Agreed, especially with grade-school children.
But we do expect better reading comprehension from grownups, i.e., to grasp significance of even an outdated chart like this:
Posted on 03/01/2016 9:23:45 AM PST by fishtank
Chinese Femur Refutes Human Evolution
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation
Textbooks around the world contain the well-known illustration of walking apes transitioning into a modern human. I recently heard a college student, raised in a Christian home, say these pictures convinced her of evolution. She probably represents countless others swayed by this simplistic icon. But those willing to question the concept that man descended from apes can welcome the recent study of a discovery from China. It adds to the list of important finds that refute human evolution and its illustrations.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Nice try! The legalistic lawyers loophole defense.
Evolutionists have always tried to give the strong impression that the diagram was true or close enough to being true to not matter. As far as the layman is concerned let them believe it is true but if the evolutionist gets called out on its falsehood.... go for the pedantic legalistic BS defense.
The illustration fits the narrative that we are animals. That feeds the sex industry. The center of which is the multi billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.
Thanks fishtank. The idea that the most “simple” single-celled organism could’ve formed itself from its constituent chemicals is beyond laughable. And the only way to achieve macroevolution, genetic mutation, has only been shown to reduce information or make the organism no longer viable. And throughout all these mutations, dogs are still in the dog family, cats are still in the cat family, etc. Thousands of generations of mutations have been imposed on fruitflies. The mutations make some of them pretty weird, but they’re still fruitflies.
It’s curious, in general I agree. That said, there’s a huge difference between micro and macro evolution, while you can see micro evolution happen, macro evolution is a different game. Most genetic mutations are bad and our reproductive system is corrective. So how do the “good” mutations get carried forward and not the bad ones? Surely having four arms would be useful, so why didn’t we evolve to have them? Why not more eyes, some being in the back of the head? Then there’s the “irreducibly complex cell” problem.
The fact that the next species down (Orangutang?) is a massive intellectual drop, I’d like to know why there’s nothing in between us and them. I don’t think we’re any smarter today than before (you could argue less), just more technically knowledgeable.
I do think we’ll, one day, discover how things happened - and it’ll be more amazing than anything we’ve guessed to date.
In my view, God is the creator, and evolution is a mechanism for change that He designed. We didn’t evolve from apes, but are different species completely. We have some similarities, but we also have some unique genes and chromosomes that are not shared with any other species. Every species has their own unique set that aren’t shared, and aren’t just mutations.
They aren’t relatives to us.
A very poor analogy in that Americans and Europeans are both humans.
Humans and apes have not shared any common ancestry.
If we share a common ancestry from apes, it means there has to ultimately be a starting point per evolution. This usually is tied to a very, very low lifeform like an amoeba or something along those lines from which we've "evolved".
This is only partially true. People proporting to be evolutionists say this quite often. They say we are direct descendants of Neanderthal also.
There has been no evolutionary process involving mankind. We have not "changed" from one form to another.
Heh.
No. Why would I?
Since no photographs of Adam have surfaced, his physical appearance is indeterminate.
Agreed, especially with grade-school children.
But we do expect better reading comprehension from grownups, i.e., to grasp significance of even an outdated chart like this:
If most Americans descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans?
the pinnacle of human evolution is Kris Kristofferson
“go for the pedantic legalistic BS defense.” This article is pedantic and legalistic. The article believes that once the first man was created/evolved then that which he descended from ceased to exist. Of course, both lines would co-exist for a period of time.
That’s true, and I’m not sure Ron Perlman fits in that graphic.
Besides Neaderthals were bigger than us. That’s probably where Ron fits.
Well? Do you deny that?
Pakicetus.
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.