see my post #17. refute that.
Congratulations, you've actually produced some sort of a halfway rational statement which might could be construed as supporting ape/hominid/human evolution if nobody ever took any sort of a harder look. Evolutionists on FR only get that far about once or twice every three or four years.
There are three possible explanations for how modern man got to this planet and macroevolution is not one of them. The three are these: Modern man was
1. Created here from scratch recently
2. Brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos
3. Genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids.
What the harder look would indicate in this case is that you might want to put your money on item 3. It would not altogether rule out items one or two.
Here's the basic problem: In order to be descended from something via any sort of process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.
Now, it was always a big mystery as to why there was never any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals despite evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods of time; one fairly good description of the problem was published in Discover Magazine around 96.
And then, in the late 90s, they resolved the mystery by analyzing neanderthal DNA; the result they turned up was that neanderthal dna was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee and pretty much everybody involved in these studies views that as altogether eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Even standard sources like PLOS Biology agree with this assessment.
Again as I noted, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. In other words, if you wanted to go on thinking that we are descended from hominids, you would have to produce some new hominid closer to us both in time and morphology THAN the neanderthal and the works and remains of such a creature would be all over the map and exceedingly easy to find, had he ever existed. There is, of course, zero evidence of it.
The basic bottom line is that there is nothing on this planet which we could plausibly be descended from via any process resembling evolution.
Your Post #17 is not a test.
It is an examination of something that exists today and trying to figure out what happened in the past.
You want absurdity?
Hemoglobin is made up of 287 Amino Acids that must be in sequence. There are 20 Amino Acids used in building life. The odds of Hemoglobin randomly assembling (randomly.... no intelligence) is 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20, etc. The odds of getting hemoglobin end up being 1 X 2.5^373.... I’m sure you know that there are 373 zeros in that number. Just as a point of reference, Science estimates that the number of atoms in the known universe is 10^80.
Hemoglobin is one protein. Science argues about the number of proteins in the human body but on the low side of the estimates it is claimed to be 10,000. Hemoglobin is only one of those. What you saw above has to occur at least 9,999 more times.
While I’m thinking of it, here’s a few more questions for you:
1. How exactly did we get from organisms that reproduce asexually to those that produce sexually.....and then to just happen to have two different sets of plumbing evolve all at the same time to make it possible?
2. Which came first, blood or veins....or arteries.... or the heart? If the heart came first what did it pump? If the veins came first, how did the blood know (when it came along) that it was supposed to go inside the veins? Wait, it had to go through the heart first....how does it know that? Did the blood already have coagulating properties? How did it know not to coagulate while still inside the body?
3. Wendy referred to fruit flies in one of her posts. Everything I’ve ever read about these experiments is that no matter how many they radiate and no matter how many generations they go they wind up with one of three things: fruit flies, damaged fruit flies and dead fruit flies. Do you have an explanation for that?
4. We are told by science that macroevolution occurs via Natural Selection and Mutations. By definition, Natural Selection can only select out traits that already exist and there has never been a mutation that has ever been observed that increased genetic information....all have been information-neutral or lost information.
For evolution to be true then, since there hasn’t been a mechanism found that increases genetic information, I can logically infer that every trait of every living organism, bacteria, plant, animal or human had to have been in that first gene that popped out of the primordial mud puddle 4.5 Billion (or whatever number they are using now) years ago. What do you think the odds are of that?
I’ll close by saying something that I said in an earlier post. An epithet is not an argument. If you can’t make your point respectfully without insulting someone I can only assume that you are incapable of it.