Replies

Now here is your misconception: there is no such thing as "fully human" or "fully ape". There is no guarantee that we (or they) will remain what we consider at the moment to be "fully human" resp. "fully ape".

This is a hypothesis of how things are and is not backed up in fact. You can point to certain similarities, but that does not make this hypothesis correct. I, by the way, am fully human and I don't care if the world lasted 500 zillion years more, any offspring I have will also be fully human.

Somehow you seem to think that there is a predetermined goal towards which a population must evolve.
No I don't. I don't believe in evolution first off, and secondly I'm just addressing the evolution that evolutionists claim has already occurred. From soup to you plus chance and millions of millions and millions of years.

You can imagine such a population as a cloud that moves in a certain direction (determined by external influences).
This is getting scary. Could it be possible that the external influence might be called "God" and He created this population? Huh?

Within this "cloud" every individual is compatible with the rest so every male and female can have offspring.

Now at some point this "cloud" splits up and the two halves drift apart. But the more they depart from each other the harder it is for an indivdual from one "cloud" to produce offspring with an other individual from the other "cloud". Of course within each "cloud" males and females are still able to have viable and fertile offspring together.

A good example of two such "clouds" that have separated only recently are donkeys and horses: they can produce viable but infertile offspring.

An other example where these the two "clouds" moved even further appart is the camel and the llama: here you have to use artificial insemination to get any offspring.

First, I never denied that donkeys and horses probably had the same ancestors. If you had a donkey mate with a jackrabbit then you'd have something.
Second, donkeys are essentially a different kind of horse. Llamas and camels are also of the same family and the differences in each are clear examples of micro evolution or variation within species. They aren't examples of macro evolution. Remember, species is an artificial term designated by men to describe different types of animals. KIND is the biblical term and it is the boundary that cannot be transgressed. You may plant an ape embryo in a human someday and through medical manipulation allow that human to carry the ape, but the ape will be born exactly that, an ape. It isn't going to happen naturally. Some species may have been rendered infertile. That indicates genetic damage but not completely new information.

Llamas and camels are also of the same family and the differences in each are clear examples of micro evolution or variation within species. They aren't examples of macro evolution. Remember, species is an artificial term designated by men to describe different types of animals

Llamas and camels are of the same family, why not chimps and humans?

Remember, species is an artificial term designated by men to describe different types of animals.

If you put a herd of 100 stallions and 100 female donkeys on an island, and came back in 100 years, there wouldn't be any equidae at all there. Sounds like different speicies to me, by any reasonable definition.

You acknowledge they have a common ancestor. But now they can't produce fertile offspring.

If they're really the same 'kind', what did Noah save? Donkeys, horses, zebras, what? If they're different 'kinds', how can they have a common ancestor?