segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012

Creationism and evolutionism really opposites? evolutionism dictatorship...

This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution -- almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it. Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry -- they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity! No scientist would ever succeed in getting funding from major federal or private sources to investigate if evolution has really occurred or not.

The evolutionist Richard Leaky approached the National Geographic Society to get funding to look for the ape ancestors of man, not to investigate if man evolved from apes. It is interesting to note that when the Society gave Leaky his funds, he was warned: "If you find nothing you are never to come begging at our door again." With this motivation, Leaky soon found 40 specimens of the "human ancestor," Australopithecus, whose very name, by the way, means "Southern APE"! Most evolutionists are dead certain that this very ape-like ape evolved into man because of certain arguable similarities to man in its teeth and pelvic bones. Perhaps you heard the story of the evolutionist who dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape's jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man -- he was so excited about the find he said, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."

Hair or no hair here is the question:

“…Morris (1986) considers reasons for human hair loss in evolution at length, but was unable to produce a plausible explanation. The latest theory is that humans lost their hair to reduce their vulnerability to fur-loving parasites (Bhattacharya, 2003). Actually, hair protects against many types of insects, such as mosquitoes and biting flies. It also protects against sunburn and skin cancer. In addition, humans have enough hair on their heads and pubic areas that lice and ticks can still pose a problem.

Darwinists also admit they have no idea why humans did not lose all their body hair, including that on the head, pubic, and auxiliary hair (Cooper, 1971). If humans selected for hairlessness, why do humans today still have considerable body hair? Why would males or females select certain traits in a male when they had been successfully mating with hair-covered mates for eons, and no non-human primate preferred these "human" traits. If sexual selection caused the development of the male beard (and its lack in females), why do women often prefer clean shaven males? Obviously, cultural norms are critical in determining what is considered sexually attractive, and these standards change, precluding the long term sexual selection required to biologically evolve them. Desmond Morris addressed this question in his best selling book, The Naked Ape (Morris, 1986). Morris points out that all primates (including all 192 species of monkeys) are covered with hair, the only exception being humans. Actually, humans have more hair than a chimpanzee; the difference is that most human hair consists of the almost invisible, fine hair…” is a scientific website and yet what seems to be only my common sense / practical sense speaking , my common, medium average citizen point of view might not be that unscientific after all, check it out:

And this smashing point of view:

“…Recent studies suggest that humans dated at “hundreds of thousands of years”, were very similar, if not completely identical, to modern homo-sapiens, according to numerous articles by One set of teeth in particular was “dated” at 400,000 years, 200,000 years longer than the alleged, “beginnings of humans”, was brought up in Israel. Sciencedaily mentioned this “the size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern humans, Homo sapiens, which have been found at other sites [in] Israel, such as Oafzeh and Skhul”. so similar teeth of modern humans have been found in the area, and they look exactly like modern human teeth.

I wonder if… they are modern human teeth?…Even as far back as 3.2 million years ago in the age of Lucy, there are many signs that “Lucy’s species” were more like modern humans than ape-like creatures. According to a foot bone found, Lucy stood upright like a modern human. Why is it still told that these “transitional fossils” are “ape-like” when it is perfectly clear that these are modern human skeletons, most likely died no more than 10,000 years ago, they sure seem to walk just like modern humans. Even other “tree-dwelling ancestors” seemed to walk just like humans.

“Neanderthals” were much more human than “ape-like”. According to science daily, they made jewelry, had “feelings” like empathy, and used a wide array of tools. They were also thought to use cosmetics as well. All this evidence is building up day after day to show that neanderthals were much more advanced than we first though, probably just as advanced as modern humans. There is also much debate over the accuracy of such neanderthals in the first place, according to, there is another showing that “hobbit man”, another so called transitional fossil, is actually a iodine deficient human. It also appears that every time a new hominid fossil is uncovered, common ancestry is rewritten. Lets just hope this time they rewrite it to say the truth, that it never occurred…”


“…But the push could have easily occurred between unicellular animals and sponges wherein one suddenly goes from self-sufficiency in the one cell model to a multi-cellular organism with a functioning gut where the cells act in concert and assist in the functioning of that animal.The push to have intervened in the making of modern man does not then have to have been only exclusive to us. This of course is where hardened theorists would probably say that smaller organisms have had the chance to evolve from one to the next and not so for our past human like relatives who all of sudden were hairless and then had to re-clothe themselves against the cold. How inefficient nature has been for them not to have kept their fur if they had been evolved from the ape. The again we know that nature does not have to be erroneous and that this creature who suddenly had to wear skins probably then did not come the apes. Where then?…”

Read more:

So where is the evolution, how much more slower would it have to be really?…

Another interesting article on the Guardian that points out some reasons that should make evolutionists not so certain and certainly less arrrogant as to what they are so sure of:

“…As years of bestselling books by Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others have seeped into the culture, we've come to understand that the awesome power of natural selection – frequently referred to as the best idea in the history of science – lies in the sheer elegance of the way such simple principles have generated the unbelievable complexities of life. From two elementary notions – random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment – have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain.

Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress-inducing henhouse, say, or overeating in northern Sweden – can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way…The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it was. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution…”

It is the magazine Science daily that gives us astonishing news: Hundreds Of Natural-Selection Studies Could Be Wrong, Study Demonstrates

“…Scientists at Penn State and the National Institute of Genetics in Japan have demonstrated that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results.

Our finding means that hundreds of published studies on natural selection may have drawn incorrect conclusions," said Masatoshi Nei, Penn State Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and the team's leader. The team's results will be published in the Online Early Edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences during the week ending Friday 3 April 2009 and also in the journal's print edition at a later date.
Nei said that many scientists who examine human evolution have used faulty statistical methods in their studies and, as a result, their conclusions could be wrong. For example, in one published study the scientists used a statistical method to demonstrate pervasive natural selection during human evolution. "This group documented adaptive evolution in many genes expressed in the brain, thyroid, and placenta, which are assumed to be important for human evolution," said Masafumi Nozawa, a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State and one of the paper's authors. "But if the statistical method that they used is not reliable, then their results also might not be reliable," added Nei. "Of course, we would never say that natural selection is not happening, but we are saying that these statistical methods can lead scientists to make erroneous inferences," he said.

The team examined the branch-site method and several types of site-prediction methods commonly used for statistical analyses of natural selection at the molecular level. The branch-site method enables scientists to determine whether or not natural selection has occurred within a particular gene, and the site-prediction method allows scientists to predict the exact location on a gene in which natural selection has occurred…”:

Interesting article with top ten reasons why evolution could be wrong after all:

Real issues on what evolutionism stands upon at a geology website:

“…"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Mutation - natural selection

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.

Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed…” more here: (very , very accurate, very simple to understand, very good indeed!)

Other smashing points of view from the website science truth:

“…In every case, these terms are used without any evidence to support them other than the trivial fact that there is some physical resemblance -- the argument from homology. But as pointed out elsewhere, if you relied on homology as a guide you would conclude that the human foot had evolved from the human hand, or vice versa -- something we know cannot be true.
Moreover, on top of all these weasel words, Hunt actually admits from the outset that there is a gap in the fossils and adds, without a trace of irony,

'So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.' …But when it comes to evaluating fossils, looking for this difference, there is a difficulty that doesn’t exist with living species. You can tell whether living creatures are members of the same or different species by carrying out a laboratory test (such as artificial insemination) to see if they are physiologically capable of breeding. If they are so capable then they belong to the same species; if they are not, they belong to different species. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to apply the breeding test to animals known only from their fossils.

It is also possible to sequence the DNA of living or recently dead creatures and make a comparison of their DNA to see how closely related they are. But again, DNA testing (of the 'Jurassic Park' kind) is not available for fossil animals…This is the reason that a genuinely objective observer says there is not a single transition known. And when Darwinists assert that there are many such transitional fossils what they really mean is that they have found isolated fossils that look as if they are intermediate between one species or another ( 'probably', 'shark-like' 'tendencies', 'mammal-like') -- therefore, they must be evidence of transitional species, because Darwinism predicts such fossils…This is a kind of circular evidence -- evidence by argument -- that would not be permitted in any other university department or in any other branch of science. Yet it is not only tolerated in Palaeontology, it is actively taught and encouraged.

What then is the scientific status of the detailed schemes of descent that Hunt and other Darwinists have drawn up over the past century?
When you have before you a massive amount of data, especially data that is generically similar, it is very easy to perceive patterns in that data that look like 'sequences'. All that is necessary is to take the data that does not fit your 'sequence' and file it away in a drawer labelled 'Not yet decided', 'status unknown' or simply 'unsolved problems'. In reality, if the data in the file drawer were added to the so-called sequence data, any objective observer would quickly see that there isn’t a developing series but a mass of contradictory details.
This pitfall entraps scientists constantly…”

There is even a website of science that disagrees with many evolutionist theories that states the following interesting arguments:

“…Transitional Fossil Criteria

Last month we looked at some of the recently discovered “evidence” for missing links between apes and men. We hope we showed that the few bones they found are so fragmentary that there isn’t any proof that the creatures they fabricated from those bones even existed, let alone had the necessary characteristics to be proof that humans and apes had a common ancestor. Evolutionists started from the assumption that there had to be a common ancestor. When they discovered two bones the size of grains of rice, they had their prejudices confirmed, and loudly proclaimed the discovery of Eosimias. In fact, there is no real evidence that Eosimias ever existed.
But not all of the alleged human ancestors fit into this category. The famous skeleton, Lucy, is certainly sufficient evidence that Australopithecus afarensis really existed. The question is, “Was Lucy a transitional form?” In other words, was Lucy an ape, a human, or a link between apes and men?

Just as we did last month, we want to establish some criteria to determine if a fossil is evidence of evolution of one species to another. What characteristics does a fossil have to have to be considered a “transitional form?”


Physical similarity is usually considered a criterion, but not always. Nobody considers a bat to be a transitional form between a mouse-like mammal and a bird, even though it looks a lot like one.
Bats look a lot like mice, and a lot like birds. One could imagine a mouse (or maybe a small squirrel) growing skin flaps under its arms. It is imaginable that these skin flaps eventually evolved into wings. Then, one might imagine that the fur evolved into feathers, and the bat became a full-fledged bird. A bat certainly looks like it is half mammal and half bird. The story is every bit as plausible as the story that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Actually, it is a lot more plausible. But no evolutionist ever claims the bat is a transitional form. Why is that?

The short answer is that it doesn’t fit their prejudice. They believe that reptiles (or dinosaurs) evolved into birds, and reptiles evolved into mammals. They don’t believe mammals evolved into birds. A bat can’t be a missing link, simply because they don’t believe mammals evolved into birds. If they did believe it, bats would be their best proof of evolution.

If the argument from homology (that is, an argument that is based on how similar things look) were really valid, then one would have to believe that birds evolved from mammals, and that bats are the proof. Evolutionists recognize that, in the case of the bat, looks can be deceiving. The bat looks like a transitional form, but it isn’t.

So, one might say that if a critter looks like it is half way between two creatures, and one of those creatures is believed to have evolved from the other, then it is a transitional form. But, if a critter looks like it is half way between two creatures, and neither of those creatures is believed to have evolved from the other, then it is not a transitional form. In other words, what it looks like doesn’t really matter. What matters is what is already believed. If it supports the prejudice, then it is evidence. If it contradicts the prejudice, then it is just an accidental similarity that proves nothing. That’s not good science…”

So a very good question is posed here:

And it is this: Why aren't the scientist who disagree with evolution given the freedom of speech to criticize it?

And an even better answer: As the Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

Dr. Cornelius Hunter is right: “In the life sciences one's alternatives are to be a Darwinist or to be a Darwinist. Passing grades, letters of recommendation, graduate school admission, doctorate exams, faculty hiring, and tenure promotion all require adherence to the theory of evolution. The lists are long of otherwise qualified candidates who could not take that next career step because they did not conform to the Darwinian paradigm. Academia, and the life sciences in particular, have undergone a long period of in-breeding and it is hardly surprising that, as the National Academy of Sciences' booklet triumphantly declares, ‘The overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred.’”
Hopefully, Ben Stein's new movie (Expelled) will open some eyes.
(The movie, by the way, was also a victim of this dictatorship and prohibition to think for yourself...)

Or this
: It is what liberals do. Whether it is global warming , or stupid PC laws or just someone wishing to present a conservative viewpoint .. liberals will demonize your position, shout you down, and refuse your right to express your opinion ... all the while telling you how much they stand behind free speech. They demonize George Bush over the patriot act .. and praise Hugo Chavez, despite his shutting down the free press and airwaves in his country. If you don't agree with them, you are stupid and don't deserve the right to be heard ... this is why liberalism must be defeated.

(and of course you can read other aggressive, arrogant answers, even offensive, as usual from atheists “disguised” as pro-science evolutionists…oh well it is the dictatorship of the self-proclaimed illuminated…).

So are scientists who disagree with some assumptions (if not all) of Darwinist evolution all from other areas of knowledge or not as smart as those who believe evolution? Well, that is what they want you to believe…

Here are some very suggestive names:

Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine says of evolution in
“A Divine Design,” “One of its weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in
which conscious life could have emerged….”

Nobelist and evolutionist Dr. Robert A. Millikan comments, “The pathetic thing is that
we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.” an evolutionist…

The highly regarded noncreationist anti-Darwinian French scientist Grasse says, “The
explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth
criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the
major problems involved.”

Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich, E.T.H., and
former president of the International Association of Sedimentologists, writes, “We have had
enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry: ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’”

Other important names here:

But do we really have to choose between creationism and evolutionism?

Are they totally incompatible?

This particular website poses that question:
The Pope itself says they can co-exist without excluding God:

They need each other:

You can have some insights here:

Conclusion and my personal oppinion:

Could god have created Adam and Eve out of an ape ancestor? Sure1 He could even make snow out of fire if He wanted to! When you know your work you can do it, undo it, transform it or even give it the keys to be dynamic and transform itself! But the same way you can not say with 100% sure that this was the case you cannot do the same for many still theories in evolutionism!

For many reasons posted here you can see that certainties are far from being a fact with evolutionism and many are still a matter of belief as well as with faith, religious faith.

I think nature can in fact make some changes but within certain limits. This is what I believe in: nature is dynamic and you can even see how each animal you have as pet at home as it’s own personality! So whatever name you want to give God He sure respected all life forms this much.

They are like vinegar and oil that make your salad taste right. But not all claims of each side are right so there must be humility, intellectual honesty and freedom to think to both sides. I do not admit to be shut up by anyone or called stupid just because I see things in a different way or think for my self without direction from self-proclaimed illuminated and supposed genius with a good theory.

sexta-feira, 9 de março de 2012

Evolution, micro and macroevolution, the big scene...

Speciation, what is it?

"...Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or "cladogenesis," as opposed to "anagenesis" or "phyletic evolution" occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion...":

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[3]

The following link from a website shows just how difficult it is to talk about “speciation”, when defining a species or what a species is supposed to be, is by itself a hard task…

“…So what is the best way to define a species?
Most scientists feel that the biological species concept should be kept, but with some qualifications. It can only be used with living species, and cannot always be applied to species that do not live in the same place. The real test applies to species that have the potential to interbreed…”

What?! If we define it this way that what would an hybrid be? A mule could be considered a new species? But a mule can’t reproduce and make other mules like mom, specially (let me be ironic here) because they could turn out looking like dad…

The article goes on…

“…Prezygotic isolating mechanisms
Ecological isolation: Species occupy different habitats. The lion and tiger overlapped in India until 150 years ago, but the lion lived in open grassland and the tiger in forest. Consequently, the two species did not hybridize in nature (although they sometimes do in zoos)…”
If tough similar a tiger and a lioness dot not interbreed in nature but in zoos, where their natural behaviors are conditioned, coarcted by unnatural circumstances why would, like some scientists say these days, a hominid ancestor hybridize with an ape? Yes…they do say it…
With other female hominids around why on Earth would a male hominid mate with a chimpanzee ancestor? It would be as strange as it would be in nature to see a lioness “falling in love” with a tiger all of a sudden…
Of course you might say that there have always been perverts capable of having sex or raping just about any creature, but there is one small detail that is missing there: if human rapes a monkey he is still human…homo sapiens. If any offspring comes out the genes would eventually “clear up” de mistake, the “accident” in few generations not configuring a speciation because the offspring would still live and breed with monkeys as “life goes on“…

“…Speciation as a Gradual Process

Our understanding of speciation arising from reproductive isolation and the gradual evolution of reproductive isolating mechanisms should help us to appreciate why the biological species concept, and the test of reproductive isolation, may sometimes fail.
If speciation is a gradual process, species may not yet be fully separated. A continuum must exist from species that are in the process of splitting into two, to species that are fully formed. Surely we only expect the latter to behave as "good species."

Alternative Models of Species Formation -- Hybridization and Polyploidy
In plants, new, reproductively isolated species may arise instantaneously, due to multiplication of the entire complement of chromosomes by a process known as polyploidy. This may occur as a result of hybridization, combining the chromosome sets from two parent species in a hybrid individual. If such hybrids turn out to be well adapted to environmental conditions, hybridization is a mechanism that produces new species.
Even if hybrids are unable to undergo sexual reproduction because their chromosomes do not sort out properly in meiosis, they may reproduce vegetatively…” : this might be true for a plant but a little difficult for a mammal with unique characteristics.

Unless you force it: “… The second type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species. This meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding, where hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations. This flow of genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization…number of conditions exist that limit the success of hybridization, the most obvious is great genetic diversity between most species. But in animals and plants that are more closely related hybridization barriers can include morphological differences, differing times of fertility, mating behaviors and cues, physiological rejection of sperm cells or the developing embryo. In plants, barriers to hybridization include blooming period differences, different pollinator vectors, inhibition of pollen tube growth, somatoplastic sterility, cytoplasmic-genic male sterility and structural differences of the chromosomes…”

Other interesting approaches: “…Let's now look at the talkorigins site and study the article titled "Observed Instances of Speciation" of one species evolving into a "new" and "distinct" species. The article is broken into five parts: 1. Acknowledgments, 2. Definitions, 3. Context, 4. How to tell if speciation has occurred, and finally, 5. "Observed instances of speciation."
The writer begins Part 5 with, "Observed Instances of Speciation. The following are several examples of observations of speciation."3 However, at the beginning of the article he gives an important qualification. He says, "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation." Huh? His evidence for observed speciation doesn't exist? So if they aren't examples of "observed speciation," why are they listed as "Observed Instances of Speciation." It's because there isn't any. He even pleads for evidence: "If you know of observations that I should include, let me know and I will chase down the reference, read it and modify the file."4 Here is one example he gives of speciation that he says isn't an example of speciation:
"The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."5 The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence." This has nothing to do with evolution. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple.

But Talkorigins has more evidence, in another article titled: "Some More Observed Speciation Events."6 This is written by James Meritt. He says,
"Someone writes: I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred English dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? ) This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process."
Then he gives examples of this observable evidence of speciation:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
He points to an experiment from the 1940's in which a windflowers produced wildflowers that "were similar in appearance to the hybrids." They were still wildflowers. Once again no evolution has taken place. There is no new species. Remember that speciation is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." Speciation has never been observed…”

And it is not just me saying, it is even a website on evolutionism news…

There you can read this on speciation: “…Theoretically, reproductive barriers arise when geographically separated populations diverge genetically. But Coyne describes five "cases of real-time speciation" that involve a different mechanism: chromosome doubling, or "polyploidy."43 This usually follows hybridization between two existing plant species. Most hybrids are sterile because their mismatched chromosomes can't separate properly to produce fertile pollen and ovaries; occasionally, however, the chromosomes in a hybrid spontaneously double, producing two perfectly matched sets and making reproduction possible.

The result is a fertile plant that is reproductively isolated from the two parents -- a new species, according to the BSC.
But speciation by polyploidy ("secondary speciation") has been observed only in plants. It does not provide evidence for Darwin's theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence. Indeed, according to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy…So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin's problem. Only primary speciation -- the splitting of one species into two by natural selection -- would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution's smoking gun has never been found…”

“…"speciation would require a new creature so different as to be unable to breed with its parent species. This has never been observed in the lab or in the fossil record." Im must add here that even two birds. male and female, in a cage all alone, no other choices for mates, can still refuse to mate with each other and even bite each other initially tough hormones will or might come to plea for both to mate.

Speciation HAS been observed in the laboratory, regarding fossil records- they are not the best methods by which to determine if speciation has occurred or not. For speciation to occur, you don't need to be so different from the parent species…”

The Mariana Mallard was, perhaps hastily, considered at first an extremely rare example of non vegetal (therefore mammal) example of speciation but…

“…After Salvadori, most taxonomists, such as Dean Amadon and Ernst Mayr, considered it a subspecies of the Mallard. Yoshimaro Yamashina examined those specimens in Japanese museums in 1948, and decided that the Mariana Mallard was an example of hybrid speciation, and was descended from the Mallard and the Pacific Black Duck's Palau subspecies (Anas superciliosa pelewensis). However, no molecular genetic evidence is available to support this hypothesis.[citation needed] Some scientists, such as Jean Delacour, have considered the Mariana Mallard a simple hybrid, so it was absent from Delacour's four-volume monograph on the ducks and from the IUCN Red List. If Yamashina's hypothesis is correct, the Mariana Mallard would have presumably evolved into near species status in only about ten thousand years.

Neither Mariana Mallards nor their progenitor species are known from fossils on the Marianas, casting into doubt the assumption that a resident Black Duck population had been long established on the islands. However, most rock shelters and caves on the Marianas were obliterated in the 1944 Battle of Guam. A species of flightless duck is known from a prehistoric bone found on Rota in 1994; was apparently not closely related to the Mariana Mallard…”

The Madeira island mice… “…
Amusing article: 500 years and they are still mice. Where is the speedometer? And, what part of those mice are no longer mice?…”

In few words, a participant in this blog said it all: the so called speciation of the Madeira island mice did not turn the mice into anything else but a mice… It is almost the same as saying that an island where all men and women have big hears no longer have men and women but a new species… they are still man and women. If mankind divides itself in different races are those races different species or still human beings? Human beings they are off course. So where is the big loop in 500 years? A couple of genetic mutations and/or well succeeded adaptations turned mice into something else? Was it as easy as an ape turning into a human being as we know it today, or homo sapiens?

But of course there are new developments in the island mice controversy:

“…The chromosomal radiation of the house mouse in the island of Madeira most likely involved a human-mediated colonization event followed by within-island geographical isolation and recurrent episodes of genetic drift. The genetic signature of such processes was assessed by an allozyme analysis of the chromosomal races from Madeira. No trace of a decrease in diversity was observed suggesting the possibility of large founder or bottleneck sizes, multiple introductions and/or a high post-colonization expansion rate. The Madeira populations were more closely related to those of Portugal than to other continental regions, in agreement with the documented human colonization of the island. Such a Portuguese origin contrasts with a study indicating a north European source of the mitochondrial haplotypes present in the Madeira mice. This apparent discrepancy may be resolved if not one but two colonization events took place, an initial north European introduction followed by a later one from Portugal. Asymmetrical reproduction between these mice would have resulted in a maternal north European signature with a nuclear Portuguese genome. The extensive chromosomal divergence of the races in Madeira is expected to contribute to their genic divergence. However, there was no significant correlation between chromosomal and allozyme distances. This low apparent chromosomal impact on genic differentiation may be related to the short time since the onset of karyotypic divergence, as the strength of the chromosomal barrier will become significant only at later stages…”

There is even a legend supporting it…

There is also a romantic tale of two lovers, Robert Machim and Anna d'Arfet, during the reign of King Edward III of England, who, fleeing from England to France in 1346, were driven off their course by a violent storm. Their ship crashed along the coast of an island, that may have been Madeira; later, this story would be used in the naming of Machico, whose name was transliterated from the name of the boy in the tale, in memory of the young lovers…Madeira was re-discovered by Portuguese sailors in the service of Infante D. Henrique (Henry the Navigator) in 1419, and settled after 1420. The archipelago is considered to be the first territorial discovery of the exploratory period of the Portuguese Age of Discovery.”

(Correspondence: Dr J Britton-Davidian, Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, UMR 5554, Laboratoire Génétique et Environnement, CC65, Université Montpellier II, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France. E-mail:

So what could have happened would be something like the heat in Africa did for the africans: their skin is black to protect from hard sun. But they are still human…the nose is human, the mouth, the eyes, everything: that is of course something that all human races have in common: made at God’s resemblance? So God allowed the “initial model” to evolve or did God create all races just as they are today?

Is adapting really changing?

“…But creationists point out that the biblical ‘kind’ is larger than one of today’s ‘species.’ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind…”

Some put it in a very amusing point of view:

“…Noor looked at the fruit flies Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. In the lab, he can get a female D. pseudoobscura to mate and produce some fertile offspring with a male D. persimilis. Out in the world, however, it doesn’t happen—she hates his smell, his song, his mating dance.
So here’s the idea you’ve been patiently waiting for: let’s simply say that dog breeds are different species. Take two that Coyne highlights for their differences—the 180-pound English Mastiff and the two-pound Chihuahua. They’re both considered members of Canis lupus familiaris, and in principle artificial insemination could produce some sort of mix or possibly an exploding Chihuahua. But face it, the only shot a male Chihuahua has with a female Mastiff involves rock climbing or spelunking equipment…” :

This particular link sort of resumes it all:

I read an article a while back where they found a skull that pushed it back to 1 m, but you know that has to go through scrutiny. Did anyone else read that? Who knows for sure?

I think it goes back to gamila's issue also--what is a species? Theoretically, couldn't a chimp and another ape cross breed and "speciate." Sorry I just have a problem with the mechanics of the speciation theory, when it comes to the creation of entirely new orders of organisms. I have no problem with speciation within families of organisms. This kind of "speciation" is observable.

If two populations separate, there would have to be a mass simultaneous mutation in the population to root out the originals and create another family or order of organisms. Or EVEN if you have only a male and female who get separated from the pack geographically, think of the process that would ensue in order to produce a new order. If one mutates with a dominant trait, then the recessive trait will still show in the offspring, and as modern mutations would still be around. They would have to keep separating over and over again as if there was an unseen breeder in charge, and then would we have an entirely different phylum one day?

But we are merely similar to apes, like a goat to a deer.

“…The Miracle of Man
Today, four out of ten Americans find it difficult to believe that humans are related to the apes. Why is this so? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee. Man is intelligent, naked and highly sexual – a species apart from his alleged primate relatives.

This may be an intuitive observation but it is actually supported by scientific study. In 1911, the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith listed the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each of the primate species, calling them ‘generic characters’ which set each apart from the others. His results were as follows: gorilla 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116; man 312. Keith thus showed scientifically that mankind was nearly three times more distinctive than any other ape.

Another scientist to take this approach was the British zoologist Desmond Morris. In his book, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris highlighted the amazing mystery of mankind’s ‘missing hair’:
Functionally, we are stark naked and our skin is fully exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still has to be explained, regardless of how many tiny hairs we can count under a magnifying lens.

Desmond Morris contrasted Homo sapiens with 4,237 species of mammals, the vast majority of which were hairy or partly haired. The only non-hairy species were those which lived underground (and thus kept warm without hair), species which were aquatic (and benefited from streamlining), and armoured species such as the armadillo (where hair would clearly be superfluous). Morris commented:
The naked ape [man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy or furry land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.
Darwinism has yet to produce a satisfactory answer as to how and why man lost his hair. Many imaginative theories have been suggested, but so far no-one has come up with a really acceptable explanation. The one conclusion that can perhaps be drawn, based on the principle of gradiented change, is that man spent a long time evolving, either in a very hot environment or in water…”

Other intelligent arguments here:

But the recent findings say we did not evolve from apes after all. It was on science magazine:

“…Human exceptionalism received a boost today with the news that human beings apparently did not evolve from apes. From the story:
The skeleton of an early human who lived 4.4 million years ago shows that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like ancestors, researchers reported on Thursday. Instead, the missing link — the common ancestor of both humans and modern apes — was different from both, and apes have evolved just as much as humans have from that common ancestor, they said. The researchers stressed that “Ardi” may now be the oldest known hominid, but she was not the missing link. “At 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it,” said Tim White of the University of California

Berkeley, who helped lead the research team.
Here’s how the matter was put in another report about the story:
Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a “proxy” for that common ancestor.

I bring this up because some Darwinsists and other assorted materialists have attacked human exceptionalism on the basis that our supposed emergence from the great apes and/or our genetic closeness means that we should not think of ourselves as distinctive. I never thought that was in the least persuasive. What matters is what we are now, not what might have been millions of years ago or how we got here. But this report concludes that our common ancestry–still undiscovered–is thrown even further back–with apparently no direct lineage of human beings arising from apes.
It looks like the anti-human exceptionalists will have to go back to the drawing board.…

Some very good features on forcing apes into men here too:

“…Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye. Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.

"All of a sudden you've got fingers and toes and arms and legs and heads and teeth," said Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, who co-directed the work with Berhane Asfaw, a paleoanthropologist and former director of the National Museum of Ethiopia, and Giday WoldeGabriel, a geologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
"That allows you to do something you can't do with isolated specimens," White said. "It allows you to do biology."

“…The basic issue is this: Despite the fact that human/ape genetic similarities are often overstated, YES, in many instances it is true that humans and chimps have very high levels of genetic similarity. Does this functional genetic similarity bolster neo-Darwinian evolution and human/ape common ancestry? Not at all. In fact, we could have predicted these similarities without any knowledge of Darwinian evolution simply by observing that humans have similar body plans to apes. If similar morphology implies similar genetics, then we could predict these high levels of similarities without even thinking about considerations pertaining to common ancestry.

But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent. That's a good principle to keep in mind as you investigate this issue: functional biological similarity is explained by common design just as well as it's explained by common descent. (In fact, in some cases--such as extreme convergent evolution--such similarity is explained much better by common design.)…”:

Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans, Neanderthals Closer:

Research published in Nature over the past few months is showing a much greater genetic distance between humans and chimps than previously thought, while revealing a closer one between humans and Neanderthals.
A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content," showing "extraordinary divergence" where "wholesale renovation is the paramount theme." Of course, the paper attributes these dramatic genetic changes to "rapid evolution during the past 6 million years…Textbooks often depict Neanderthals as primitive, bungling brutes with a vaguely human-like form (see above)--an attempt to instill the ape-to-human icon in students. But as Time Magazine reported in 1999, there's increasing evidence showing that this evolutionary interpretation was wrong, and Neanderthals were essentially "all just people":

Convergent evolution: “…Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages.
The wing is a classic example of convergent evolution in action. Although their last common ancestor did not have wings, both birds and bats do, and are capable of powered flight. The wings are similar in construction, due to the physical constraints imposed upon wing shape. Similarity can also be explained by shared ancestry. Wings were modified from limbs, as evidenced by their bone structure.
Traits arising through convergent evolution are termed analogous structures, in contrast to homologous structures, which have a common origin. Bat and pterosaur wings are an example of analogous structures, while the bat wing is homologous to human and other mammal forearms, sharing an ancestral state despite serving different functions. Similarity in species of different ancestry that is the result of convergent evolution is called homoplasy. The opposite of convergent evolution is divergent evolution, whereby related species evolve different traits. On a molecular level, this can happen due to random mutation unrelated to adaptive changes; see long branch attraction. Convergent evolution is similar to, but distinguishable from, the phenomena of evolutionary relay and parallel evolution. Evolutionary relay describes how independent species acquire similar characteristics through their evolution in similar ecosystems at different times—for example the dorsal fins of extinct ichthyosaurs and sharks…” :

Now there is a theory that could explain a lot… why foxes look like dogs, or many rodents look alike, and many cetaceans look alike etc, etc… similar, and yet, no common ancestor. And yet is also a scientific theory.

Human intervention in genetics is not speciation…

“…Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies
Isaak continues: “The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild...” He then directs us to:
the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky et al. (involving the deliberate, radiation-induced mutation of fruit flies in the laboratory), and
the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the archives.
As for Dobzhansky’s fruit fly experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it involves genetic change—can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man.
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution (“micro-evolution”), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).
In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.

The “Observed Instances FAQ”
As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
“new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
“new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.

In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen…”

"..Confirmation:Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).
Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.
Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice…“ allready discussed…“have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).
More detail and many references are given in the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ: (

Fish have also been involved but in debunked ways:

“…Capturing the eye of a potential mate is the first step in propagating a species. But can the way a female sees males of a certain color lead a single species of fish to split into two?

A study published this week in Nature suggests two species of cichlid fish -- one red and one blue -- may have arisen from the female mating preference for males she is best able to see.

"We've wanted since Darwin to understand how species originate," said Karen Carleton, a biologist at the University of Maryland and co-author of the study. "This is one of first times we've been able to understand from the molecular level to the fish to the environment to get the whole picture."

Researchers have long believed that geographic isolation was the primary force behind the evolution of a single species into two reproductively incompatible groups, yet, as lead author and evolutionary biologist Ole Seehausen, found in Lake Victoria in eastern Africa, the red and blue cichlids were separated by as little as 15 meters of water…” So the female chooses the best male, as we all females do in nature…and suddenly choosing the best mate, in a lab, on top of it all (unnatural circumstances) becomes speciation? Weird…

Read more: Red fish, blue fish, speciation? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

Another website says that mutations are crucial in speciation

Another says the path from single mutation to reproductive isolation in speciation may not be immediately obvious but a technique by Andrew Greenberg can show it. And yet another says “…Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in the natural world…” so how could the allegedly so many biodiversity resulting could come out of it?

Conclusions (my summary and opinions):

Adaptation therefore should be not only slow but mostly with small, tiny changes that do not mean a major loop into a different species to the point of looking as different, nevertheless, as humans and chimps.

“…Spontaneous mutations are very rare, and advantageous mutations are even rarer…” and

That can be seen in some occurring human syndromes and diseases. So why does an ape evolves to human as speciation for better in this context?

What you see in “speciations” or speciations (according to whatever you believe in…) occurred in species outside labs (no human intervention) are small not drastic changes sometimes even in something as simple as the color of a feather or patron, or eye. Basically you look at that species of fish or bird and see only a small turn away from the allegedly original species.

The fruit flies are still fruit flies even if they get 5 pairs of wings, a whale or shrimp is still a whale or shrimp when it decides (free will for all creatures) to start eating something else or prefers something else.

A good example is a documentary I saw that showed how a fish eating bird found a technique to catch fish…he observed that when people gave bread to the fish in the park they slightly came up to get it. So he started catching bread from people not to eat it but to throw it to the fish and catch the fish. Did he become a new species? He might get good and abundant offspring and get fat and get lots of girlfriend and teach his art to the offspring but that offspring will still be a very similar, very close, not too different species from this particular individual that generate them.

Animals think, they are smart and have their own personality and free will (given by God? Could be…)

You can see it here:

But keep in mind what was said previously on species categorization: still a problem for biologists and taxonomists… many still debate the beginning let alone the conclusions.

We have seen here how the man/ape common ape like ancestor is far from being consensual or certain. Far from it , recent discoveries show that our DNA is not that close, that humans have distinctive features and how the loosing of hair or other humane features are far from being logical evolution / beneficial adaptation features. Apart from intelligence or language the rest seems rather random just as many mutations are. In fact the brain and language ability as in fact been pointed out has debunking ape like common ancestry for it would take such a big loop.

Big loops are not common in nature, speciation either. Science and nature have laws that rule by common events, that repeat often and regularly in such ways that calling speciation an explanation for human evolution would be to take the exception from the rule to explain the normal / natural, it would be to grab to the exceptional to explain the general and raise it , and state it as the general law ...

Many frauds, half truths, theories latter debunked, have been used to take skeletons findings and claim them as the new answer to the so called missing link approach. But the truth is that the missing link is missing and resemblance is not enough to explain macroevolution: a fox resembles a dog, same as a deer’s muzzle resembles that of a goat (mouth mostly), a prairie dog resembles a lot of different rodents and so on. Many monkeys might have gone extinct.

Some skeletons like that of “Ardi” showed that human like features are older than usually assumed and some species of monkeys have long legs too (in Borneo for example) and others have some teeth like that of humans, so taking a part a skeleton with a tooth and say: “this is it!” is highly giddy.

The genetic pool must be wide of course or there would not be enough variability and a Creator could have predicted, as intelligent force that He is, the need to slight adaptations in order to be stronger, healthier, more resistant but that is part of a dynamic natural world, or should I say: dynamic intelligent plan?

Fossil records are not very conclusive in terms of macroevolution to the point that it is still controversial by many.

“…This is the core question about the TE. Micro-evolution is a proven fact, and cannot be denied. It also does not conflict with the Genesis creation account. Macro-evolution however does. Despite the so often seen allegation of evolutionists, Macro-evolution has not been proved to be true. It remains a theory, based on faith…”:

“…Using Microevolution As Evidence
Most of the "evidence" for evolution (and some of their "evidence" is nothing but the use tricky definitions) comes from microevolution or point mutations. For example, Darwin never observed evolution, he only observed microevolution. As another example, the peppered moth, which is in almost every biology book, is an example of microevolution. It is no different than two people having different colored hair.
Neither microevolution, nor point mutations (e.g. a bacteria developing a resistance to a drug) have anything to do with creating new genetic information, including new genes. Creating new genetic information, including new gene complexes, is a requirement for true evolution (this is true macroevolution) and has never been observed in the lab or in nature - only by assumption (i.e. if you assume it is true, you cannot claim you have proven it is true) or wishful thinking (which is total nonsense). Logic should travel from truth down to assumptions, not from assumptions up to truth…”:

And I’m not saying macroevolution does not exist, the world as a whole evolves, even the climate is evolving unfortunately mostly by mankind’s fault.
The rest has not been well established yet.

You might be thinking that I based myself only in creationist website or books for my opinions expressed here , but check it out first because in many cases it is better (at least it was, for me) to avoid biased or not impartial websites. But also, creationist websites are not quite that biased or partial as you may think, read this:

“…Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.
Furthermore, there is little harm in avoiding questionable arguments—or, at least, stating that certain interpretations of evidence are doubtful—since there are plenty of valid arguments with well-documented evidences against molecules-to-man evolution, atheism, and the like. Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists as shoddy researchers—or charlatans!
A final reason for avoiding flawed arguments is that it leads to faulty thinking…”
Stick around for new posts. Cheers.

Man/ape similarity: evolution or convergence? Did we really evolved from apes?

Man/ape similarity: evolution or convergence (scientific term)? Did we really evolved from ape? Is the human race still evolving?

While all scientific evidence seems to show that humans evolved over time through natural selection, human evolution remains a controversial subject. Despite the evidence, some religious conservatives claim that humans were put on Earth as we are now by God only a couple thousand years ago and all historical evidence like fossils and dinosaur bones are an elaborate joke played on us by God to test our faith. It is true that evolution has not been proven and it is unlikely it will ever be proven. Like most of science, evolution remains a theory.

Most people take human evolution to mean that people evolved from apes or monkeys. Scientific evolutionists do not believe this at all. Evolutionists believe that humans and apes evolved from a common, ape-like, ancestor millions of years ago. The exact animal from which both humans (homo sapiens) and apes evolved has not yet been discovered. For years, this unknown animal has been called the “missing link.” So…if it is missing the question is: why do we do people take it as a certainty? Why is some scientific assumption more reliable than any religious belief if there is allegedly no proof for Adam and Eve there is also no “missing link” visible and certain for all to lean on.

Read more: What did humans evolve from?

“…Evolution Of Man - What is it?

The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory

The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence

The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing… And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny

The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof…”

You think perhaps this text was taken from some creationist website? Not quite…
See all here:
(Newspaper headline): “Exceptional Humans Did Not Evolve from Apes

Human exceptionalism received a boost today with the news that human beings apparently did not evolve from apes. From the story:
The skeleton of an early human who lived 4.4 million years ago shows that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like ancestors, researchers reported on Thursday. Instead, the missing link — the common ancestor of both humans and modern apes — was different from both, and apes have evolved just as much as humans have from that common ancestor, they said. The researchers stressed that “Ardi” may now be the oldest known hominid, but she was not the missing link. “At 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it,” said Tim White of the University of California Berkeley, who helped lead the research team.
Here’s how the matter was put in another report about the story:
Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a “proxy” for that common ancestor.

“…The famous sequence that shows the evolution of man from knuckle-dragging ape to an upright human may be flawed, a new study has revealed.
Researchers who examined the wrist bones of several primate species believe our early human ancestors never used their knuckles to walk like gorillas.
Instead they evolved from other apes who spent most of their time in trees and descended to the ground upright…”

Read more:

“…We have the most robust data I've ever seen on this topic,' said study co-author Daniel Schmitt, from Duke University.
'This model should cause everyone to re-evaluate what they've said before.'
The debate over the origins of human bipedalism has been argued since Charles Darwin's day, dividing into two competing models.
One model 'envisions the pre-human ancestor as a terrestrial knuckle-walker, a behavior frequently used by our closest living relatives, the African apes,' the report said.
The other model traces our two-legged walking to earlier tree-climbing, a mode of locomotion that is used by all living apes.
Supporters of the knuckle-walking origin think we and African apes evolved from a common knuckle walking ancestor. That connection, they contend, is still evident in wrist and hand bone features shared by African apes and by fossil and living humans.
But the new study's lead author, Tracy Kivell from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, contends this theory.
Ms Kivell compared juvenile and adult wrist bones of more than 100 chimps and bonobos, our closest living primate kin, with those of gorillas.
She found the majority of adult chimpanzees and bonobos had special wrist features that most gorillas lacked.
Gorillas wrists 'locked down'
Kivell and Schmitt suggested these features may be absent in gorillas as they knuckle-walk in a fundamentally different way from chimps and bonobos.
Gorillas stride with their arms and wrists extended straight down and locked in what Kivell called 'columnar' stances that resemble how elephants walk.
By contrast, chimps and bonobos walk more flexibly, 'with their wrists in a bent position as opposed to being stacked-up,' she said.
'And with their wrists in bent positions there will be more stresses at those joints.'

A young chimpanzee (left) has flexible wrists for swinging in trees, while a young gorilla (right) has downward facing wrists that are fixed in place
As a result, chimp and bonobo wrists have special features that gorillas lack - little ridges and concavities that serve as 'bony stops' to keep their wrists from over-bending.
The chimpanzees and bonobos have a more extended-wrist way of knuckle-walking which gives them added stability on branches, the researchers concluded.
In contrast, gorillas' 'columnar' style of knuckle-walking is consistent with ground transport.
'Chimps and bonobos spend a lot of time in the trees. And gorillas do not,' Schmitt said.
Kivell and Schmitt think this suggests independent evolution of knuckle-walking behavior in the two African ape lineages.
'Altogether, the evidence leans against the idea that our own bipedalism evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor,' the pair wrote.
'Instead, our data support the opposite notion, that features of the hand and wrist found in the human fossil record that have traditionally been treated as indicators of knuckle-walking behavior in general are in fact evidence of arboreality.'
In other words, a long-ago ancestor species that spent its time in the trees moved to the ground and began walking upright.

There are no fossils from the time of this transition, which likely occurred about seven million years ago, Kivell and Schmitt said. But none of the later fossils considered to be on the direct human line were knuckle-walkers.
A report on the findings is online in the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more:

“The truth is that "if" evolution were true, then there should be a large supply of such skeletal remains in the earth; but there is not…If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin…But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities)…“

Not ancestor to humans

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.
A new species of autralopithecine, Australopithecus garhi, was discovered in 1999 in Ethiopia. Even though this ape was said to be more long-legged than Lucy, it is still just an ape.
In 2002, scientists found another missing link-type suspect. They called this fossil, found in East Africa, the Toumai fossil. It was supposed to be “the oldest trace of a pre-human ancestor”. But even some evolutionists who examined it said it was no such thing

“…History is full of frauds and wishful thinking in regard to alleged missing links:
Piltdown man – fraud
Java man - a few teeth, and a few skull and bone fragments
Nebraska man - a pigs tooth
Australopithecene (Lucy) - portrayed with human like hands and feet despite the fact that it is known to have ape like hands and feet, and to have been a knuckle walker…”