've never seen any other. Got any specific cites other than directing us to the front page of a massive website?

 

[cbirch2]

The whole damnedable thing is backwards... It doesn't make sense to me why people sit and spat over things. Perhaps their all about the cloth and covering up whatever it is they think they know... The chromosomes seem to be obvious proof that the lineage factors are in reverse order. Genetics goal is the 'pure gene'. The alien. But it seriously seems that egos continuously get in the way of fact finding.

Pure gene? What are you talking about? The fact that chromosome two has a vestigial chromosome and central telomeres is proof that humans descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Do you even understand whats going on right now? Wtf is a pure gene you retard?

 

[Youwerecreated]

They just argue agains the voices in their heads. It has nothing to do with reality.

LOL!!!!!



Now that's comedic irony at its finest .

Yes,we get the same entertainment from the irony from your side. The double standards you can't see them.

 

[cbirch2]

YWC your DNA comparison is ridiculous. Yes, 5% of 3 billion is 150,000,000. No one is arguing that. Im saying thats not information that necessarily has to be ADDED to between chimp and human. its information that is changed from one nucleotide to another, not the addition of information through the insertion of nucleotides. 60 is a ridiculously low number for mutations a year, im not sure where you got that. in terms of single nucleotide mutations there are hundreds in every cell in your body.

Because you have been taught new information is always being added that is just simply wrong.

That is just comparing chimp DNA and human DNA that is the difference. Is that not what you intended to show by your drawing of the ape skeleton and human skeleton ?

While we are on the subject.

Humans are not descended from apes

Quick-read this article:
Fossils of apes and humans do not fit neatly into any clear evolutionary sequence. We believe this is because humans and apes were created as humans and apes in the beginning — natural evolution from non-human to human has never taken place.

If humans evolved from apes or ape-like creatures, when did this happen? And which creatures were involved at that important point? With more than 5000 fossils or fossil fragments of apes, chimps, and humans allegedly showing stages of human evolution, which ape-like animal had enough human characteristics for us to say “this one has just crossed the boundary from ape to human”?

The short answer is “it never happened,” and the fossils show this. Here's what we mean.

First, there is disagreement among evolutionists about where to place many of the fossils, because they don't all fit into a fully accepted sequence. Many fossils are set aside because they can't be placed neatly in the ape-to-man scenario, or because they appear in the wrong time-frame.

This is why evolutionists have largely abandoned the idea that human evolution was linear, even though the alternative doesn't help them either because it leaves them with a whole lot of unconnected fossils.

Second, here is an amazing fact: None of the ape fossils shows enough specific human features for evolutionists to say without doubt that this is the point where an ape turned human, and none of the human fossils shows enough specific ape characteristics to indicate that they have actually evolved from apes.

A possible sequence

Let's look at the candidates that are put forward as being in this ape-to-human process, and see if we can identify any at the “transition stage”. We must point out that some people object when we say that evolutionists believe that humans evolved from apes. They think we should say that there was once a common ancestor of both apes and humans. Our reply is that evolutionists never name this common ancestor in their evolutionary lists. They simply have apes, then humans. For example:

The evolutionary website Handprint gives excellent descriptions of the contenders in the alleged ape-to-human transition:
•Australopithecus
•Homo habilis
•Homo rudolfensis
•Homo ergaster
•Homo erectus
•Homo heidelbergensis
•Homo neanderthalensis

This is pretty close to the order given by B. Wood and M. Collard in a paper in the journal Science in 1999 (“The human genus,” Science 284(5411):65-71). So if humans evolved from ape-like creatures that evolved from apes, we should be able to discover a fossil that links them somewhere in this list. If the fossil is not in this list, then why believe it happened? Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.

With the Australopiths such as “Lucy” now being generally discounted from being ancestors of humans, the first creature with a slight majority of human features must lie shortly after the Australopiths — either Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo ergaster.

But which one?

The Handprint website says of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis that “there is considerable uncertainty as to how to connect these fossils to other remains from the same geological era, how all of them are related to the australopithids — and which of the Homo skulls shows us the true ancestor to subsequent humans.”

In other words, habilis and rudolfensis are a mess. You can't show how they relate to apes before them, or humans after them, or fossils “from the same geological era.” This is not because they have transitional features; the problem is that they don't show a transition, or even a clear link to anything else. The group just seems to contain a jumble of ape-like fossils that don't show clear links between apes and humans at all. Evolutionists Wood and Collard found only ape-like traits in both habilis and rudolfensis.

So let's try the next step up to see if we can find some human features — Homo ergaster. Now we're getting somewhere. H. ergaster is described like this:

“There is near unanimity among paleoanthropologists that HOMO ERGASTER, which appeared about 2 million years ago, is the anchor species for all subsequent humans.” (Ref: Handprint — Homo ergaster.)

Clearly human

Why do scientists agree that ergaster “is the anchor species for all subsequent humans”? Because H. ergaster walked upright like humans, made tools, had human jaws and teeth, and physically was almost the equal of modern Africans.

H. ergaster was clearly human. And according to evolutionists Wood and Collard, the two “Homo” types before ergaster (habilis and rudolfensis) were ape-like in every major characteristic they were able to test. On the evidence from Wood and Collard's tests, habilis and rudolfensis looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they had ape brains.

But H. ergaster was loaded with human features. The only possible comfort that evolutionists could get from H. ergaster having any ape-like feature is that it had a smallish brain. But as it was human in every other way, logic forces us to conclude that ergaster was a human with a small brain, rather than an ape that suddenly acquired all the characteristics of a human without leaving evidence that it ever happened.

So if habilis and rudolfensis were apes in every way, and ergaster (which followed them) was clearly human, where is the evidence that there was ever an ape-human between them? Absolutely none!

We believe that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: There are other fossils besides those above that some evolutionists might include, such as Homo floresiensis and fossils found at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia.

Of Homo floresiensis, an education source says, “At present, there is no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists as to the place of floresiensis in human evolution.” (Ref: Palomar College, Behavioral Sciences Department)

Of the Dmanisi fossils, instead of providing answers to how apes allegedly evolved into humans, the Dmanisi fossils have only raised more questions. National Geographic reported in its August 2002 edition, “Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: 'They ought to put it back in the ground.'”

Erik Trinkhaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “They were little people with little brains — that doesn't really surprise me.” (Ref: AiG)

Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London said he doubted that the Dmanisi hominids were our direct ancestors. (Ref: BBC News)

University of North Texas News Service said of a new Dmanisi fossil in 2005, “The new Dmanisi skull is among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to Homo erectus or to any species that is indisputably human.” (Ref: University of North Texas news)

So according to evolutionist experts, the Dmanisi fossils are unlikely to be our direct ancestors, because they are “indisputably human”.

Therefore they can't be the link between apes and humans.

Further reading

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen, Journal of Creation 19(1):22-32, April 2005
Old fossil skeletons, News to Note, Answers in Genesis, September 22, 2007
The non-transitions in human evolution, Technical Journal13(2):10-12, November 1999
How coherent is the human evolution story?, Institute for Creation Research, June 1, 2006
Is there fossil evidence of “missing links” between humans and apes?, ChristianAnswers.Net


Which humans evolved from which apes?

Dude are you serious? You really dont get my argument at all. Im not arguing that DNA was added between human and chimp. i dont think you get that. Some of it might have been, but the vast majority of the differences between human and chimp dna are substitution of information, not insertion. They are variations in which nucleotide base is in which spot, not the introduction of new nucleotide bases in new spots.

 

[cbirch2]

The whole damnedable thing is backwards... It doesn't make sense to me why people sit and spat over things. Perhaps their all about the cloth and covering up whatever it is they think they know... The chromosomes seem to be obvious proof that the lineage factors are in reverse order. Genetics goal is the 'pure gene'. The alien. But it seriously seems that egos continuously get in the way of fact finding.

I will say this that is a much more interesting point then what the genius presents. That the chimp came after man, much more sense then what the genius argues.

Why would a chimp have more Chromosomes if we evolved from them that contradicts the genius's theory.

Lol. That was awesome.

Now its obvious someone doesnt understand genetics and inheritance.

Besides it doesnt matter what organism the chromosome fused from. The simple fact that its fused means humans had to have come from a species other than human.

 

[cbirch2]

I don't know. I'm puzzled by the new fad of saying I say things I absolutely never said.

I never said TRex was an herbivore. I never contested the existence of evolution. there are a few other things I never said that have been attributed to me as well.

Puzzling. But not surprising.

I also told him that the T-rex could have been a scavenger and not a predator.

But i guess he just kinda ignored that. Well i have read nothing in the bible to suggest the animals were eternal, so it would make sense God would have creatures cleaning up dead carcasses. We have that now with various birds, and other animals.

Lol scavengers are meat eaters you tard. Theres a lot of evidence that the T Rex lived a predatory lifestyle. Bone fractures and injuries. Not much that it was a scavenger.