Is Ape/Human Common Ancestory Enough?

yes, they do. it's called the scientific method. observe, hypothesize, test, conclude repeat. creationism goes: "conclude, hypothesize, observe".therefore, it is not science. nor is true science determined by the relativistic explanation of gravity. however, creationism is still not science, it's a doctrine of beliefs. what wonderful prove that it doesn't have to be valid. euclid didn't believe in evolution when he devised his geometry either. what's your point?and, uhh, pasteur certainly understood something about adaptation in developing vaccines.

lovely quotes! [qs]My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475.[/qs]this one is wonderful. it's assuming that 150 years of science hasn't passed. darwin didn't write that in 1991, you know, he wrote it in the early stages of his study. it has long since been validated repeatedly, and its component parts proven. this is another good one that assumes that 150 years of science just hasn't happened. while precambrian fossils weren't too readily available in darwin's time, we have lots today.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-09-2004 02:18 AM

If origins of evolution (cosmology) and macroevolution were accurately and verifiably intact then a mass of evidence would be the "in your face" alternative to the "wishful thinkers" of intelligent design.It is apparent that the mass of evidence would be less credible with presuppositions and home made drawings to convey a fact since it is also rational to convey that you, yourself is intelligently designing an outline in and of itself.Science is a means by which we IDENTIFY conclusively the evident.
I have noticed for sometime that microevolution is not debated as long as both concur that microevolution stays within the rational
IE: species of dogs stay as dogs no matter if there are different types of dogs. Microevolution becomes debatable when evolutionist theorize a possiblity between....IE: dog to dolphin or other way around. It becomes a problem for creationists since they identify a factor that .......1)a theory was preposed first and not evidence first 2) once evolutionist theorize: they are "in the act" (verb or action tense)thinking FOR the evidence that is not there presently and which of course that process can be justly identified as "designing a scenario" given that both sides have the right to debate. 3)we can identify also that coincidentally whether the evolutionist knows it or not he/she becomes the contaminate to their own theory;in the case of random chance w/natural selection vs intelligent design.Ive decided not to cut and paste to show that if you include punctuated equilibrium then you identify with anti-darwinism. Since his theory is on record we can say we identify with his written documentation not his theory.

---

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

it has long since been validated repeatedly, and its component parts proven.ROFL- so you end my statement with this? it dont prove nothing but conjecture on your part"Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils?
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.this is another good one that assumes that 150 years of science just hasn't happened. while precambrian fossils weren't too readily available in darwin's time, we have lots today.so after 150 yrs we have a case of IE dolphin to dog? you can give alot of evidence that show PROGENITORS of the cambrian fossils? it seems you are the one who is wishful

---

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

...is that creationists often rely on misrepresentation - such as taking quotations out of context.The quote in your .sig is discussed here: Quote 2.1
Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

we have lots today.I dont want a mass load of drawings I want factual valid bones found and not just fakies one here or there but great piles as Darwin put it.

PaulK you are a typical chimp that dont want proofs beyond a shadow of a doubt but are inclined to be in the same boat with the 3 monkeys: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

I think Lucyman is talking to himself.

---

The Laminator

​

Evolutionism’s 21st century apologists introduce far-fetched scenarios in attempts to gloss-over those flaws and holes. U.S. News volunteers a wondrous threadbare patch that undercuts the fabric of Darwin’s gradualism, suggesting a process too fast to leave a record in the fossils.
Just a minute here---Darwin touted gradualism with incremental changes supposedly accumulating over millions of years. Which is it now---too fast or deep time? Seems like it should be eons of deep time if Darwin is to be vindicated. But too fast?
Far from confirming evolution as fact, the proven reality of adaptive change does not and cannot equate evolution. Adaptation: absolutely! Evolution producing an entirely new and different critter: never!
Redundant clichs citing fruit fly and bacteria mutations confirm only the adaptation potential within a preexisting genetic code, never evolution to an entirely new life form. Thousands of generations later, fruit flies remain fruit-flies (albeit possibly crippled and deformed) never emerging as dragon flies or butterflies. And of course bacteria replicate prodigiously as bacteriaad infinitum.
To allege the fiction of evolution is to turn nature upside down. The human mind uses inanimate matter as raw material to design, create and innovate. The reverse has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. Can it be argued seriously that non-intelligent inanimate matter actually produced intelligent life, on its own, by the luck of the draw?

---

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

this one is wonderful. it's assuming that 150 years of science hasn't passed. darwin didn't write that in 1991, you know, he wrote it in the early stages of his study. it has long since been validated repeatedly, and its component parts proven.lol ... 150 years past after Darwin then compare that to the assumption of millions of yrs before Darwin when evidences of that magnitude would be obvious. Get the picture?No darwin didnt write that in 1991, he wrote it while in an association of other evolutionists... one in particular: namely Alfred Russell Wallace. Read a delicate arrangement by Arnold C Brackman and you will get more of a clue to his situation.To this day (150 yrs later) all that is evident: adaptation within a pre-existing genetic code NOT evolution to a whole new speciesThis message has been edited by lucyman fake, 07-09-2004 05:16 AMThis message has been edited by lucyman fake, 07-09-2004 05:25 AM

---

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

please use the little red reply button below the post you're responding to so people know who you're talking to, and it alerts those of us who have reply notification. this won't be the last time i say this, sadly, but cosmology has nothing to do with evolution. this is the wrong place to discuss it even. this thread is talking about hominid evolution. i posted some pictures earlier. go look at them and tell me that it's not evidence for "macroevolution" -- a creationist term, not biology. take that to this thread: http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? -->EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? no modern species has evolved into any other modern species. that would sufficiently disprove evolution, actually, which is a theory of common descent. and some point, a dog and a dolphin shared a common ancestor. at no point did a dog give birth to a dolphin. this is a gross misunderstanding to the theory perpetrated by creationist propagandists. a good decision. that will get you removed from the board. darwinism, in the strictest sense, is gradual yes. however, the mechanisms have been known to jump occasionally. this is not a problem for evolution.

[qs][qs]it has long since been validated repeatedly, and its component parts proven.natural selection - observed, originally by darwin.
artificial selection - practiced by humans for thousands of years
speciation - observed and induced in laboratory settings
genetic drift, heritability, etc - all observed.it's not conjecture. do deny that the part have been proven is simply ignorance of the facts. do a google search on "precambrian fossils" and come back to me. that's not even actual scientific journals, or specific fossils.dolphin to dog is not evolution.

the evidence agrees. are all creationist noobs this bad?

i have no idea what you're talking about. um. evolution is adaptive change, by means of natural selection. that's what it is. how do i make this clearer? you're debating maybe the theory of common descent? actually, you seem to be the one full of redundant cliches. seriously, aig is more coherent than this, we've all heard this stuff before.and so far, all we've ever done in evolving is change pre-existing genetic code. we don't for instance see something entirely new, like a new set of amino acids. just duplications, and transcription errors. and yet these two simple things are capable of producing endless varieties of things. yes, actually, quite convincingly. normally, it's the creationists who turn nature upside-down, as they try to fit it into their little bible-shaped hole.

no, what are you saying?length of belief does not indicate accuracy. in certain parts of the world, people believed the world to be flat and in the center of universe for several thousand years. nowadays, it's pretty easily observable that that just isn't the case at all. maybe you mean genus. we see speciation all the time.