Yes, we evolved from Apes.
No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.
Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.
So, no, I'm not going to post links to hyracotherium, once called eo hippus. Nor am I going to post links to known horse atavisms that demonstrate it's earlier heritages as a multi-toed horse, I'm merely going to state that the occasional horse has more than one toe on a foot, and you can find that, too.
Fix your version.
My version works fine.
Over thousands of years, the forest turned to savannah. Over those thousands of years, the forerunners of humans and chimps either lived in forest regions that didn't change, and thus there was little selective pressure driving change in those animals, or they lived in areas drying up, so that sequential generations of faced increasingly stronger pressures that selected for traits that enhanced survival, and in those animals, the traits were first bipedalism so the little bastards could run from tree to tree faster, could raise their eyes above the grass to see farther, and to provide a minimal surface area for heating by solar radiation and a maximimal area for re-radiating bodily heat and convection, not to mention the gradual loss of hair and increase in the number of sweat glands.
And that's because the environment changed first. The monkey didn't start shedding hair, getting taller, and running to the savannah where it could do marathons, no. The changed environment forced the selection of a new species.
It was a gradual process, but so was the environmental change. Unless you're fond of Velikovsky, there's no reason to assume the environment changed rapidly.
We evolved from a common ancestor to apes. We share 98% similarities in DNA, there is one pair of Chromosomes that separate us and a successful blood transfusion can be performed using ape blood.
If creationist nonsense is snuck into public education what is next? Flat earth theory, stork theory of reproduction? Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence and a fossil record, intelligent design is not, and therefore cannot be taught alongside an actual scientific theory.
Last edited by Thoreau; 05-07-09 at 08:22 PM.
It wasn't because I am unaware of hyracotherium.
In fact, I did this precisely because I know about hyracotherium.
Your claim for conclusive evidence that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey" is pretty asinine for one reason and one reason only:
Hyracotherium went extinct, oh, about 40 million years before those animals even came into existence.
That kind of makes it impossible of that one species to have "mutated" into those three species, doesn't it. Unless they lasted in 40 million year long suspended animation.
SOOOOO, that would probably make "conclusive" evidence of your claim a bit impossible for me to find, since what you described is literally impossible.
Anyways, I think you should probably take a refresher course on your "basics".
B) Since hyracotherium DNA does not exist, it's doubtful you'll be able to find substantive reasearch on specimens thereof.
Clearly then, you're claiming homo sapiens couldn't possibly have mutated from common parent stock with chimpanzees because the common parent species no longer exists, right? You're also claiming that no one could possibly have great-to-the-12th grandparents because those alleged people are all dead too, right?
Like I said, do go and learn something about evolution before you start spewing how it doesn't work.
They do reproduce. Contrarily to the impression your link and you try to make. In spite of the obvious barriers.
Species used in evolutionary “’theory”’ have to have evolutionary meaning. That is such and so that I wouldn’t have an opinion. If evolution, then an emerging specie has to have a new amount of (DNA) information not available in his parents and in order not to observe devolution it has to gain more information than his parents have, or to be more complex. As far as evolution is concerned all Senecios are the same specie, - with all different forms of it and all possible hybrids which are known to be a dead end. So speaking evolution we rather have different forms of the same specie and hybrids when the latter are not more but rather less complex and have a lesser content of information (which is absolutely obvious). It is obvious, that asking the question I and everyone else were looking for speciation in evolutionary meaning but not for all possible meanings, not for a plant and manipulation with the definition of speciation. In microbiology they call it strains, you can use forms or something.
‘’Crosses were made between individuals of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus’’ I guess you mean artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus’’?
What would make one suggest that if they can reproduce in lab they cannot reproduce in the wild I don’t know. What is the meaning of the experiment where I wouldn’t know
The plants were artificially synthesized and forced from the start. Following your logic I have to say that it is also an undeniable proof that S. squalidus’’and S. vulgaris are not parents in the wild, but only in the lab when forced.
’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, - [I guess they have searched ALL the wild I want to see how] - and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’
1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.
‘’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low ‘’ BUT RECORDED!!!
Mathematics deals with chaos from the day one. Actually it is the main goal of mathematics since the day one - to deal with chaos.
all those transitional fossils are Fantasies.
Last edited by justone; 05-07-09 at 09:34 PM.
Here I thought you would actually try to defend the comments, but instead you just admit that your claims of conclusive proof MUST be lies because
A. It is WELL known the fossil record is incomplete.
B. Without DNA evidence, or a complete fossil record, there can be nothing that is "conclusive" evidence of ANY mutations. Could easily be hybridization or polyploidy. You don't know. No one knows.
Clearly, then, you fail reading comprehension 101. I never said anything remotely close to a statement that conclusive.Clearly then, you're claiming homo sapiens couldn't possibly have mutated from common parent stock with chimpanzees because the common parent species no longer exists, right? You're also claiming that no one could possibly have great-to-the-12th grandparents because those alleged people are all dead too, right?
I said that there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of what you claimed.
But even still. The gap is 40 million years. You didn't claim that "Teh fiossil record would suggest that hyracotherium is most believed to be the common ancestor of X Y & Z animals." Had you actually said that, you would have A. been correct that this is the common belief. B. Not had any point with regards to my post.
But instead, you claimed that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey"
Let me show you again, REAL big this time:
one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey
One species "mutating" into three is what your claim is. Conclusive evidence of this no less.
Show me that a mutation changed hyracotherium directly into a donkey, another that turned hyracotherium directly into a horse and a third mutation turned directly hyracotherium into a zebra because your claim is not common ANCESTRY, it's common PARENTAGE.
Because for ONE species to become all three, it must have been a direct jump. Meaning three "mutations" on one species to create three separate species, but NOTHING MORE. No steps along the way.
But it didn't go that way, did it?
No. All evolutionists will AGREE that this is not a direct line relationship. It's convoluted pathway with multiple branches. Branches that include animals like the rhino.
what you can't tell me that the mutations were random or natural selction. That's just guesswork. Educated guesswork, but still just guesswork.
You can't possibly tell me that hypridization or polyploidy were not the cause of this speciation. You can't tell me it was not some heretofore unconceived method. Nobody can.
What you have primarily failed to comprehend, even though it's been stated repeatedly, is that I don't deny evolution. I believe some form of evolution occurred. Since I'm an atheist, I am not trying to promote "god" induced from of evolution like intelligent design either.
I'm interested in promoting good science. Where the data is taken in and looked at reasonably and without bias. Where preconceived notions get kicked to teh curb if the data suggests that it should.
I'm something you've never encountered before. I'm not trying to disprove evolution's existence, I'm trying to improve evolutionary theory. Right now it is flawed. mostly because people who don't understand what they are talking about promote it as set in stone fact that all things evolve through random mutations and random selection. We've already got evidence in this thread that not all things evolve this way.
So far, we have no definitive evidence that anything evolves that way.
What we have is a logical induction based on many different pieces of data collected. But no direct observations of random mutations or natural selection.
But remember, we DO have direct observations of a DIFFERENT mechanism at work. Right there. Before our very eyes.
Why deny that which we KNOW exist for that which we THINK exists?
The next post of mine you actually understand the point will be the first. Think about that before you run your mouth.Like I said, do go and learn something about evolution before you start spewing how it doesn't work.