The creationists are BACK

[cbirch2]

"Dog is the common use term that refers to members of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris (canis, "dog"; lupus, "wolf"; familiaris, "of a household" or "domestic").

Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think thats the link your looking for.

 

[cbirch2]

None of that proves evolution between species. Where are all of the fossils of these creatures that were inbetween one species on its way to another? No one has said biology was a lie, now you're grasping at straws.

Ill even give you transitional fossils between chimp and man: Australopithecus >> homo habilius >> homo erectus >> homo sapien

Really? Then that's a scientfic discovery that's gone way under reported. So, I suppose only a specific sub species of chimp evolved into man then? The rest just never did?

You could google any three of those fossils and see that im right.

Only a portion of primate evolved into man, yea. Just like only a portion of fish evolved into amphibians and only a portion of amphibians evolved into reptiles.

 

[cbirch2]

And he reports that dogs have evolved into a separate species from wolves...

Not true.

The only mistake i made was thinking that wolves and dogs were different species in the same genus rather than different sub species in the same species.

You still havent explained if coyotes are related to dogs.

 

[cbirch2]

Find a good response or...

 

[AllieBaba]

Ill even give you transitional fossils between chimp and man: Australopithecus >> homo habilius >> homo erectus >> homo sapien

Really? Then that's a scientfic discovery that's gone way under reported. So, I suppose only a specific sub species of chimp evolved into man then? The rest just never did?

You could google any three of those fossils and see that im right.

Only a portion of primate evolved into man, yea. Just like only a portion of fish evolved into amphibians and only a portion of amphibians evolved into reptiles.

Or you could actually prove your point yourself. If you have one.

 

[abu afak]

Some Further Clarification on 'Theory' tho thankfully several here already addressed it.
Probably the most common Fallacious response by creationists.

Original link lapsed/by subscription.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American
now mirrored in entirety (except illustration or two) at
15 Answers

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from Paleontology, Genetics, Zoology, Molecular Biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt.
Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known,
creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy."....

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution."..."

Within species or traversing species? No one has argued the theory of evolution within species here. There is no evidence of evolution across species.

There is PROFUSE evidence of intermediate species and more is found and PREDICTABLE Because OF Evolution.
The Fossil record does indeed get More Filled in every year with by Fossils Only predictable by evolution.
Fossils, Isotopic Dating, Archaeology, DNA Regression analysis, ALL consistent with Evolution.

"15 Answers" again.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change.
Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).
Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.
Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology),
hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution Implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago),
one Should find a Succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
But one Should NOT--and Does NOT--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology Routinely makes predictions far More refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way.
If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence."..."

-

 

[AllieBaba]

And he reports that dogs have evolved into a separate species from wolves...

Not true.

The only mistake i made was thinking that wolves and dogs were different species in the same genus rather than different sub species in the same species.

You still havent explained if coyotes are related to dogs.

A pretty significant mistake considering you were using the example of wolves to dogs to PROVE EVOLUTION EXPLAINS THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES.

What a tard.

 

[AllieBaba]

"
Canis lupus has 39 subspecies currently described, including two subspecies of domestic dog, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, and many subspecies of wolf throughout the Northern hemisphere. The nominate subspecies is Canis lupus lupus. "

Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The smartest poster on the board apparently has some difficulty distinguishing between SPECIES (canis lupus) and SUB SPECIES (canis lupus DINGO, canis lupus FAMILIARIS).

 

[AllieBaba]

"

"The Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature made this official when they announced that dogs and wolves are indeed members of the same species, Canis Lupus (the dogs official subspecies being Canis Lupus familiaris)."
http://runningwiththewolves.org/wolfinourdog.htm

Please give up now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"

The smartest poster on the board apparently has some difficulty distinguishing between SPECIES (canis lupus) and SUB SPECIES (canis lupus DINGO, canis lupus FAMILIARIS).

I'm a BIG fan of Canis Lupus Dingo!

 

[AllieBaba]

I see that!

I like canis lupus familiaris, myself....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see that!

I like canis lupus familiaris, myself....

I have one of those as well - Lab Chow mix.

But the Dingo is special, hard to explain. Too smart for her own good, incredibly loyal, very territorial and can clear an 8 foot fence from a stand still - I think she has some Kangaroo in her as well. She's good with other dogs, but I don't trust her with people outside the family - the pack mentality is very strong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see that!

I like canis lupus familiaris, myself....

I have one of those as well - Lab Chow mix.

But the Dingo is special, hard to explain. Too smart for her own good, incredibly loyal, very territorial and can clear an 8 foot fence from a stand still - I think she has some Kangaroo in her as well. She's good with other dogs, but I don't trust her with people outside the family - the pack mentality is very strong.

Uncensored, do you have an image of a mixed dingo, if there is such a thing? I saw something last week in the panhandle of Texas that was far too big to be a coyote and did not look like any dog I have seen before.

 

[Newby]

Some Further Clarification on 'Theory' tho thankfully several here already addressed it.
Probably the most common Fallacious response by creationists.

Original link lapsed/by subscription.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American
now mirrored in entirety (except illustration or two) at
15 Answers

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

Within species or traversing species? No one has argued the theory of evolution within species here. There is no evidence of evolution across species.

There is PROFUSE evidence of intermediate species and more is found and PREDICTABLE Because OF Evolution.
The Fossil record does indeed get More Filled in every year with by Fossils Only predictable by evolution.
Fossils, Isotopic Dating, Archaeology, DNA Regression analysis, ALL consistent with Evolution.

"15 Answers" again.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change.
Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).
Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.
Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology),
hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution Implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago),
one Should find a Succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
But one Should NOT--and Does NOT--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology Routinely makes predictions far More refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way.
If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence."..."

-

Congrats, you know how to post a link to anti-religious websites that really don't prove much of anything. I can do that too...

Chapter 8: Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures? - Answers in Genesis

Evolutionary Starting Assumptions
While Bible-believing Christians begin with the assumption that God’s Word is true and that man’s ancestry goes back only to a fully human Adam and Eve, evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has, in fact, evolved from apes. No paleoanthropologists (those who study the fossil evidence for man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the question, “Did man evolve from apes?” The only permissible question is, “From which apes did man evolve?”

Since evolutionists generally do not believe that man evolved from any ape that is now living, they look to fossils of humans and apes to provide them with their desired evidence. Specifically, they look for any anatomical feature that looks “intermediate” (between that of apes and man). Fossil apes having such features are declared to be ancestral to man (or at least collateral relatives) and are called hominids. Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered to be hominids, but rather are called hominoids because they are only similar to humans but did not evolve into them. Nonetheless, evolutionists are willing to accept mere similarities between the fossilized bones of extinct apes and the bones of living men as “proof ” of our ape ancestry.

What Is the Evidence for Human Evolution?
Though many similarities may be cited between living apes and humans, the only historical evidence that could support the ape ancestry of man must come from fossils. Unfortunately, the fossil record of man and apes is very sparse. Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones). Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).

Because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study one. Most scientific papers on human evolution are based on casts of original specimens (or even on published photos, measurements, and descriptions of them). Access to original fossil hominids is strictly limited by those who discovered them and is often confined to a few favored evolutionists who agree with the discoverers’ interpretation of the fossil.

Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a “hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

Many students in our schools are taught human evolution (often in the social studies class!) by teachers having little knowledge of human anatomy, to say nothing of ape anatomy. But it is useless to consider the fossil evidence for the evolution of man from apes without first understanding the basic anatomical and functional differences between human and ape skeletons.

Jaws and Teeth
Because of their relative hardness, teeth and jaw fragments are the most frequently found primate fossils. Thus, much of the evidence for the ape ancestry of man is based on similarities of teeth and jaws.

In contrast to man, apes tend to have incisor and canine teeth that are relatively larger than their molars. Ape teeth usually have thin enamel (the hardest surface layer of the tooth), while humans generally have thicker enamel. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes and more parabolic in man.

The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor (i.e., a hominid) on the basis of certain humanlike features of the teeth is that some living apes have these same features and they are not considered to be ancestors of man. Some species of modern baboons, for example, have relatively small canines and incisors and relatively large molars. While most apes do have thin enamel, some apes, such as the orangutans, have relatively thick enamel. Clearly, teeth tell us more about an animal’s diet and feeding habits than its supposed evolution. Nonetheless, thick enamel is one of the most commonly cited criteria for declaring an ape fossil to be a hominid.

Artistic imagination has been used to illustrate entire “apemen” from nothing more than a single tooth. In the early 1920s, the “apeman” Hesperopithecus (which consisted of a single tooth) was pictured in the London Illustrated News complete with the tooth’s wife, children, domestic animals, and cave! Experts used this tooth, known as “Nebraska man,” as proof for human evolution during the Scopes trial in 1925. In 1927, parts of the skeleton were discovered together with the teeth, and Nebraska man was found to really be an extinct peccary (wild pig)!

Skulls

Orangutan Skull


Human Skull
Skulls are perhaps the most interesting primate fossils because they house the brain and give us an opportunity, with the help of imaginative artists, to look our presumed ancestors in the face. The human skull is easily distinguished from all living apes, though there are, of course, similarities.

The vault of the skull is large in humans because of their relatively large brain compared to apes. Even so, the size of the normal adult human brain varies over nearly a threefold range. These differences in size in the human brain do not correlate with intelligence. Adult apes have brains that are generally smaller than even the smallest of adult human brains, and of course they are not even remotely comparable in intelligence.

Perhaps the best way to distinguish an ape skull from a human skull is to examine it from a side view. From this perspective, the face of the human is nearly vertical, while that of the ape slopes forward from its upper face to its chin.

From a side view, the bony socket of the eye (the orbit) of an ape is obscured by its broad, flat upper face. Humans, on the other hand, have a more curved upper face and forehead, clearly revealing the orbit of the eye from a side view.

Another distinctive feature of the human skull is the nose bone that our glasses rest on. Apes do not have protruding nasal bones and would have great difficulty wearing glasses.

Leg Bones
The most eagerly sought-after evidence in fossil hominids is any anatomical feature that might suggest bipedality (the ability to walk on two legs). Since humans walk on two legs, any evidence of bipedality in fossil apes is considered by evolutionists to be compelling evidence for human ancestry. But we should bear in mind that the way an ape walks on two legs is entirely different from the way man walks on two legs. The distinctive human gait requires the complex integration of many skeletal and muscular features in our hips, legs, and feet. Thus, evolutionists closely examine the hipbones (pelvis), thighbones (femur), leg bones (tibia and fibula), and foot bones of fossil apes in an effort to detect any anatomical features that might suggest bipedality.

Evolutionists are particularly interested in the angle at which the femur and the tibia meet at the knee (called the carrying angle). Humans are able to keep their weight over their feet while walking because their femurs converge toward the knees, forming a carrying angle of approximately nine degrees with the tibia (in other words, we’re sort of knock-kneed). In contrast, chimps and gorillas have widely separated, straight legs with a carrying angle of essentially zero degrees. These animals manage to keep their weight over their feet when walking by swinging their body from side to side in the familiar “ape walk.”

Evolutionists assume that fossil apes with a high carrying angle (humanlike) were bipedal and thus evolved into man. Certain australopithecines (apelike creatures) are considered to have walked like us and thus to be our ancestors largely because they had a high carrying angle. But high carrying angles are not confined to humans—they are also found on some modern apes that walk gracefully on tree limbs and only clumsily on the ground.

Living apes with a high carrying angle (values comparable to man) include such apes as the orangutan and spider monkey—both adept tree climbers and capable of only an apelike bipedal gait on the ground. The point is that there are living tree-dwelling apes and monkeys with some of the same anatomical features that evolutionists consider to be definitive evidence for bipedality, yet none of these animals walks like man and no one suggests they are our ancestors or descendants.

Foot Bones
The human foot is unique and not even close to the appearance or function of the ape foot. The big toe of the human foot is in-line with the foot and does not jut out to the side like an ape’s. Human toe bones are relatively straight, rather than curved and grasping like ape toes.

While walking, the heel of the human foot hits the ground first and then the weight distribution spreads from the heel along the outer margin of the foot up to the base of the little toe. From the little toe it spreads inward across the base of the toes and finally pushes off from the big toe. No ape has a foot or push-off like that of a human, and thus, no ape is capable of walking with our distinctive human stride or making human footprints.

 

[AllieBaba]

I see that!

I like canis lupus familiaris, myself....

I have one of those as well - Lab Chow mix.

But the Dingo is special, hard to explain. Too smart for her own good, incredibly loyal, very territorial and can clear an 8 foot fence from a stand still - I think she has some Kangaroo in her as well. She's good with other dogs, but I don't trust her with people outside the family - the pack mentality is very strong.

Uncensored, do you have an image of a mixed dingo, if there is such a thing? I saw something last week in the panhandle of Texas that was far too big to be a coyote and did not look like any dog I have seen before.

Wild dingos aren't that big, I don't think.
And they aren't native to north America.

I'd say maybe you saw a wolf or a feral dog, or domestic wolf or hybrid (gone feral).

I don't know what South America has that might come up...I know there's such a thing as a Maned Wolf...

But I've never heard of one so far north, and they're very rare.

Wiki says they can get up to 42 inches tall, which seems a little extreme to me...that's bigger than a saint bernard!

Maned Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Newby, your site does not mean anything in this debate. Evolution is scientific theory, which means fact in the empirical world. Your site discusses problems with evolution but is no argument against it. You understand that, do you not?

 

[Newby]

Newby, your site does not mean anything in this debate. Evolution is scientific theory, which means fact in the empirical world. Your site discusses problems with evolution but is no argument against it. You understand that, do you not?

You want to tell me which facts he pointed out that showed the distinction between modern man and apes are not true? Ever heard of Charles Dawson's "Dawn Man"?

 

[konradv]

While interesting, Newby's cite does nothing to disprove evolution. As a matter of fact, it's quite a good article on how paleontologists do their work. How does this help the creationist cause? I haven't a clue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, do you have an image of a mixed dingo, if there is such a thing? I saw something last week in the panhandle of Texas that was far too big to be a coyote and did not look like any dog I have seen before.

A Dingo is just a dog. They can mate with any dog, so mixed breeds would be common. The STORY I got with mine, from the rescue group is that dog fighters were illegally importing Dingos to fight them. They said this is getting very common, some groups are even using Wolves and Jackals. So it is very possible that you saw a Dingo in Texas, escaped or cast out from dog fighting. Athena is only 55 pounds, not particularly large.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored, do you have an image of a mixed dingo, if there is such a thing? I saw something last week in the panhandle of Texas that was far too big to be a coyote and did not look like any dog I have seen before.

A Dingo is just a dog. They can mate with any dog, so mixed breeds would be common. The STORY I got with mine, from the rescue group is that dog fighters were illegally importing Dingos to fight them. They said this is getting very common, some groups are even using Wolves and Jackals. So it is very possible that you saw a Dingo in Texas, escaped or cast out from dog fighting. Athena is only 55 pounds, not particularly large.

Thanks for the info. The monster I saw was rangy, strong in the hind quarters, large humped shoulders, with a elongated muzzle, various shades of gray and brown. Probably in the 90 to 110 pound category. If I had a long arm with me, I would have shot it, because I have no doubt it would like young child.