"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

I think I've snubbed you before. Don't be so surprised.😜

You have shown complete ignorance of the subject, and refused to engage me in a debate because I exhibit some real knowledge of the subject.You should be banned for that--that's trolling behavior.

Since when? These factors are not ignored. What evidence would convince you? Why don't you find the current evidence convincing?You will also notice that you completely failed to answer the questions in the post you replied to. Here they are again:#1) What do you feel is the best explanation for the fossils that exist?
#2) What would you expect/need to see to be convinced that fossils represent changes over time from one set of features to a different set of features?Why can't you answer these questions? They seem very pertinent to the topic at hand. Instead of us repeating the evidence that convinced us why don't you tell us what type of evidence would convince you? We are trying to be fair by putting the ball in your court. If there is no conceivable evidence that would convince you then now would be the time to fess up.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So in other words, you're just here to vomit baseless ideas into the wind and ignore actual evidence that people present you with. You're a run of the mill creo bible-thumper, nothing new here.

Percy, is this your call? Should I be banned or not? Actually being banned would be a welcome relief. I might do something meaningful with my life.

Doubtful. You're doing anything meaningful here. Not even anything original.

I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but I did send you a PM as Admin early this morning about the way you're conducting yourself in this thread. If you have questions I suggest you respond to the PM.--Percy

I must have missed your ground breaking posts then! 😜

Tu quoque noted. Care to move this discussion along? Answering these questions would really help:#1) What do you feel is the best explanation for the fossils that exist?
#2) What would you expect/need to see to be convinced that fossils represent changes over time from one set of features to a different set of features?

That you missed anything is hardly news or noteworthy.

Percy have a private word with subbie will you. He's not adding to the debate here!

As I said in my previous message, I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but I did send you a PM about the way you're conducting yourself here. If you have any questions, including about why I won't be having "a private word with subbie," then I suggest you respond to the PM. There's only 33 messages left to go in this thread, it's seems a shame to waste so many of them.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix minor mistake.

If you have been asked this question then you need to make an assessment of the questioner before answering.The question might be being asked sincerely from a purely ignorant stance. If this is the case then you have been given copious amounts of information that should sway a rational mind as it really is not that difficult a concept to grasp.Because of the nature of this question I believe that it is most likely that you are being asked this question by a YEC. In which case you are probably also faced with a presuppositionalist, which means that you are wasting your time. I will leave it to you to look up Presuppositional Apologetics for yourself so you will know how to spot it. Their stance is not only self-contradictory it also contradicts the evidence of Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Cosmology etc.

I agree that the question at the head of the thread betrays either a startling ignorance of the evolutionary explanation or is a failed attempt to mock it, so you are probably right to suggest that answering it in greater detail than has already been done will be of little advantage. Your suggestion that YECs are presuppositionalists interests me however. I suspect they are. And that they are not alone. Are you saying that scientists in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, geology and cosmology have found some epistemic foundation which involves no presuppositions? I don’t say that the philosophy of a scientist invalidates her research, but I doubt the intimation that scientific research is carried out in an unproved-assumption-free environment, or that scientists are able to keep their presuppositions from affecting all the conclusions that are reached. And no, I am not a YEC; I just think the philosophy of science is often overlooked, and scientists are not always willing to own their own presuppositions. And no, I am not a YEC.Here is a non-sequiter that I’ll toss up for grabs — since humans share much more genetic code with chimps than with dogs, how come dogs are so much better at reading and responding to our facial expression, our moods, and even our gestures? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add a blank line between paragraphs.

Are you distinguishing between actual presuppositions that have no basis in evidence and apparent presuppositions which are actually the conclusions reached by a couple centuries or more of observation and experimentation that form the fundamental bases of those sciences? Because chimpanzees are not domesticate whereas dogs are domesticated and we've bred those traits into them. For example, how well do wolves do in reading and responding to humans?On a science show (on the Science Channel, I seem to recall), just such an experiment had been conducted at a university in Finland. The humans were given puppies to raise, mainly as the control and also to train the humans in raising a dog. Then the humans were given wolf cubs to raise. Even though they treated them the same and raised them the same, the wolf cubs did not at all respond like the domesticated dogs did, usually ignoring the humans as they'd try to get them to mind (eg, to not jump up onto the table to get at whatever was there). In one exercise, a treat was hidden under one of two bowls and the human was to, without moving her head, direct her eyes to the bowl with the treat. The dogs followed her eyes and went right to the treat, whereas the wolves took no notice of her and so could not follow her cue.The same show looked at an experiment in Russia on domesticating silver foxes through selective breeding. I forget how many generations it took to produce a silver fox who was not only docile, but also sought affection from and interaction with people, but it was less than 30 generations. They also bred a hyper-hostile breed of silver fox.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.