Evolution Versus Intelligent Design

[mehere]

a between species would be another species? that means theres no evidence of evolution at all. it would have to be an individual in the process of changing species

[Darwins Stepchild]

mehere wrote:

an extinct common answer that hasnt been proven to exist but is stated as fact

I am assuming you meant "ancestor" and not "answer".

That we do not have a fossil of the common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans is true. Given the environment...jungle...that it likely lived in, we probably never will.

However, there is very powerful evidence of that common ancestor in our genes. There are several genetic factors that point directly to common ancestry between our species.

mehere wrote:

a between species would be another species? that means theres no evidence of evolution at all. it would have to be an individual in the process of changing species

This only shows how little most creationist understand the mechanisms of evolution. They have this weird idea of one unchanging species, then "poof" a new species is suddenly born.

BTW, this unrealistic representation of evolution is an example of a "straw man". It is much easier to beat up than the real theory.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

mehere wrote:

an extinct common answer that hasnt been proven to exist but is stated as fact

Is the above supposed to represent something in English?

It really is meaningless....

I suppose it could be a snippet of a larger sentence, but who knows?

No leading capitol letter, no punctuation, not representative of any actual thoughts.

Perhaps the poster wrote that between puffs on the bong...

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

mehere wrote:

a between species would be another species? that means theres no evidence of evolution at all. it would have to be an individual in the process of changing species

No, you've got the notion of "species" all wrong.

The word "species" at best, is a kludge.

It's just a convenience for humans, to aid in sorting out the plethora of living organisms.

For example: if you take a pair of leopard frogs at the top of the Mississippi, who are the same species, they can mate and make baby frogs.

If you take two different frogs, but the SAME SPECIES at the mouth of the Mississippi, they can mate, and make babies.

In fact, as long as your male and female is caught within roughly 100 miles up or down the river, they likely can mate and make babies.

But-- take a male from the top, and a female from the mouth-- they cannot mate. Even if you forced the issue, by taking sperm from the male and eggs from the female, mixing in a jar-- no baby frogs.

Yet-- they are the SAME SPECIES.

Interbreeding happens all up and down the Mississippi among that species. Just don't get too far apart along the river....

In a few million more years, there will likely be AT LEAST TWO species of leopard frogs, with distinct characteristics.

Species is quite fuzzy, in close analysis.

But, it's LIGHT-YEARS ahead of the creationist's term "kind" which is utterly devoid of meaning altogether.

[Divine Alien]

chipfle wrote:

<quoted text>I cannot imagine a greater torment than being confined with idiots like yourself for eternity. Frankly, if American Christians are really God's people, he certainly is not worthy of me.
Humans are apes, by any rational classification scheme.

Do you look like the picture I show you?

[Divine Alien]

StopTheInsanity wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, let's see what you got right or wrong.
1. Right, we did not evolve from apes. But we do share an extinct common ancestor.
2. Right again. We didn't evolve from nothing. We evolved from the earliest form of biological life, which most likely arose, due to the laws of chemistry and physics, from the early earth's conditions.
3. Wrong. Categorically no scientific evidence for ID.
4. Wrong. Lost of transitional fossils and genetic proof of common ancestry. There are no half-fish/half-birds if that is what you mean. An in-between species would simply be....... another species. Only the benefit of looking back would allow you to know it was transitional. Tiktaalik. Google it.
5. Wrong. If there is a god and you chose the wrong one, you are in the same boat as the non-believers.
Looks like 3 wrong and two right but 1 and 2 are really wrong as well as explained so you get an F. Sorry. Back to school

You are right. You need to stop your insanity. You are only smart to explain up to the topic of evolution only. Don't argue further out of stupidity.

[Divine Alien]

Wayne wrote:

WOW! Four apes that can type!

Fantastic. I think they write not much better than the ape next door.

[Divine Alien]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
No, make that six apes that can type...even an ignoramus such as you can type.

Wayne is a smart human who resemble ape but not one.

[Frisbee]

Rick wrote:

I can't believe that intelligent people actually think that we as humans evolved ........

Talking snakes, men that live over 900 years, Men that live in the bellies of whales, the entire surface of the Earth covered in water that appears from nothing and returns to nothing.........These are the things "intelligent" people believe.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Bump. To get this thread to properly update in "replies" box

Software.*sigh*

[water_nymph]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

Bump. To get this thread to properly update in "replies" box
Software.*sigh*

I get that, too.
Been reading this thread, and I am so disappointed that it is exactly what I thought it would be.