Posted on 09/18/2007 8:47:54 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I’m just wondering which of the branches were specified.
Argumentum ad nauseam is not particularly effective.
In the book “The Beak of the Finch”, one species of bird was believed to have evolved from another (I think a small beaked bird gave rise to a species with a larger beak, better able to handle a certain hard seed). Both species coexist, and the numbers of the different birds fluctuates back and forth. They can interbreed, yielding a range of offspring with varying beak size.
Why does the possibility of two different human species on Earth at the same time disprove “evolution”?
Interesting.
Waiting for the (somewhat off-topic) fireworks to start!
lol!
Somewhere buried in this article, there must be information about where these scientists converted to ID/Creationsts, somewhere.
Well that's convenient. Posit that there must be an ancestor, but make it clear that it's going to be hard to find.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals. Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Reminds me of a dike that's springing leaks all over the place. Evolutionists keep trying to plug them up but they keep running out of fingers.
“The evolutionists like the antiwar crowd and the global warming nuts wont let a little thing like facts get in the way of their religion.”
Exactly! These fools will do whatever they have to, including believing in something like evolution which there are no FACTS for to avoid facing real truth of the Bible, because the evolution religion doesn’t have morals. Gays, lesbians and other deviants are what keep this junk in our schools.
It doesn’t “disprove evolution”, and that’s NOT what they’re saying. They’re saying it disproves a certain theory within evolution - that of man’s descent.
But generally you’re correct; I don’t know why 2 species coexisting means that 1 could not possibly have originated from the other.
I’m just wondering which of the branches were specified.
I wouldn’t say that. Many, many evolutionists are conservative from what I see. Which largely makes sense, because if you think scientists are “thinkers” rather than “emoters”, conservatives tend to go more on thinking than mindless emoting.
“How can America evolve from England and there still be English walking around at the same time? It’s amazing to ponder how dumb evolution deniers can get.”
I don’t think it’s dumb.
We don’t believe that Americans “naturally selected” themselves out of England to improve their chances of physical survival. We don’t believe any physical changes occurred. That’s like gazelles moving from one plain to another for better grass. It’s not evolution.
Englishmen and Americans are the same species! To suggest otherwise is sort of dumb, if you ask me.
If you believe, for instance, that lizards evolved from fish because to continue to be a fish was tenuous - the water was getting too hot, or the food supply was running out, or what have you - then of course you would wonder, why are there still fish in countless varieties and huge abundance all over the world? Obviously there was no huge overwhelming “need” to develop air breathing lungs, etc.
Want to really watch their head explode? Ask them why we have a fossil record for plants and animals that existed only hundreds of millions of years ago, before the presence of man, and how that fits into a 6,000 year timeline...
They'll accept fossils when they think it can "disprove evolution" like here, but what about when it challenges the supposed timeline of the Bible?
This is an implausible statement even with "probably" as a qualifier. Wildebeast and lion each has its own "ecological nich," yet certainly interact.
Why are you connecting this find and theory with “evolution-deniers”?
These people are CLEARLY NOT evolution deniers.
Bad tie-in.
Why did you have to do that?
LOL!!
Huh? How do they interact, besides “chasing and killing”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.