Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Unfortunately for you, your belief doesn't have any impact on reality.

I know we've gone over this before, so I'm wondering why you would bring it up again.But here we go...Since Piltdown was one of the first "fossils" presented, there wasn't much to check it against. The only reason that it lasted 40 years is that people weren't allowed to examine it.It wasn't as though suddenly after 40 years they discovered Piltdown was fake. It was out of line with ALL the other evidence that continued to accumulate.When you have a collection of data and you have one outlying data point, that's reason to look more closely at it.As soon as they were able to get their hands on Piltdown it was demonstrated to be fake, which was quite a relief since it indicated the OPPOSITE trend in evolution (brain then body) from what was really happening (body then brain). Do you REALLY not understand this? Honestly?ALL mammals are related. They ALL descend from the earliest mammals. So, YES, that 70 million year old rodent-like animal is an ancestor to us. It is ALSO an ancestor to whales and sheep. But NO ONE would include it on the branch of homonid evolution. Just like you don't try and trace your family tree back to Noah. Actually, skull fragments and teeth can tell you A LOT about an animal if you are educated. For example, if there's no enlarged canines in the male (as we see in most other primates) it means that the males aren't battling for sexual partners. No battling = pair bonding. The angle at which the jaw attaches to the skull tells us where the spine could or could not enter. An upright animal has the spine enter the base of the skull.That's just a TINY fragment of the info you can get, and that's just off the top of my head. Now you are just lying. Here's the thing to ask yourself. WHO do you think you're going to fool with this lie? Surely you know that we're all much more familiar with the Australopithecines than you are. Are you lying to convince yourself? "Skull" actually. And, that's EXACTLY what we'd expect to see given the other fossils in the lineage. By the way, given that she was pretty tiny herself, if she had a skull the size of a modern human, she would have looked like a lollipop. Peg, you're living in the past.We don't have to prove anything. It's standard scientific knowledge. It's been confirmed COUNTLESS times but literally thousands of different lines of evidence.That's like saying "Physicists are hell bent on proving that gravity exists".You can choose not to believe. You can ignore facts. You can lie to us about the evidence. What you can't do is change the fact that the world has moved on without you.

Apes can and do speak all the time.They just don't form vocalizations you are familiar with because they don't have the same mouth and throat structure that we have.By the way, the things you listed as "physical characteristics needed for speech" are common to just about every single mammal.The problem you have with your argument is that you are using the word "speech" when you SHOULD be using the term "communication".

Peg, I'm afraid your post only demonstrates that you are pretty ignorant about these topics.Let's review: No, it doesn't describe life as starting as a amoeba. Amoebas are pretty far down the evolutionary chain from simple self replicating chemicals reactions. Again, no it doesn't. There is no "up" in evolution. Things adapt to their environment. Being more complex is not necessarily a better adaptation. The extremeophiles which live inside the black smokers at the bottom of the ocean do not have arms and legs. If they did, they likely wouldn't survive. Stop thinking of complexity as a goal, or evolution as a race toward and end point. You are mistaking MORPHOLOGY (how something looks) for total complexity.Imagine two ameobas which look identical. One of them uses sugar as fuel. The other can use sugar or sunlight or cellulose.Morphologically they are the same. One of them has a great deal more complexity than the other because biochemically they are radically different.Complexity is not limited to (nor primarily about) how something looks.Rice is WAY more complex than humans. But you aren't drawing these conclusions on any sort of knowledge in these topics. you are working backwards.You've decided that because your mother was Christian, you are going to be Christian - and since you are "right" about being Christian, everything else must change to fit that.As a result, you start with your conclusions and then go looking for science which you think helps your argument. The problem is that you don't understand enough to know if what you are picking is helping or hurting your argument.It may be enough to convince you that you're right, but it doesn't stand up to the reality test and that's the only test that matters.

quote:

---

That statement says the German shepherd shows closer relation to the wolf than other dogs of the main dog group.

​

It does not say the German shepherd is more wolf than dog as you claim.

---

That's exactly what it says.We are talking about a spectrum with the wildest pure wolf on one side and the min-pin (I'm just assuming that the min-pin is the least wolf. It could be the pug or the chihuahua, dunno for certain).The Sheppard falls somewhere on the wolf side of the middle line. It is, on average, more "wolf" than "dog".It's not as though there's a "50%" dividing line. Most wolves have some domesticated dog DNA in their line as well. There has been cross breeding between populations for longer than written history.

quote:

---

The same article tells us that according to DNA the wolf and domestic dog/wolf took place 100,000 years ago. The problem then arises that the fossil record of domestic dog/wolf only goes back 14,000 years.

​

The certainty of domestic dog/wolf goes back to 7,000 BC.

---

I suspect that you are being deliberately dense here on purpose.Let's say it's 100,000 years ago. Our hunter gatherer band has rescued a little of wolf pups and decided to keep them. We raise them. A few or the more wild ones leave us. A few of the more tame ones stay.The docile/tame wolves (the ones who wouldn't get to mate at all, much less with each other in pack life) mate and produce a population of more docile wolves. That's the first step of domestication.For the next 1,000 generations this is occurring, but ALL MEMBERS OF THE GROUP are still morphologically identical to wolves. AND, there's still regular cross breeding with wild wolf populations.If every single one of these dog/wolf early domesticants were to die and leave a fossil - how would YOU determine which group they belong to? The fossils are the exact same as wolves.

quote:

---

That rules out my dog kind and makes them only a wolf kind.

---

What about coyotes, foxes and bushdogs and maned wolves. These are not wolves. Are they each a different "kind" or are all canids one kind?Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.