Replies

" The Creator made the species, not evolution."

Unsubstantiated assertion.

No, it is truth. Granted, the tools of science do not substantiate it, but then they could not substantiate the existence of X-rays until Rotengen in 1895. However, X-rays did exist before 1895.

Science refusing to recognize the techniques used to learn the truth of the Creator does not disprove Him.

"Man has always been man; apes have always been apes."

We ARE apes.

If we are apes, we are also plants. Man also shares about 50% of their DNA with bananas.

And fossil genetic fragments called ERV's demonstrate the common ancestor we share with other apes.

...and our common banana ancestor too, no doubt.

Speciation has been observed. What has NEVER been shown is the genetic stop sign that creationists claim exists that would prevent a population from continuing to diverge from the parent species.

Nobody has found a problem with raising successive generations of a plant that becomes an animal? Really? I want to see that one.

I'll admit, I have used the term "species" a bit too loosely. Where the devision is between a species, a phylum, an order, etc. are all mortal constructs. I have no problem with speciation. A dingo and a wolf could evolve from a parent species, and I would have no problem with that. There are a huge variety of dog breeds which show the differences that can occur.

What I'm looking for is the big stuff. I want to see the transition from fish to bird. I want to see the evidence, which should be abundant, of species transitioning from plant to animal. If this kind of gradual change has happened, why isn't it happening now? Why aren't there oodles of "in-between" creatures?

Where is the fish-bird? If there was an evolution from ape to man, where is the transitional species? By definition, it would have to be more fit for survival than the ape, and so should be abundant.

"No, it is truth. Granted, the tools of science do not substantiate it, but then they could not substantiate the existence of X-rays until Rotengen in 1895. However, X-rays did exist before 1895."

God may exist, but there are no means of scientifically testing that claim. Not so when the affects of X-rays were discovered.

" Science refusing to recognize the techniques used to learn the truth of the Creator does not disprove Him."

It's not about *disproving* God; it's simply a matter of fact that science is not capable of making a claim about the existence of an unobservable, untestable subject.

" If we are apes, we are also plants. Man also shares about 50% of their DNA with bananas."

Ah, no. It's not just the genetics; it's basic taxonomic relationships. We share an ancestor with plants, but we did not descend from them.

" ...and our common banana ancestor too, no doubt."

No. Again, your ignorance is showing. If you want to make a joke, it helps to know what the hell you are talking about.

"Nobody has found a problem with raising successive generations of a plant that becomes an animal? Really? I want to see that one"

See above.

"I'll admit, I have used the term "species" a bit too loosely. Where the devision is between a species, a phylum, an order, etc. are all mortal constructs."

Species is a real, biological reality. Defining species can get messy, but that does not make it a human construct.

" What I'm looking for is the big stuff. I want to see the transition from fish to bird."

In one jump?

"I want to see the evidence, which should be abundant, of species transitioning from plant to animal."

But that's not how it happened. Plants are not the ancestors of animals.

" Where is the fish-bird?"

In the minds of ignorant creationists.

"If there was an evolution from ape to man, where is the transitional species? "

Dead.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

"By definition, it would have to be more fit for survival than the ape, and so should be abundant."

Only by YOUR definition, not science's. Evolution isn't stepwise ascent from less to more fit. We are no more *fit* than bacteria; in fact, microorganisms in general could very easily be claimed as the dominant life forms on earth. Creationists have no humility.

A dingo and a wolf could evolve from a parent species, and I would have no problem with that. There are a huge variety of dog breeds which show the differences that can occur.

Are you saying that only canines evolve?

What about cats?

Birds?

Apes?

Reptiles?

Fish?