"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?" George J. Romanes, 1882
Find me an engineer who doesn't recycle old code for new designs. You can't.
Find me an engineer whose designs fall into a nested hierarchy.
Also, engineers recycle old designs and old code because of time and resource constraints. An omniscient and omnipotent supernatural deity who resides outside of time with access to infinite resources would not need to recycle designs. For such an entity starting from scratch would require the same effort as recycling old designs.
But he said they would be numerous in all stratas.
Perhaps you forgot that Chapter 9 of "Origin of Species" is entitled "On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record". Darwin goes to lengths to explain why we do not see numerous transitional fossils and why the geologic record is missing strata throughout.
So if they are correct there should be millions of fossils of extinct life forms found in the many different layers that it takes to cover the life forms that produced our oil, coal, and natural gas to the depth of 5 miles.
You are making the assumption that everything that lived also turned into a fossil that is preserved to this day and is accessible to scientists. This is a very, very poor assumption.
You still have not shed light on how creationism explains the morphological trends in the hominid transitional fossils. As we go through time modern human features become more pronounced while more primitive ape features become less pronounced. These are the undeniable facts. How does creationism explain this?
If only .01% were preserved there would be over 2 million and that is using the low end number of existing species to base the caculations on. If we used the high end numbers there would be over 50 million different species represented at the .01%.
What if only 10% of those fossils escaped erosion and subduction? What if only 1% of those 10% are accessible to scientists in strata that are easily searched? What if scientists have only searched 0.0000001% of the strata that is accessible to them that carries these fossils?
Added by edit:
At one time the passenger pigeon population in North America numbered in the billions yet only a handful of passenger pigeon fossils are known. If a numerous and recent species only has a handful of fossil examples what does this say about more ancient and less numerous species.
Do you think there are any people who look like this?
One of the key differences between these two species (H. habilis and H. erectus respectively) and modern humans is the protruding jaw, large brow ridges, and sloping forehead. For H. habilis and H. erectus try and figure out how they could wear a baseball cap. They lack the forehead for it.
Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can.
How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?
I am different from both my parents, so does that qualify me as a different critter?
On the other hand I am supposed to believe that in the last 3 or 4 million years apes, chimps, and humans have evolved from a single life form.
Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right?
The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period.
330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species?
This statement says that all those little microevolution events reaching back to a common ancestor has not been validated or invalidated yet.
A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated:
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)." http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long
Humans and chimps share thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in their genomes. Therefore, common ancestry between humans and chimps has been validated. Add to that the fossil hominids being discussed in this thread.
All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera.
Humans and chimps are classified as the same critter, an ape. Humans and bears are classified as the same critter, a mammal. Humans and fish are classified as the same critter, a vertebrate. Humans and amoeba are classified as the same critter, a eukaryote.
So is this the extent of your criteria, the ability to describe two species with the same word?
So says Taq.
The article you refferenced makes no such claim.
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)." http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long
The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry.
And I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?