Quote:

You propose that Lions and tigers are the same species? I hardly think so. Every lion I've talked with says he is definitely not the same species as a tiger!



Of course, the depends on which of the 5 or so definitions of species you use, but since they can mate and produce fertile (which isn't necessary, but it helps this case) very fit offspring, that makes them the same species. There's no two ways around that. In nature, they wouldn't mate because they're 'enemies' and would be more likely to kill one another, but it happened in a zoo. You can try all you want to confuse the facts on this one, but its a waste of time.

Quote:

In fact what you've done is tacitly accepted evolution, because breeding experiments are in fact a version of forced evolution, with natural selection being replaced by human selection.



Again, the confusion that no matter what the change is, its an evolution-scale change. That's not true. If you want to convince me that germs became man, you have to do more that just show any kind of change at all. You have to show me how these germs could have accidentally written a gigantic library's worth of genetic information.

If we combine the genes for tigers and lions, we get a liger. However, that isn't evolution. Nothing new is being written, we've just combined already written DNA.

Its no wonder you find it easy to believe evolution, you don't even know what it is.

Quote:

Dogs for instance may still be one species, but if given many centuraies of continued breding, there is no doubt that they would speciate.



Even more confusion that speciation is evolution in action. Breeding barriers can pop up that allow animals, that are the same animal just less genetically variant, to stop being able to interbreed. They did it with flies, but what they didn't do while speciating those flies is create anything more complex than the original fly. Sometimes, if you breed certain characteristics like behavior or visual patterns you'll create a different species. Ok, but now either branch of the original species is just less variant than the original species they were branched from. You didn't have a fly grow gills when it speciated. Animals can change, even speciate, this is just a natural consequence. I'm not seeing how this explains germs-to-humans.

Quote:

Homo Erectus is clearly not the same species as Homo Sapiens, there are too many morphological differences.



The same differences that we saw in past humans, and even some in modern humans? Humans that in fact are still humans and not non-humans like Homo erectus supposedly is?

Quote:

there is a great deal of evidence showing that as homonins evolved into modern humans, brain size increased in a clear curve upward.



They found a bunch of different ape skulls (some extinct, others of still living animals) and slapped dates on them based on their assumed age to line them up in a fashion that would prove evolution. This makes sense to an evolutionist because evolution is true, but if you can only find proof of evolution by assuming its true in the first place then I really am far from impressed.

Quote:

there are other cases that cant possibly be Homo Sapiens: what about Homo Habilis? Or H. Ergaster, H.Heidelbergensis?



I don't know, I'd have to research them further, which I'm not going to do anytime within the next few days. Right now, I'm studying up on genetics, which is more important than assuming that ape skulls are the precursor to humans.

Quote:

All hominins must either be H. Sapiens, or entirely unrelated species.



This is only 'untenable' from the perspective that evolution must be true.

Quote:

The earliest stone tools are several million years old



Sounds kind of strange to me, since the earth isn't millions of years old.

Quote:

The eye evolved in several steps.



I can believe that if you tell me how its possible. This is going to get us right back into the mutations debate, so I think we should stay there until we can conclude that one, but right now I'm doing a lot of research into genetics so that we can actually have a real discussion. So just give me a bit of time.

By the way, the more I find out the exact details for the condition and nature of life, and of genetics, the harder it is to believe that everything wasn't designed. Its absolutely amazing. And the idea of a lack of a creator is unimaginable.

However, I also need time to accurately state why I don't believe mutations write things like eyes, even if we give them 400,000+ years. Which is part of my research, and part of just taking my time in translating the idea in my head into words. So...more later on mutations. Which is probably the most important aspect of this debate.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/23/06 19:42.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."