Evolution.

There's a number of Neanderthal skeletons, and the only one with arthritis are the ones that were old when they died. How could arthritis result in a massivly larger brain than Homo sapiens? When was the last time you saw arthritis make someone's brain larger? Apes, because we're still apes. We evolved from the ancestor of apes, which was an ape.Apes aren't monkeys. Monkeys have tails, for instance. The extra chromosomes. It's the same reason you can't mate with a gorilla. Can they mate with people of other races? There's your answer, then. If they can mate with humans, they're humans. If Asian people stopped being able to mate with anybody but Asians, they'd be a new species.We gave you the definition of species. Is there are reason you refuse to apply it?

Teen, perhaps you could tell us your reason for being here.1) Are you primarily interested in converting someone to Christianity?2) Are you more interested in disproving the idea of evolution?3)Are you interested in actually learning something about evolution and evolutionary theory?4)Are you interested in choosing between a young earth and and old earth?5)Perhaps you have some other point?If (1) then you'd better figure out who it is you are trying to bring into the fold. As far as faith goes people fall into one of a few buckets.
The literalists Christians -- You don't need to spend time on them, they are believers already.
The more mainstream Christians -- if you want to "convert" them to literalism you will have to know a lot more about the subjects you think you are attacking. Your current posts only demonstrate an utter lack of understanding and will only further convince the mainstream that literalist are uneducated and dangerous to the faith.
Other faithful -- I don't see that evolution is an issue here. You'll have to argue the different theologies with them.
The agnostic or atheist -- you're approach so far is only going to antagonize them or make them laugh.If (2) you need to start by asserting less and understanding more. I'm sure you won't believe me but it is clear you have very, very little idea of what it is all about.For one thing you should settle on the age of the earth question. There really isn't any need to discuss evolution if you think the earth is only 6,000 or so years old. If you could prove to me that it was only that old I'd have a hard time in accepting that evolution could be the explanation for the diversity of life.If (3) then slow down and pick and choose a view things. Start off by understanding that almost everything you've been told is wrong and probably a lie. It doesn't appear that this is your intention so you might be wasting your time posting.If (4). this might be a good place to start for any of items 1 through 4.The literalists would be exstatic if you could do this. Almost none of them want to take on the issues posted in dates and dating. It appears there is no answers available from any creationist sources that stand up to scrutiny.As I noted this would possibly convince a lot of Christians and even some of the unbelievers if you could do it. It would also pretty much destroy Darwinian evolutionary theory. Six thousand years just isn't enought time.If you elaborate on what you do want to accomplish here perhaps I can make some suggestions. So far you look like dozens of others who drop in, post the same stuff that you have and then leave when it turns out you have no real defence of what you have asserted.Normally you would be expected to last about 50 posts and a week. I'd guess that is about average.

quote:

---

We gave you the definition of species. Is there are reason you refuse to apply it?

---

This is a problem that I've seen over and over. We give these people enough to think about, but all they do is throw everything we tell them out the window and go back to their original misconception.Take the tetraploidy rat for example. I already told them that the tetraploidy rat has twice as many chromosomes as the rat that they came from. Yet, we somehow managed to get a question to how the tetraploidy rat be a different species than the normal rat. I've also pointed out that genetic testings have shown that the tetraploidy rat came directly from the native rat in that region, yet somehow we got the question to how do we know the tetraploidy rat came from the native rat. And finally, I have pointed out that studies have been done on the tetraploidy rat and they've shown that the species only came about the last few decades or so, that they have an advantage over the native rats, and that there are evidence that they may eventually outcompete the native rats. After all of these, we somehow managed to get the question to how do we know it wasn't already there like 20 times.People really need to absorb facts and learn to apply them.By the way, I just talked to my professor about it. I asked him why he thinks the discovery of the tetraploidy rat hasn't made headlines or anything like that yet. He told me that a lot of studies are still being done with the rat, including genetic testings and population studies. He thinks that the reason people are reluctant to report this is because over 80% of the American people are religious and creationists. It is the same reason why important parts of the translations of the Dead Sea Scroll, especially the parts that mention Jesus through first hand account, was quickly suppressed shortly after it became public.

Assuming you aren't an evolutionist posing as a misinformed creationist, I will answer a few of your questions.

quote:

---

ok, the neanderthal man turned out to be an old guy wit arthritis

---

Nope, no known case of arthritis has ever caused the differences we seen in neanderthal morphology. Secondly, we have recovered mitochondrial DNA from neanderthal bones and their sequence is very different from human mitochondrial DNA. Neanderthals were our evolutionary cousins, we shared a common ancestor with them but they are not our direct ancestors.

quote:

---

the homo erectus, wich one would that be? the peking man? the piltdown man? the nebraska man? the hieldelberg man? all proven to be fakes,

---

All proven fakes yes, but not examples of Homo eructus that are used by scientists. There are legitmate fossils of Homo eructus and denying this only makes you look like a fool. You might as well claim that the moon landings were faked.

quote:

---

. . . [where] did i get that we came from monkeys? evolution!

---

And how did scientists arrive at that conclusion? Through evidence, not mythology.

quote:

---

and as far as those footprints go they went on for a very long ways, and the stride was too big because the human was too big, u say they r deformed dinosaur footprints? y arent the dinosaur footprints right beside them deformed?

---

Only slightly deformed at all, and mistaken for human footprints. They are consistent with dinosaur stride length and foot morphology.

quote:

---

evolution, one thing to another is a fair definition, evolution is when an error occurs in the gene pool, no error could ever occur to cahnge it from one thing to another,

---

Evidence please. From what we know, genes control what our body looks like and changes to those genes would result in a different body plan. Where is the logical flaw in this?

quote:

---

mutations are found all over, 2 headed snakes, three legged horses, even in humans, there heads could be joined together, but no matter the error, it will never become anything other than what it allready is,

---

You also seem to have a perverted view of what mutations are. Mutations do not always result in the above malformations, and some of those malformations are due to problems of embryonic development, not mutations. I am now wondering which of those numbers in your username is your age. Is it the 15 or the 6? Also, we have found numerous beneficial mutations within quite a few species.Also, this picture hasn't been put up lately, and its always a crowd pleaser. The following picture contains several homonid fossils. The fossil in the top right hand corner is a chimpanzee, which is included for comparisons between the ape lineage and the homonid lineage. Could you please tell us when this line stops from being ape and becomes human? Also note how the size of the brain case increases over time. Strange how evolutionists have evidence while creationists just have a knack for distortion and whining.

quote:

---

take the new rat they found, can they prove it wasnt there all along? and just what is it that stops it from mating wit other rats? just because it looks diferent, acts diferent, is bigger, is stronger, does not make it a new specie, are blacks a diferent specie from us? they look diferent, they act diferent, because of circumstances, the chinese, were they a new specie when we discovered them? or were we a new specie when they discovered us? no.

---

The island was devoid of rats until large number of ships started coming to the island. The rats that have been on the island are different in shape and size from the rats they descended from. As far as I know, they are unable to mate with the rats they descended from because of the chromosomal differences. That is, the two species are incapable of producing a viable embryo even when egg and sperm are mixed. This new species is only a new species of rat because we call it a rat. If we called it a ratatillia, would you then agree that it is a larger change?Heck, lets carry this argument even further, and show how easy it is to cop out of the "no new species" argument.A fish turns into an amphibian. New species. Nope, still a vertebrate, nothing has changed. See how easy it is to handwave away evidence when using creationist logic.

If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be creationists.You're talking to a group of people who believe that ignoring what's laid out plain in front of them is a valid, Scripturally-supported methodology.The best you can do is beat them over the head with it. Sad but true. If you don't want to repeat the same thing over and over and over, you're in the wrong kind of argument. Take up Mock Trial.

quote:

---

The best you can do is beat them over the head with it. Sad but true. If you don't want to repeat the same thing over and over and over, you're in the wrong kind of argument. Take up Mock Trial.

---

True. I am president of the student philosophy club here. I plan out the time and place for debates of these kinds of thing, and I have to attend every one of them. Usually, the scientists have to keep repeating themselves when talking to preachers. Sometimes I wonder if these preachers ever graduated from high school, since you're required to at least remember some stuff from lecture.

the neandertal man was studied by Dr.A.J Cave and was an old guy who suffered from arthritis, even your site admits that they r just humans.all evidence of peking man has dissapeared.that was one very big mistake, after all, from a single pigs tooth they created an entire missing link and then made him a wife!the hiedelberg man was made a from a jawbone thats quite human.and heres another interesting fact, your scientist found a fossilized human skull and then they dated it to be 212 million years old, if u follow evolution it goes all the way back to an ape called lucy, wich was a 3 foot tall chimpanzee a totally human legbone because it was placed there by a desperate scientist, and lucy is only 2.9 million years old.

A couple of things: Do you care to discuss your reasons for being here as noted in Message 47and
Do you actually know the whole story of Nebraska "man" or are you going by source that just might be misleading you?

i am here to learn, no other reason.

first of all, any source could be misleading.to my understanding, a man found this tooth, and sent it in to scientist, they studied it and built and entire..... whatever u want to call it, fossile? and then they built him a wife from that tooth, and later the tooth was studied and found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.[This message has been edited by teen15m6, 04-02-2004]

heres another mistake your scientist made, a man shot and killed an alligator (or crocodile i cant remember wich) for some reason, and he took one of its teeth and sent that in, scientist found it to be a fossile from a dinosaur and that it was millions of years old.

tell me...You claim a rat is a rat is a rat correct?
Ok with that logic my House cat is a tiger right? after all they both are felines correct?

and do u know how scientist know how old a fossile is? by the layer of dirt its found in, and they know how old the dirt is because of the fossiles found in it.

yes, but your house cat isnt a tiger just like i am not african but i am a human

why isn't my House cat a Tiger? that rat isn't a new kind of rat is it?