Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

Menton even gets his own entry in Encyclopedia of American LoonsHere is a quote from the unesteemed Dr.

quote:

---

Most importantly, the Bible believing creationist will be careful to confine himself to speculations that are consistent with God’s Word.

---

LOL.They should actually have steps in loonieness. Four of them. They should have a few websites going from 'Loons'. Then another one: 'More Loonier'. Thn another one 'Most Looniest'. Then, the ultimate,called: 'Most Dentonist'.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Did you even read the rest of my post? If macroevolution is true, then gulls should remain gulls. That's the whole point.The common ancestor of all mammals, including us, was just a single species at one point. All of the mammal species that have evolved from that common ancestor, from platypusses to kangaroos to us, are all STILL MAMMALS. We are still mammals after hundreds of millions of years of evolution from that common ancestral mammal. Why isn't it fair?

Incipient speciation is exactly what we observe. The gull ring species is in the process of speciating. Where the two ends of the ring species meet up there is no interbreeding meaning that they are different species. That is macroevolution. The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate. We remain primates.The common ancestor of zebras and humans was a mammal. We remain mammals.The common ancestor of trout and humans was a jawed vertebrate. We remain jawed vertebrates.Are you saying that evolving from those common ancestors is not macroevolution because we are still what those common ancestors were? So says the person passing on lies from creationist sites.

So says the person who decided that he will not listen to anything Russell says because he cheated on his wife. You need to wipe up those crocodile tears.Having a PhD does not make you infallible. You need to deal with the evidence.

That about sums it up, doesn't it? No matter what evidence we present you will stick to your religious dogmas. What is so stunning about intelligent life emerging in a universe capable of producing intelligent life? The Weak Anthropic Principle is just that, weak. Where did you show that anything has been tuned by a deity. Another irony meter explodes.

Sums up that some truth if not revealed to us by God's revelation, we could not find out. In the context of the whole of the Bible, I think that is what it sums up.Dogmas are not necessarily wrong simply because they are dogmas. Former world renown Atheist Anthony Flew decided to change his mind on the belief in design behind the universe.I think God must have some sense of humor. Dr. Flew flew the coup of naturalistic atheism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArUNo, I didn't say he was now an evangelical thiest in case that was next from you. I didn't submit it as proof. I submit as evidence we are on the right track to consider a Creator.I know you can ad infinitum imagine an alternative to Deity.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The Obvious Statement Meter explodes.

If you want to present convincing evidence of "observed" macro evolution to me the gulls were not good enough.Now on "religious dogmas". If there is a God that God is not the God of religion but the God of reality.Like the law of gravity - if it is a law then it is not just so in the physics laboratory. Its a law everywhere.I don't know of a "religious" God. If there is a God then that is not religion's God but reality's God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Nothing that biologists describe as evolution will be good enough evidence for you. There's three reasons for that:1. You require evolution to be magic, turning dogs into horses - or whatever.2. Your entrenched beliefs won't allow you3. saying this reason would get me banned

And yet you aren't pointing to God. You are pointing to the Bible. The problem is that the person who adheres to the dogma will never know if they are wrong. If I find someone who was a christian and became an atheist, would that convince you? How so?

As you have already shown, no evidence is good enough. We have the transitional fossils, and yet you run away from them. If there is a Leprechaun, that Leprechaun is not the Leprechaun of religion, but the Leprechaun of reality.Does that argument convince you that Leprechauns are real? If not, why would you think it is a convincing argument for God?

That seems significant to look into. And I will. On this basis you make macro evolution just about impossible to falsify.
The statements amounts to saying that variety itself in living organisms proves macro evolution took place.A relationship of descent between trouts and humans based on both being jawed vertebrates is not the only interpretation one has to give to that factor.Another interpretation of the data is that there was a common design factors. It works well. And someone wants us to appreciate the sense and logic of re-employing a design that works well.I know you would like to rule that out a priori. But in the search form truth I will not rule that possibility out. Maybe you feel you have to rule that out. Kind of like - "There couldn't be a designing agent because that would violate the seperation of church and state !"But in the search for truth, I feel to include that possibility. If someone passes up a Nobel Prize in Biology for believing that, that is okay with me. If it is true then someone else can get the glory of a Nobel Prize for Biology ruling out intelligent design a priori. More power to them.I'll take the truth, if that is truly what we are seeing there.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Taq,Concering ring species of gulls which would not interbreed,

quote:

---

Transcript

​

Are there some dogs that don't mix? I'm Bob Hirshon and this is Science Update.

​

Perhaps hoping to cross-breed a Chihuahua and a pit bull, Mary Beckman of Idaho Falls, Idaho recently called the Why Is It line.

​

Beckman:
Species are partly defined by the ability to interbreed. With all the dog breeds in the world, are there any two dog breeds that could be considered different species?

​

We asked Gregory Acland, of Cornell University's Center for Canine Genetics and Reproduction. He says you're right to use the term "partly."

​

Acland:
But that rule, even if it was true, isn't a rule that divides species anyway, because there are many species of birds for example, or fish, or lots of organisms, that if you put them in captivity and give them the opportunity to do, they will breed. So that you could cross wolves with dogs. You can certainly cross wolves with coyotes.

​

That said, he's found that there are certain combinations of dogs that don't cross-breed easily: for example, beagles and Irish setters.

​

Acland:
These were dogs with family lines, where they routinely produce big litters, and yet when we tried to breed these fertile beagles to fertile setters, we got no pups at all, despite many attempts to do so, and then eventually, we were able to produce one litter with two pups in it.

​

He says subtle genetic incompatibilities between these breeds may get in the way.

---

From ScienceNetlinks - Science NetLinks | American Association for the Advancement of Science[my bolding]1.) Is the failure to interbreed an absolute characteristic of different species ?2.) What were the reasons the two kinds of gulls in the "ring species" would not interbreed ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you think that Eternal Damnation helps to steer some toward a particular truth?