First Chimpanzee Fossils Cause Problems for Evolution

http://www.reasons.org/evolution/transitional-forms/first-chimpanzee-fossils-cause-problems-evolution ^

[raygunfan]

no it is ASSUMED to be large genetic changes over time and more ASSUMPTIONS that one being transformed into another, with nothing more than the ideology that demands that change...thus evolutionism is considered true.

not a science, but a religion.

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "no it is ASSUMED to be large genetic changes over time and more ASSUMPTIONS that one being transformed into another, with nothing more than the ideology that demands that change...thus evolutionism is considered true."

Large genetic changes have been observed, not just assumed.
Consider and compare: any number of domesticated plant and animal species -- even before the current age of direct genetic modifications -- to their wild cousins.

DNA analyses easily show how different domesticated animals are from their wild cousins.
Yes, most can still interbreed, but we are only talking about a few thousand years of, shall we call it, "un-natural selection," meaning humans doing the work that was previously done by nature.
Or, as I prefer to think of it, by God.

Consider: observed fossil records and DNA analyses show different species in the Family of Zebras, Horses and Donkey's were first separated about 4 million years ago -- and yet they can still at least partially interbreed. Indeed, three separate Species of Zebras easily interbreed.

Consider: another example which has been observed in nature, not just assumed, is a hybrid of Polar Bear and Grisly Bear.
These are certainly different species, but closely related enough to still produce offspring.
By contrast, no offspring has ever been observed of Polar Bear and, say, Black Bear.
So, those species split apart too long ago.

Is there any example of a species separated by more than 4 million years from another, and yet still able to successfully interbreed?
Not that I know of.

So we might conclude that it can take some millions of years of separation before two different species have definitely become different "kinds."

But "kinds" is a religious classification, not a scientific classification.
In science we speak of terms like Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
These are defined scientifically, and not one, to my knowledge, corresponds with the biblical term "kind."

raygunfan: "not a science, but a religion."

Finally, you assert that science is just a "religion."
Well, anyone can play the definition-of-terms game.
But if science is "just a religion," then so is everything else we think we know, which would have to mean: those terms have no real definitions.

So, the truth of the matter is: there's a vast difference between science and religion, and to call one the other is simply inaccurate.

[raygunfan]

i never said sciene is a religion, i said the ‘science’ of evolutionism is a religion...based on philosophy, not hard evidence.

those of us who believe creationism, base it on the SAME evidence that those who believe in evolutionism do...we just dont have to twist or shoehorn the evidence to make it fit like they do....

and everything piece of evidence that comes up that clearly speaks against your religion of evolutionism, somehow thru the handy dandy evolutionism taffy pull machine, is stretched to somehow confirm evolutionism...and that is not science....you know it and so does everyone else.

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "i never said sciene is a religion, i said the ‘science’ of evolutionism is a religion...based on philosophy, not hard evidence."

Your religion, not science, tells you that God makes living things in "kinds."
Well, there is no scientific definition of "kinds," indeed no definition at all of "kinds."
That word "kinds" just sort of means whatever YOU want it to mean, right?

Science does not speak of "kinds," science speaks of categories -- broad and narrow -- such as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, sub-species, and breed or "race."
These categories of science tie directly to the science of evolution's time-scales, meaning the more narrow the category, the more recent the evolutionary split.

And yes, the "hard evidence" for evolution is literally "hard" -- fossils -- and also minutely detailed, as in DNA analyses.
To claim, as you do, that there is no evidence is just not accurate.

raygunfan: "those of us who believe creationism, base it on the SAME evidence that those who believe in evolutionism do...we just dont have to twist or shoehorn the evidence to make it fit like they do...."

I believe in "creationism" in this sense: I believe that God created everything, and none of it by "accident," but all according to His plans.
But ALL of the physical evidence clearly shows His methods are scientific -- descent with modifications and "natural selection."
And that's the definition of the word "evolution."

Let me put it another way: in God's Universe, God's Plan unfolds "naturally."
That's what the hard physical evidence tells us.

What exactly you "creationists" believe is difficult or impossible to pin down, because there are so many different types of "creationists."
Young earth or older earth, some natural modifications or no natural modifications, some "natural selection," or no natural selection -- and it all depends on how you interpret your Bibles, not on any scientific reasoning.

raygunfan: "and everything piece of evidence that comes up that clearly speaks against your religion of evolutionism, somehow thru the handy dandy evolutionism taffy pull machine, is stretched to somehow confirm evolutionism...and that is not science....you know it and so does everyone else."

I'm not a young man, and over many years have read a good number of books on both evolution theory and controversies.
Of course, that doesn't make me an expert, but it does mean something when I say: I've never seen a single piece of "hard evidence" which contradicts the basic idea of evolution: descent with modifications and "natural selection."

I suppose you can cite some?