If bears, slugs, birds, marsupials, plants, etc..etc.. can all change so GREATLY in only 6,000 years, can someone please explain why there are not Hundreds of different species of humans???
Evidence for Evolution?
by LucidSky 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
dubla
whenever i read these evolution/creation arguments, i always wonder if the hardfast evolutionists think they are going to prove their beliefs to a creationist. i suppose in a perfect world everyone would respect everyone elses beliefs, different or not, instead of attempting to make their opponents sound like idiots in an attempt to be "right", but thats cliche, and everyone knows this world is far from perfect.. i guess when all else fails, they can fall back on such hard and fast arguments like "there was no flood.....deal with it"......lol.
aa
-
rem
Dubla,
The earth is round. Deal with it.
Doesn't sound so ridiculous now, does it?
rem
-
funkyderek
hooberus,
Without mutation there could only be a total of four alleles for each gene from a breeding pair. If some of them were lost over time, as you claim is likely, there would obviously be fewer. But in reality, there are many genes with far more than four alleles meaning that either there was more than one breeding pair right at the start (whatever that may mean), or mutations occur and are passed on. Either way, your silly little flood myth is woefully inadequate.
-
Zechariah
Crazy151drinker,
The notion that there is not a full range of variation amongst humans as there is amongst animals is false. Such variation does indeed exist. The variation amongst human must stay within the bounds of being human as you seem to be mplying should be possible.
As we observe amongst liberal societies every spectrum of color and features from white to black and from European to African. The fact that it is racist to breed humans amongst their own kinds as we do with animals morally prevents us at attempting to categorize humans outside of the broadest classifications.
Zechariah
-
rem
Zechariah,
There is much variation in human populations, but there is only one human species. If animal 'kinds' were able to branch into millions of species from only two parents a few thousand years ago, then why haven't humans also branched into millions of species in the same amount of time? Another advantage that humans had was that there were more than just two humans to repopulate, thus providing even more genetic variation compared to the animals. Using such logic, there should many species of human that are unable to interbreed by now.
rem
-
Zechariah
REM.
We are only talking semantics here. It is obvious that even though humans are considered one species there is just as much diversity as in the animal kingdom. In the animal kingdom they would call such diversity species or breeds. Amongst humans such diversity is called races. Races are also sometimes called breeds.
The special nature of man is reason enough God made him different.
Diversity just became common among mankind as man began liberally intermarrying.
If man were the product of evolution then it should be possible to interbred with apes from whence evolution says we from. There would be these many missing links you are speaking of.
It is only because if man supposedly evolved from primitive man, primitive man should have continued to exist through different lines of descendency with that of modern man. This absence is only because the truth is God designed and created man all through the original human pair.
The assumption that members of different species within kinds not being able to interbreed is erroneous. Even though different species if of the same kind interbeeding will be possible. If the limits of a kind is reached as with lions and tiger crosses and donkeys and horses then the offspring will be sterile. They therefore are incapable of further breeding.
Zechariah
-
Moxy
In the animal kingdom they would call such diversity species or breeds. Amongst humans such diversity is called races. Races are also sometimes called breeds.
umm, no. does someone really need to explain the difference between a species and a breed? because someone that doesnt know the difference should not be offering any opinions on the subject of speciation.
mox
-
Zechariah
Moxy,
You've got some moxy yet nothing else to offer.
Hide behind semantics if you want to.
Zechariah
-
Eric
Zech,
it should be possible to interbred with apes from whence evolution says we from.
It is ignorance from whence you speak.
If you think the difference between a species and a breed or variation is a semantic difference only, then a substantive debate of the subject with you is utterly pointless. Others in this thread have suggested that some remedial reading would be useful for you.
I concur. Start with a Google search on Phylum. When you get to Genus, let us know.
Eric