Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. Also the similarities of them is apparent when looking close at them
There is no confusing humans with apes upon observation of them in the nude. Technical similarity only accounts for a portion of ones looks. Posture and use of body stance specks loudly also.
This however is a sideline as We argue the same blueprint provides a same result for needs of creatures.
Rob

These mechaisms have not been observed. It is speculation that they occured. The minor occurances of speciation (if its agreed this happened) prove the difficulty of it and anyways are unique. I have no problem with speciation being observed today and welcome it.
Rob

No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry. Just interpretations of scraps of bone.Its not relevant what other creatures fit (if so) into the bear/dog kind. Its just basic body type.
Rob

No way. First this is recent in the century. Second it is not verified that DNA is saying it is related to ancestry as opposed to similarity.
DNA is still a new thing and you guys shouldn't be grasping at it for survival. Its too atomic for all of us
Rob

Creation is a sef evident thing. We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.Yes hoever all that is talked about in Toe is interpretation of bones and flesh. Surely our observation of the world now trumps interpretations of scanty data that changes with every new graduation class in small circles.
Rob

I'm not 100% sure dogs/bears are the same. As I said its just observation and fossil overlapping I've read about. Thats all I've got.
I understand your saying that humans and apes difference is no greater then bears/dogs.However People are different from apes in our identity. Our similarity in form (as far as it goes) is not evidence of heritage. We have another revealation. Dogs/bears probably the same kind has evidence (I think) in the fossil record. We don't.
Rob

What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted. Perhaps its just a special case of our family connections and not to be extended further back then that. I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Rob

What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted. Perhaps its just a special case of our family connections and not to be extended further back then that. I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Rob

Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.
Rob

Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.
Rob

Your right. we don't and shouldn't define a kind.
For example the snake. It fist was leggy. Is it still the same kind. We say yes.
I myself have and I hope in the future creationism will liberize what a KIND is.
Natural selection (which seems in a limited way true) has created much speciation to such an extent as to make me think the created kinds are today nowhere to be found although thier offspring are.
Rob

Your right. we don't and shouldn't define a kind.
For example the snake. It fist was leggy. Is it still the same kind. We say yes.
I myself have and I hope in the future creationism will liberize what a KIND is.
Natural selection (which seems in a limited way true) has created much speciation to such an extent as to make me think the created kinds are today nowhere to be found although thier offspring are.
Rob

Our Identity is what it is and not like apes at all beyong looks.
Anyways creationists would say there are no fossils showing our descent. There are just obscure pieces of bone where interpretation goes wild to connect us to them.
To hold such a position as descent from Apes etc one neede weighty evidence and instead today what there is could be stored in a fridge.
Good example of extreme conclusions drawn from limited data.
Rob

The neanderthals are just celts and germans early in Europe.
That doesn't count.
For the great claim of descent of people from apes etc the evidence? is is so sparse as to defy credibility in any reasonable person of descent. I don't mean you for you belive in the whole Toe package. however to a regular person to see great conclusion drawn from such limited data points out why evolution is easily assialed in America.
rob

I've had this arguement before on this forum.
When I say infancy I mean in abny practical way. A century ago was just hypothesising. anyways a century to me is infancy. This is a primitive field however utilized. And its claims of ancesterism is untestable. Just as when it is used to today in paternity suits it is testable. Its further claims are speculation.
Again with the tasmanian wolf and our wolf!
I've offered this as a example of how DNA fails. I would say the marsupialism is what distorts the Dna out of proportion from its relative our wolf. Speculation however.
Rob