"Best" evidence for evolution.

Which is only because you assume evolution from one to the other. Which means you don't have to try to explain how it happened genetically, you just "know" from the fossil record that it did. Which I believe is the fallacy called Begging the Question. As a result, of course, you will never have to face the fact that genetically it is impossible.

You say this as if it seems obvious to you that such a mechanism must exist, but as you describe all these processes I get the opposite impression: that why and how the same basic chemistry produces such different animals as you say it does remains a huge mystery. If the processes themselves determined the particular structure or phenotypic expression then these would not be different for different species and yet they are VERY different.If, say, a certain gene or gene complex or whatever in chimps makes a particular protein that contributes to the hand-like feet of the chimp, while the same or analogous gene with the same protein product makes the human foot, then it's not about the basic chemistry in DNA, it's about something else that you haven't yet defined.I don't know what all the relevant comparisons and analogies are, but if the same basic chemistry makes a hoof in a horse but a flipper in a dolphin, how do you account for the difference?And all this makes it even more unlikely that you could ever get the evolution of say a mammal from a reptile by any known genetic processes, or normal genetic processes or whatever the terminology should be. The very fact that the same basic chemistry makes such very different structures makes evolution impossible.

Well, the genetic stuff that makes the chimp foot will ALWAYS make a chimp foot and NEVER a human foot, right? So although there are so many similarities you can refer to, in actual fact you are NEVER going to get a human foot from the chemistry that makes a chimp foot in a chimp genome. So although it seems the changes needed to get from the one to the other are very small, as a matter of simple fact they never occur and what it would take to cause them to occur seems to be beyond anyone's ability to imagine and spell out. And as usual you have to find a pathway for hundreds or thousands of other equally small-seeming changes to occur to get the whole human out of the whole chimp. It SEEMS so simple because the changes SEEM so small, but I don't even see you trying to imagine it.(Just as a mental exercise, what sort of mutations would have to occur to move that thumb-like toe of the chimp into the position we find the big toe in the human foot? Is there anything in the chimp genome that ever produces that variation, or are we having to imagine mutations bringing about the changes in position? This is where the "trial and error" comes in that I keep saying has to happen when you don't have the built in variations. You have to get certain kinds of mutations in a certain sequence to make the changes and mutations being random and most often producing something neutral or utterly useless, I don't see how you are ever going to get to the human toe at all: i.e. it's impossible even though in this case it looks like such a very simple matter of making a very simple small set of changes (as opposed to the case of getting from a reptilian to a mammalian ear design)I get your objection to my view of trilobite variation but I'm not going to try to spell that out here. Well, no, I'll just say that if you can get Great Danes and chihuahuas and golden retrievers and dachshunds out of the same Dog Genome that's how I figure you get the different variations of the trilobite because it's all nothing but a rearrangement of exactly the same parts. The chimp versus the human foot are not just a matter of rearranging the exact same parts even though it looks like such a simple matter of such simple tiny changes. But I'll have to try to get into this issue later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh good. I wasn't sure of that/ OK, but the thing is you have to have the necessary mutations occur in the right sequence at the right time don't you, and that's what I think has to be impossible, especially since the whole body would have to be changing at the same time also with mutations in the right sequence and the right timing. You aren't going to get, say, half a human foot and nothing else, you're going to get a whole human foot and get it WHEN you get all the other human body parts, all at the same time.I want to get into more of what you wrote but have to stop for now.

Exact same parts: no, the digits are shaped differently and the DNA is only going to make that shape digit it's designed to make: chimp genome, chimp digits. Yes the chimp and human have the same number of digits but if mutations manage to move the "thumb" of the chimp to the position of the human big toe (which seems impossible to me because mutations aren't that organized) it's not going to look like a human big toe becauase it's not the right shape. It's a different digit and the DNA knows the difference.

No I didn't have the differences exactly in mind, just a general idea about them. I think it may come down to a matter of proportions mostly although even that can vary somewhat within a species genome, as the heavy jaws of the Mrcaru lizards demonstrates. But the trilobite spines all look EXACTLY alike despite being arranged in different positions. Some are missing in some varieties but otherwise they seem to be the same organ in every example I've seen. The pug and bulldog faces seem to fit with their general body proportions -- the long face of the greyhound goes with its long body. Also the Dachshund. etc.All that seems to me to be derivable from the same genome. POSSIBLY a mutation might have happened in the case of the flattened dog faces but I'm not sure that's even necessary.But the chimp body despite its basic structure reminding us of human beings, is proportionally completely different, as well as having completely different specific parts like the shapes of its fingers and toes, also soles and palms, position of "thumb" etc. Sure I'm guessing about all this but I'm reasoning about it too: it does seem to me that you couldn't get the human body AND the chimp body from the same genome, although you COULD get all the trilobites from the same genome and all the dogs, pugs and collies and all from their same genome.So to get a human from an ape body would require mutations galore and that's what requires trial and error, which I believe to be impossible because of the huge number of changes that would have to occur.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In the trilobite the spines determine the shape to a great degree.Yes the caecal valve in the lizards is interesting because it adapts the gut to the tougher foods the larger jaws can handle. Remember both these adaptations occurred within thirty years, and they are obviously interdependent. I'd say it must have something to do with design factors determined at the DNA level that work together somehow although that is a pretty mysterious possibility in itself. Otherwise you have to imagine the separate appearance of the caecal valve and the jaws in stages, which I believe is the usual evolutionary understanding, and thirty years doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough for that, and since that gets into the trial and error I've been mentioning, again I think it's simply impossible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"An environmental response?" Sounds rather Lamarckian though I guess all you mean is that a slight adaptation along those lines had survival value so it kept being selected. But that's pretty much what I said myself. it has to appeare in the first place though, that's the hard part to account for.

Various ways a chimp foot COULD change into a human foot. But it doesn't happen, right? If it did it would be a deleterious change. Chimps need chimp feet, not human feet. And that's another expression of the problem with the whole evolution scenario I'm trying to pin down. There is no set of mutations that would get you a viable transition, you'd get useless body part changes, deformities. Yes it sure LOOKS LIKE there's so much similarity that getting from the one to the other should be a pretty simple matter. But really, you need changes in a particular direction that just aren't going to happen on the random scheme mutations occur, and you need bazillions of them, changes in the position of the bones, changes in the shapes of the bones, changes in the leg bones and muscles, changes in the way the foot ambulates, connects with the ground -- cuz those soles do not look like human soles -- and that's just the feet. The whole body has to get changed by these totally unreliable unpredictable mutations, and all in a way that changes one body whose parts articulate together so nicely, into a different body whose different parts articular together nicely in a completely different way.You certainly don't need a human foot until you have a human body with the ambulatory needs of a human body and that means you need changes throughout the entire body design to occur ina particular order in a particular time frame.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet.

I can try to be more specific to deal with your debunkery but it gets tiresome. It's hard to use words as precisely as you are requiring of me.

After some time to think about it I think I was having a problem with your emphasis on "shapes" as if I'd used that word in that general a way. That's what I meant about having aproblem with the words. I don't remember exactly unfortunately but I don't think I used the word "shape" in the way it would apply to the trilobite pygidia but since you took it that way I got confused. I remember referring to the shape of the toes or fingers or thumb of the chimp hand or foot as being a problem for evolution from chimp to human, the idea being it isn't just the fact that the basic bone arrangements are similar that has to be taken into account in thinking about evolution, but that the shape of the flesh itself is so different it would require a lot of mutations to make the change.The only other time I might have used the word "shape" might have been to describe the typical trilobite shape, the oval disc like shape, but I don't remember for sure.In any case the many different shapes of the pygidia in your illustration could all be produced by the same genome it seems to me since it's just a matter in that case of different combinations of genes bringing them about and it's all a sort of clumping of the spines at that point.Same of course with the dog skulls, which we KNOW all come from the dog genome. Same cause in different genetic combinations. Such changes are brought about within a species genome by reproductive isolation of a new set of gene frequencies. That brings out new genetic combinations and new phenotypes.But the genetic stuff has to already be there for such new combinations to occur. And when it comes to chimps I don't see that the genetic stuff for anything human is already there. yes the basic bone structure is similar but the proportions of the body are completely different and the fleshly parts are very different. The chimp foot is too different from the human foot for it ever evolve into that kind of foot. And the only way it COULD ever do that is by multiple mutations, trial and error, as I keep arguing.That is how I've been thinking about all this anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I mean the SHAPE of the flesh is different. They are all trilobites, all with the same basic parts to them. I'm a creationist, I don't divide anything into separate species if its got all the same basic parts to it. Goats are not horses, they don't have the same basic parts. Four legs isn't what I'm talking about. What makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them two separate species. Yes I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of creatures you don't think fit my definition and I'm sure I can say which are species and which aren't because I think it's obvious. arring a very occasional one that's hard to identify. All I'm doing is trying to see things from the creationist point of view.

I know, it's all about how portions of populations have different sets of gene frequencies. It's hard to sort all this out of course, but although there isn't a simple "dog genome" I'd guess you won't find a dog's genome that looks like a duck's or a cat's. No argument. Of course. I know mutations make changes. What I claim is that there could never be enough of them making enough of the right kind of changes in the right places to change one species into another. All the mutations you say you can identify that would be needed to change an ape into a human being couldn't happen in any kind of numbers or patterns to accomplish that feat. Yes. Luckily some that the creature can live with. OKEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's why I brought up goats and horses as two separate species. What makes a goat clearly a goat.... Same as "what makes a chimp clearly a chimp..." You look at the similarities in the basic body design, but the goat and the horse are even more similar to each other in that way and yet different in the ways they are different. Yes it's hard to get this said. Remove all the chimp's hair/fur, give it human type skin, and it will still be a chimp and not a human being. No, what I mean by having all the same basic parts does not put a chimp and a human in the same category, same as it does not put goats and horses in the same category. I wish I COULD say this as clearly I would like to. I've pointed to various differences to try to make the point but I need an overall way of saying it I don't have except for "what makes a chimp a chimp and not a human..."