Creationism Museum

[hueyOT]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
I wonder if Steveo understands that adaptation to training is something that reinforces the evolution theory?

Adaption and evolution, though related, are not the same thing. One can adapt to external stimulus and it is not evolution. It is only evolution if the external stimulus results in a genetic change in the progeny.

If you want a real world example, cabbage and broccoli are gentically linked. The changes from cabbage to broccoli were not from “natural selection” but from cultivation.[/quote]

actually, evolution results from random genetic mutations, not necessarily in response to external stimuli. it is usually simply a fuck-up in mitosis which luckily lends an advantage to the new/irregular member of a species.

evolutionarily adaptive mutations do not <and i don’t think they often do> have to arise due to some external stimulus. i mean, there is no biofeedback mechanism between the outside world and you DNA. there is no method through which the body rewrites DNA in response to challenges it encounters in life. mutations are random.

these mutations can just as likely be DISADVANTAGEOUS. i.e. a genetic fuck-up leaves an animal blind. but this mutation will not lend itself to a survival advantage and will most likely die off.

[hueyOT]

for steve:

then ‘just a theory’ bullshit also needs to stop. gravitational theory is also ‘just a theory’. doesn’t make it untrue, though.

let me explain the differences between laws and theories. things are drawn to the earth. that’s a fact. we can observe this. the explanation as to WHY this occurs is the theory.

biodiversity on earth is a fact. random mutations in members of species happen. organisms have changed over time through earth’s history, this is a fact. life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago. these are all facts.

the theory of evolution explains these facts and why they occur.

some good quotes:

[b]If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless. [/b]

[Sloth]

[quote]Ren wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’d like to toss in a reminder. Not all christian sects subscribe to a “Young Earth” view. The largest christian sect is comfortable with both evolution, and it’s faith in God.

The problem lies in that these are the least vocal groups, since they have the least amount of problem with evolution.

So I will pose this question to you, is it more impressive that God created the world in six days exactly as per Genesis, or that the Genesis story is merely a story for biblical man to understand the amazing complexity and diversity of a creation that he set in process billions of years ago (and if you want to believe so, has guided to completion throughout the ages).

I’d pick the second one myself, I mean, what good is it if we were created by some omnipotent being but not giving the ability to understand the world around us? Its kind of insulting in a way that you don’t want to uncover that knowledge.

Unfortunately there will always be those people who look at anything that goes against their overly religious viewpoint as an attack on their religion, when it is merely an attempt to understand the world around us. Some people would just prefer to live in the dark ages I guess.[/quote]

Yeah, If I was a god who designed the universe, along with it’s natural laws, I wouldn’t bother trying to give a scientific account to old testament man. I’d simply pass on some dramatic imagery, to get the point across.

I’m Catholic (don’t claim be worthy of sainthood), and I’m very comfortable with evolution, and an “old earth.”

I like what you say about discovery, and have often thought the same.

“…I mean, what good is it if we were created by some omnipotent being but not giving the ability to understand the world around us? Its kind of insulting in a way that you don’t want to uncover that knowledge…”

Why remove the joys of advancement, discovery, ingenuity, and exploration from your creations? I think you have the right of it.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
I wonder if Steveo understands that adaptation to training is something that reinforces the evolution theory?

Adaption and evolution, though related, are not the same thing. One can adapt to external stimulus and it is not evolution. It is only evolution if the external stimulus results in a genetic change in the progeny.

If you want a real world example, cabbage and broccoli are gentically linked. The changes from cabbage to broccoli were not from “natural selection” but from cultivation.

actually, evolution results from random genetic mutations, not necessarily in response to external stimuli. it is usually simply a fuck-up in mitosis which luckily lends an advantage to the new/irregular member of a species.

evolutionarily adaptive mutations do not <and i don’t think they often do> have to arise due to some external stimulus. i mean, there is no biofeedback mechanism between the outside world and you DNA. there is no method through which the body rewrites DNA in response to challenges it encounters in life. mutations are random.

these mutations can just as likely be DISADVANTAGEOUS. i.e. a genetic fuck-up leaves an animal blind. but this mutation will not lend itself to a survival advantage and will most likely die off.

[/quote]

Agreed. Mutation is the consequence of external stimulus. The stimulus could be any number or random parameters such as sexual selection or environemntal constraints. I never meant to imply that adaption casues mutation. I just wanted to point out the distiction between the two.

[hueyOT]

hello steve,

i found these arguments of your in another thread you posted in where you ranted on with more lies about evolution.

let me address them:

[quote]
(a) The theory does not lend itself to experimentaion and possible falsification. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory, but only a belief. [/quote]

this is a lie. evolution COULD be falsified. there are many things that could be <but have not been, and probably never will be> discovered that would discredit evolution.

for example, if we found dinosaur bones dated as recently as last century, this would falsify evolution.

if someone could actually observe and document the spontaneous creation of life such as is stated in the bible in genesis, this would falsify evolution.

a static fossil record would falsify evolution.

i can go on, but i think the point is clear. if evidence is found to the contrary of the body of knowledge that makes up the theory of evolution, then please share it. it can be falsified, it’s just unlikely that it will ever occur.

gravitational theory could also be falsified… but again, that’s unlikely.

although creationism is not a valid scientific theory, it has been falsified.

(b) The theory violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

please share these laws with me, and i will address this lie. from what i can tell, i am skeptical that you know which laws you speak with. and just a little heads up, evolution in no way contradicts these laws.

(c) The macroevolution part of the theory is never observed in nature. We never see one species become another species. We only see ‘microevolution’ which is called ‘variation.’ A dog becomes a different kind of dog, but it sitll remains a dog. A dog never becomes a giraffe.

this is funny, because if we ever saw a dog become a giraffe, that would falsify evolution. evolution occurs gradually, we can not expect to see such significant changes in one lifetime. we do not have to WITNESS evolution first hand to provide proof for it. we can witness it after-the-fact through fossil records, analysis of DNA and physical remains, etc…

if you accept microevolution, then you accept macroevolution. what is the limit? can you provide some evidence that species STOP evolving at some specific point <i.e. maximum 5 mutations, then god steps on the brakes?>. since you are conceding the existence of microevolution, you are implicitly accepting macroevolution, which is essentially the same thing only over a longer period of time.

also, there is documentation of new species arising and being witnessed, apparently.

(d) Nobody was there at the time of Creation to observe it. Therefore, every explaination (including the Creation account of Genesis) is a religious belief that requires faith. In the case of Divine Creation – faith in God. In the case of evolution – faith in random processes.

wow… can you imagine if this argument was used at a murder trial? you know steve, in life we gather information, collect evidence, and draw logical conclusions. i hope i do not need to spell out how silly this objection is.

‘you weren’t there’… wow, typing is out makes me laugh.

the same stupid argument can be made towards your acceptance of creationism. but it is clear that your intentions here are to muddy the debate and make things obcure, and to degrade the validity of evolution to the level of ‘faith’, which is the level at which creationism lies.

evolution wasn’t ‘there’ anyways. it’s here. it’s not a place. it’s not a time. evolution doesn’t attempt to explain the creation of the world. so evolution is not something that only occured ‘back then’.

anyways, i hope you eventually open your eyes and reconcile your faith with evolution. because until then you are simply walking around with blinders on, and i feel sorry for you and people like you.

[Ren]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Why remove the joys of advancement, discovery, ingenuity, and exploration from your creations? I think you have the right of it. [/quote]

Yup, if God wanted us to know everything and take everything for granted (aka the ID folks which their “its too complex so it must be created by a higher power and leave it at that you godless heathen” mantra), he would have given us the answers. Or at least created man with a minor lobotomy so we wouldn’t want seek knowledge.

[Kainjer]

[quote]unearth wrote:
Ren wrote:
I am also hoping for a detailed description on how Noah managed to get all the animals into the ark, something which should enlighten all of us as a transportational marvel, and maybe give zoos some new ideas on getting their lions and zebras to get along.

The animals were dehydrated with the ACME Dehydrolatrix3000™ and sealed in air tight cellophane packets. At voyage end, they were rehydrated with the ACME ReHydrolatrix3500™.[/quote]

While that may be true, a little known fact was that God was going to use Professor Frink’s Debigulator, but was unsure of how to unshrink the animals after the flood, because that would require some sort of a REbigulator, which is a concept so ridiculous it makes me want to laugh out loud and chortle… but not at you O holiest of gods with the wrathfulness and the vengence and the bloodrain and the “hey hey hey it hurts me”

[thunderbolt23]

Hmmmm.

Is the museum receiving any kind of public funding?

No?

Then who cares? There are museums on nearly every topic under the sun. Corvette museums, spy gadget museums, medieval torture device museums - you name it.

If Creationists want a museum and they aren’t asking non-Creationists to support its construction or maintenance, why would anyone care?

Somewhat amazing how people of a type that say “hey, live and let live” are so interested in doing exactly not that.

It is interesting news to comment on, I suppose, but nothing new here to see: the true believers on either side of the debate - and yes, both sides have their unblinking zealots - are taking their usual positions.

[ALDurr]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hmmmm.

Is the museum receiving any kind of public funding?

No?

Then who cares? There are museums on nearly every topic under the sun. Corvette museums, spy gadget museums, medieval torture device museums - you name it.

If Creationists want a museum and they aren’t asking non-Creationists to support its construction or maintenance, why would anyone care?

Somewhat amazing how people of a type that say “hey, live and let live” are so interested in doing exactly not that.

It is interesting news to comment on, I suppose, but nothing new here to see: the true believers on either side of the debate - and yes, both sides have their unblinking zealots - are taking their usual positions. [/quote]

My feelings exactly. So long as none of my money is being taken for this museum, who gives a rat’s ass?

[Lorisco]

Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven using an UNBIASED scientific method. The unbiased scientific method demands that your original hypothesis be changed or modified when your original hypothesis cannot be substantiated through whatever method of inquiry you are using.

Yet, both evolution and intelligent design hypotheses have failed to be supported by current methods of inquiry and NEITHER hypotheses have been modified or changed.

So the actual FACT of the matter is that neither schools of thought are actual scientific as both maintain a biased view when their hypotheses fail to be supported. Piecing the available pieces together though only hypothesis and reason is NOT science if it cannot be supported through inquiry, and to date, neither can.

So both creationism and evolutionism are unproven theories and both should be treated equally. Those that believe evolution is more scientific are naive and do not fully understand the actual unbiased scientific method of inquiry.

So the question is; Why is evolution taught as fact in schools and creation as theory? Bias!

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven using an UNBIASED scientific method. The unbiased scientific method demands that your original hypothesis be changed or modified when your original hypothesis cannot be substantiated through whatever method of inquiry you are using.
[/quote]

The scientific method is unbiased in that it requires all hypotheses to be falseafiable. If a hypothesis fails a test it must be changed. Furthermore, the scientific method requires rigorous objectivity in laborotory settings. The fact of the matter is that evolution can be checked in an unbiased manner and has already been observed.

ID cannot even be treated as a scientific hypothesis because there is no way as of yet to observe God.

Yet, both evolution and intelligent design hypotheses have failed to be supported by current methods of inquiry and NEITHER hypotheses have been modified or changed.

So the actual FACT of the matter is that neither schools of thought are actual scientific as both maintain a biased view when their hypotheses fail to be supported. Piecing the available pieces together though only hypothesis and reason is NOT science if it cannot be supported through inquiry, and to date, neither can.

So both creationism and evolutionism are unproven theories and both should be treated equally. Those that believe evolution is more scientific are naive and do not fully understand the actual unbiased scientific method of inquiry.

So the question is; Why is evolution taught as fact in schools and creation as theory? Bias!

I’m afraid you have a very weak understanding of science and the scientific method–not to mention popular scientific opinion.

Evolution is nothing more than change brought about by genetic inheritance over time. The evolutionary hypothesis states that all species share a common ancestor which has not yet been falsified. It is possible to trace ancestry with genetics so it is possible that evolution is fact. The fact that micro-evolution has been observed gives science enough pause to consider evolution as a fact. Because it has not been falsified the hypothesis cannot be thrown out. It must continue to be tested thru measurement and observation until it is either strongly correlated or falsified.

ID will never stand up to science because there is nothing to measure.

[Ren]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

So the question is; Why is evolution taught as fact in schools and creation as theory? Bias!
[/quote]

Evolution is taught as a theory, hence the theory of evolution. Gravity is a theory too, but I don’t hear you complain about it being taught?

And creationism is NOT a theory, at least as far as valid scientific theories are defined. Its a nice story though.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Ren wrote:
Evolution is taught as a theory, hence the theory of evolution. Gravity is a theory too, but I don’t hear you complain about it being taught?
[/quote]

Actually, for all intents and purposes gravity follows predictable behavior at r approx. equal to R so we refer to it as a law–this is what is typically taught in school from a macroscopic observable viewpoint. The theoretical aspects to gravitiation only really apply at r >> R and r << R where we must consider General Relativity and quantum mechanics, respectively. But yes, until we reconcile the two phenomena we can effectively call it a theory.

[hueyOT]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven using an UNBIASED scientific method. The unbiased scientific method demands that your original hypothesis be changed or modified when your original hypothesis cannot be substantiated through whatever method of inquiry you are using.

Yet, both evolution and intelligent design hypotheses have failed to be supported by current methods of inquiry and NEITHER hypotheses have been modified or changed.

So the actual FACT of the matter is that neither schools of thought are actual scientific as both maintain a biased view when their hypotheses fail to be supported. Piecing the available pieces together though only hypothesis and reason is NOT science if it cannot be supported through inquiry, and to date, neither can.

So both creationism and evolutionism are unproven theories and both should be treated equally. Those that believe evolution is more scientific are naive and do not fully understand the actual unbiased scientific method of inquiry.

So the question is; Why is evolution taught as fact in schools and creation as theory? Bias!
[/quote]

this is a lie. where has evolution failed conventional scientific inquiry? please share this information and evidence with the rest of us. what is this ‘method of inquiry’ that you speak of and how has evolution faile as a theory to stand up to this assesment?

and the scientific method is unbiased. if there is deceit and bias within a scientist/researcher and this impacts his/her findings, then that isn’t science.

[Lorisco]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The scientific method is unbiased in that it requires all hypotheses to be falseafiable. If a hypothesis fails a test it must be changed.

[/quote]

Evolutionary theory holds that one species evolves into another species via intermediary specifies. For this to hold true there would need to be thousands of these intermediary species say between an ape and man. Yet, to date no such species have actually been discovered and verified. While lack of evidence may not be proven false, it sure doesn’t support it as anything more than theory.

Furthermore, the scientific method requires rigorous objectivity in laborotory settings. The fact of the matter is that evolution can be checked in an unbiased manner and has already been observed.

This statement indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. The one drawback of this kind of science is that it cannot be verified in the laboratory because it cannot be duplicated. For evolution to be proven in the lab would require an evolutionary change to actually occur in the controlled laboratory setting. Since this is not possible, it can’t be tested in the lab. But that really doesn’t discount evolution, it just means that it needs to be tested using empirical evidence (meaning observed in a uncontrolled environment). Many scientific ideas are tested this way that are very valid.

ID cannot even be treated as a scientific hypothesis because there is no way as of yet to observe God.

There are ways to empirically observe the evidence of God. There have been many substantiated studies conducted with ill patients and the effects of prayer that provide evidence of the existence of some power at work that cannot be currently measured.

I’m afraid you have a very weak understanding of science and the scientific method–not to mention popular scientific opinion.

That is funny! An internet know it all telling me I don’t understand research. Well, not going to get into this further, let’s just say that I’m actually involved in medical research for a living. So you might want to rethink that statement.

Evolution is nothing more than change brought about by genetic inheritance over time.

Since you don’t appear to know, what you are referring to is called microevolution, or what is commonly called adaptation within species. But, this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about macroevolution, or one species changing into another species.

The evolutionary hypothesis states that all species share a common ancestor which has not yet been falsified.

ID uses this same fact to support a design blueprint of all species, which has also not been falsified.

The fact that micro-evolution has been observed gives science enough pause to consider evolution as a fact.

In the research world we call that conjecture and nothing is openly supported by it.

[Lorisco]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
this is a lie. where has evolution failed conventional scientific inquiry? [/quote]

There has been no verified missing link full fossil discovered between man and ape! Hello!

[unearth]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
this is a lie. where has evolution failed conventional scientific inquiry?

There has been no verified missing link full fossil discovered between man and ape! Hello!

[/quote]

First off, humans are a variety of ape. Just in case you didn’t understand the previous sentence I’ll repeat in. Humans ARE apes.

Next, our divergence from a similar ancestor can be traced (linked) as follows:

Ardipithicus ramidus
5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis
4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis
4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus
3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus
2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic
400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens
200 thousand years ago to present

[pookie]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Evolutionary theory holds that one species evolves into another species via intermediary specifies. For this to hold true there would need to be thousands of these intermediary species say between an ape and man. Yet, to date no such species have actually been discovered and verified. While lack of evidence may not be proven false, it sure doesn’t support it as anything more than theory. [/quote]

There are many fossils that show the intermediary steps between, say, australopithecus and modern man.

Creationists always ask for another intermediary specie. Give them Man and Man-1, and they ask where’s Man-0.5? Give them that, and they want another intermediary. Unless you somehow manage to produce the entire lineage between Eve (the African hominid, not the Biblical one) and her modern descendant, they claim any missing intermediary as a failure of the theory.

Intermediary fossils also exists in abundance for elephants, horses, birds, etc.

For evolution to be proven in the lab would require an evolutionary change to actually occur in the controlled laboratory setting. Since this is not possible, it can’t be tested in the lab.

Speciation has been observed in lab settings. Most experiments involve life forms which have short life spans (such as bacteria or earth worms) so as to be able to observe tens or hundreds of generations in a matter of months.

Put “speciation” in google and read.

There are ways to empirically observe the evidence of God. There have been many substantiated studies conducted with ill patients and the effects of prayer that provide evidence of the existence of some power at work that cannot be currently measured.

Actually, all scientific tests of prayer show no differences for “prayed for” groups vs. non-prayed for groups.

That is funny! An internet know it all telling me I don’t understand research.

Could we know for what company or school you actually do research?

Well, not going to get into this further, let’s just say that I’m actually involved in medical research for a living. So you might want to rethink that statement.

You keep repeating that, yet you show little to zero understanding of just about every scientific subject you comment on. Do you mop the floors at that lab?

Since you don’t appear to know, what you are referring to is called microevolution, or what is commonly called adaptation within species. But, this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about macroevolution, or one species changing into another species.

Which is just a long series of microevolutions repeated over millions or billions of years.

Each microevolution that survives takes the individual a little bit apart from it’s parents. If the specie covers a large area, they’ll be exposed to various environments and some mutations will be advantageous in one area an not as much in another one. As various mutations prove advantageous to various groups, you’ll eventually see those groups “drift apart” until you’ve got two completely different species who can’t interbreed anymore.

Creationists think that macro-evolution requires a monkey to give birth to a human; and claim that since they’ve never seen that, it’s false. That’s not what the theory says at all.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This statement indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. The one drawback of this kind of science is that it cannot be verified in the laboratory because it cannot be duplicated. For evolution to be proven in the lab would require an evolutionary change to actually occur in the controlled laboratory setting. Since this is not possible, it can’t be tested in the lab. But that really doesn’t discount evolution, it just means that it needs to be tested using empirical evidence (meaning observed in a uncontrolled environment). Many scientific ideas are tested this way that are very valid.

There are ways to empirically observe the evidence of God. There have been many substantiated studies conducted with ill patients and the effects of prayer that provide evidence of the existence of some power at work that cannot be currently measured.

[/quote]
What Fred Flintstone institute lets you practice science?!

What about meditation? Did they do a control group that didn’t pray and just meditated? Quiet reflection and prayer are the same thing…the mere fact that God is involved in one and not the other proves nothing.

Empirical evidence doesn’t count in science. What you experience and what others experience isn’t science. Science must be repeatable and falsifiable. I cannot measure God nor can any measurements be repeated.

Here are some references for you to check on evolutionary biology experiments in lab settings since you seem to not know what you are talking about:
[i]
Evolution and functional analysis of mating-type genes (MAT) in sexual (Cochliobolus) and asexual (Bipolaris) fungi. Saenz, G. S., Berbee*, M. L., and G. Turgeon. Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 *Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 2C9

Organization and polymorphism of mating-type genes from the bipolar mushroom Coprinus disseminatus. James, Timothy1, Kues, Ursula2, and Vilgalys, Rytas1. 1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 27708 2Institute of Microbiology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Phylogenetic relationships of a new species of Cylindrocladium that causes a blight disease on Buxus spp. with similar taxa, based on morphology and DNA sequences of internal transcribed spacers and beta-tubulin. Beatrice Henricot. The Royal Horticultural Society, Plant Pathology, Wisley, Surrey, UK

Discordant gene genealogies and the evolution of the trichothecene gene cluster in Fusarium. Todd J. Ward1, H. Corby Kistler2, Joe Bielawski3, Eileen Sullivan1, and Kerry O’Donnell1. 1Microbial Properties Research Unit, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Peoria, Illinois, USA 2Cereal Disease Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA 3University College, London, Department of Biology, London, England

Multiple origins of serotype AD strains in the human pathogenic fungus Cryptococcus neoformans. Jianping Xu1, Rytas Vilgalys2, Guizhen Luo3, Mary Brandt4, and Thomas G. Mitchell3. 1Dept. of Biology, McMaster University, Canada; 2Dept. of Biology, 3Dept. of Microbiology, Duke University, USA, and 4Mycotic Diseases Division, CDC, Atlanta, USA

Mating-type gene organisation and field distribution in Discomycete Tapesia species. Paul S Dyer1, Greg Douhan2 and Tim D Murray2. 1School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham UK. 2 Washington State University, Pullman, WA USA. [/i]

I have 30 more of them if you wish…read the abstracts.

Please Share your “God Studies” with us and quit filling people’s minds with pseudo-science.

[Lorisco]

[quote]unearth wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
this is a lie. where has evolution failed conventional scientific inquiry?

There has been no verified missing link full fossil discovered between man and ape! Hello!

First off, humans are a variety of ape. Just in case you didn’t understand the previous sentence I’ll repeat in. Humans ARE apes.

Next, our divergence from a similar ancestor can be traced (linked) as follows:

Ardipithicus ramidus
5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis
4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis
4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus
3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus
2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic
400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens
200 thousand years ago to present[/quote]

Humans are apes? Boy, you have a lot of faith.

I’m sure you know that everything you just wrote is theory and has not been proven? But like any theory, until it can be proven wrong it will continue. That is the trouble with ideas that are difficult to test in a controlled environment.

In any case, it is extremely telling that you say these intermediary species lived 2 billion years ago, etc, and yet science doesn’t currently have an accurate measure for that amount of time. So again, sounds like you are believing what you want in the absence of evidence.

Gee, what other school of thought uses a similar approach? RELIGION!