Replies

I just don't think humans evolved from something else. And since there is such debate over which ones were apes and which were humans, I will go under the assumption that apes were and are apes and humans were and are humans. Closely related just as many species are closely related. I'm still learning what different scientists think so I am not sure when I will have enough information that I actually will feel assured of what I believe. I am trying to keep an open mind, but I am looking at things as if we were created separately so I will be looking for interpretations to confirm what I believe. It may not be "scientific", but that's my viewpoint.

You emphasize the disagreement among creationists but there are also many disagreement among scientists so that doesn't worry me. What worries me is how many actual "experts" there are that are truly qualified to make determinations that so many others are going to give great weight to, if you understand what I'm trying to say. If there are thousands of scientists checking fossils, doing the aging, categorizing species, etc., then that's good. If it's basically a hundred or so, then I would question more. And who decides if something is a new species. I have really tried to find out but I haven't been able to. I found the organization that handles the names but they don't make the decisions of species.

I just still have a lot of questions.

I just don't think humans evolved from something else.

Feel free, but there are absolutely massive amounts of evidence which indicates that you're wrong.

And since there is such debate over which ones were apes and which were humans, I will go under the assumption that apes were and are apes and humans were and are humans.

See above. You're also overlooking the fact that humans are *still* apes (and still primates, still eutherians, still mammals, still synapsids, still tetrapods, still vertebrates, still chordates, still eukaryotes, etc.)

If "humans are humans" in some way distinct from "apes are apes", please explain why we have every diagnostic characteristic of the ape taxon?

Note, by the way, that you're mixing levels of grouping in your sentence. Let's rework it slightly this way to help you spot the problem:

I will go under the assumption that dogs were and are dogs and dachshunds were and are dachshunds.

Note that there are two problems with this: a) it implies that the author thinks that dachshunds are *not* dogs, and b) it overlooks the fact that dachshunds were *not* always dachshunds, they were derived from earlier lineages of dogs which were not themselves dachshunds. As it is with "dogs/dachshunds", so it is with "apes/humans".

Closely related just as many species are closely related.

"Related" has no meaning under a "separate creation" scenario, which you indicate you believe.

I'm still learning what different scientists think so I am not sure when I will have enough information that I actually will feel assured of what I believe. I am trying to keep an open mind, but I am looking at things as if we were created separately so I will be looking for interpretations to confirm what I believe.

Then you don't have an open mind.

Anyone can search for "interpretations" (or evidence) "to confirm what you believe". People who believe the Earth is flat can find interpretations and evidence to support their belief. That's the easy part. The hard part is how honestly you deal with evidence that *contradicts* your beliefs, how honestly you *test* your beliefs against the evidence, and how honestly you consider whether other interpretations fit the evidence far better than your current belief.

It may not be "scientific", but that's my viewpoint.

Well, you have plenty of company.

You emphasize the disagreement among creationists but there are also many disagreement among scientists so that doesn't worry me.

It should, because that *kind* of disagreement among creationists indicates that their presumptions are wrong.

What worries me is how many actual "experts" there are that are truly qualified to make determinations that so many others are going to give great weight to, if you understand what I'm trying to say. If there are thousands of scientists checking fossils, doing the aging, categorizing species, etc., then that's good.

There are tens of thousands, at least, more likely hundreds of thousands.

If it's basically a hundred or so, then I would question more.

If that were the case, I might too, but it's not. In any case, science is an "open source" project -- you're entirely welcome to examine the evidence yourself and doublecheck their results.

And who decides if something is a new species. I have really tried to find out but I haven't been able to. I found the organization that handles the names but they don't make the decisions of species.

There's no "committee" for it, that's for sure. Like a lot of things in science, it's done by overall consensus -- someone finding a new species (or a new fossil specimen they believe represents a novel species) publishes the information about their find and (optionally) names it. If it's clearly something new, the announcement is quickly accepted without fuss. On the other hand, if most other scientists in the field disagree, they'll pretty much ignore the announcement, publish the reasons for their disagreement and which existing species they feel it should be included in, and subsequently refer to it by the "old" name (usually with a footnote about how the original discoverer disagrees).