Im not going to say much here cause im so sick of arguing this science crap, it just goes on and on and on.
wow, i'd hate to see the long-winded posts!
Humans and chimpanzeez are not the same kind. Humans are homosapiens,
so basically, kind = species? noah must have had boat a lot bigger than the bible says. also, how do you explain new species arising from existing species?
If a human has sex with a gorilla, will the gorilla get pregnant? No it wont.
We do not see different kinds interbreeding
but if a donkey has sex with a horse, you get a mule. are donkey, horses, and mules all the same kind?
And that is all that we see in the present
except for, you know, when that's not what we observe.
This defuncts a major part of the ToE because they claim that in the premeval pasts millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers.
wow. back to bio class for you! i dunno if that's a strawman or what.
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts.
then why does the genetic family tree exactly line up with the evolutionary tree? don't you think that's sort of suspicious?
While Darwins ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance
that's the most preposterous claim i've ever heard on this board. you don't believe in inheritance? go get a picture of your father and mother, and see how they match up to your own. and if they dont, well, i'm sorry.
but like you said,"cattle would give birth to cattle." characteristics are heritable, otherwise, cattle wouldn't give birth to cattle.
Mendels conclusions were based on careful experimentation.
yes, they were. and darwin's ideas were partly based on mendel's studies on genetics and heritability.
Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.
mutation is not the driving force of evolution. heritability is. if something has a feature that makes it survive better, it's more likely to breed, especially with other members of the species with that feature. therefore, according to mendels work, there will be a higher chance of having that feature, and having a more pronounced version of that feature. that's evolution.
All of the mutations are harmful or harmless, none of them produce a more successful fruit fly, exactly as predicted by the creation model.
that doesn't mean evolution is not at work. part of it *IS* trying things out. trial and error. you're a lot more likely to get errors.
Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys and zebras from the same kind, or of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind, or some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind.
and that's NOT evolution? one kind originally, that then branches out? sounds like common ancestry to me.
and are bengal tigers and my russian blue housecat the same kind?
And yes your cat is in the same kind as a bengal tiger. They have huge variations, but they are both feline.
but they can't interbreed.
As each kind obeyed the Creators command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see. Does this fit the evidence we observe in the present? Yes it does.
that's evolution again.
Millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. This is what evolution tells us happened, from the a single cell, through chance and time, and by itself.
actually, this is closer to what evolution tells us:
quote:
the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see
and you've still got the order all wrong.
The ToE predicted millions of transitional fossils to be found, yet none have been found. Only handfuls of disputables. Even archaeopteryx, showed no sign of the crucial scale-to-feather or leg-to-wing transition.
why have no transitional fossils been found? because creationists are completely unwilling to admit that they exist, even when shown.
and yes, archaeopteryx DOES show part of the wing-to-leg transition, as does, say, velociraptor. as for scale-to-feather, how many examples of dinosaur scales have you seen? personally, i've been into dinosaurs since i was a kid, and i've seen ONE. it's flat out amazing that we have fossils of archaeopteryx with feathers. soft features don't fossilize well.
™ Version 4.2
