Summations Only

What extrapolation? We can directly see a combination of human and ape features in the fossil, no extrapolation needed.If a transitional is not a fossil with a mixture of ape and human features, then please explain what features a transitional should have. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes?Of course, you will never accept any fossil as being transitional, right? No matter what a fossil looks like, you have already decided before looking at it that it can't be transitional. All you have is denial, and this is evidenced by you inability to deal with the fossils themselves.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You still can't explain those observations in those posts. Go figure.

Yet another pathetic attempt to use mockery to avoid the evidence.

In what world do you think that is a valid refutation of what was presented? Can you show me another explanation?

Why should we believe anything you say when you have already admitted that you can't ever say that divergent species share a common ancestor? Your mind has already been made up before you look at any evidence, so why should anyone listen to your opinions on the matter?

You seem to be claiming that you want to debate these topics. If that is the case, then the entire purpose of these posts is for people to be convinced by those posts.When you openly state that any geologic structure you see will be automatically labeled as the result of a recent global flood because that is what your beliefs require you to do, why would anyone be convinced by anything you post on the subject? The irony of you asking others to use their critical thinking skills when you purposefully turn yours off is just too amazing to skip over.Your posts are perhaps the best example of phychological projection I have ever seen. You are projecting your own lack of critical thinking and surrender to dogmatic beliefs onto others as a way of reducing your own internal struggle to deal with these obvious problems.

Posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 contain applied biology in the field of macroevolution. Perhaps you could address them.

What is stopping them from presenting that explanation to the scientific community, if they have one?Why don't you write them and get that explanation? Creationism is already considered primitive and unenlightened.

Then show me a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by microevolution.

As the challenge stated above, show me a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by microevolution. Which base substitutions could not be produced by microevolution? Which insertions and deletions could not be produced by microevolution? Which transposon or retrovirus insertions could not be produced by microevolution? Which genetic recombinations could not be produced by microevolution?Any response?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That's only because your religious beliefs require you to say that.

How could that difference not be produced by an accumulation of microevolutionary events?

That would be a tacit admission that if life did evolve over millions of years then the accumulation of microevolutionary events does add up to macroevolution.

I already did show that there was a need for accepting common ancestry between humans and apes in post 17. You need common ancestry and evolution to explain the distribution and divergence of ERVs in hominidae genomes.

So you are saying that all of the genetic differences between the human and chimp genomes "eats information"?