• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
Pelicans, of course.

Just the answer I was looking for. I mean, that's the only logical conclusion based on the evidence we have, after all. :2razz:


Grateful Heart: Ha ha, sure, I mean, apes evolved from something which evolved from something...


Duke
 
I only steal wooden spoons.
……- and this is Tucker. He steals wooden spoons. I hope you have a few in the house, if not we brought some with us. Can you put them somewhere for him?
- Oh, don’t worry, Jim was cleaning our attick yesterday, and he found about 4 wooden spoons. He was going to put them in dumpster tomorrow. I will ask him to rinse them for Tucker.


Tucker, I apologize that I could sound somewhat mentoring in my last reply to you, it was not an intention, I was tired, was thinking about something else and just did not want to play games around.

I think you may have some self-identity problem, - atheists are not those who collect wooden spoons, - atheists are those who cannot understand 2 simple sentences whoever long you try to explain to them, those who gather in groups attracted to each other and who exhibit indecent and repulsive behavior and whose ignorance is not excusable but aggressive. Since you keep on failing these checks I am not going to call you an atheist anymore and I apologize for previous cases. I was confused by your self-identification.


P.S. To justone: I forgot that you had asked for a source for my Einstein quotes from way back and just remembered while I was posting this. They come from Einstein's Eulogy to Isaac Newton in the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1927.

Thank you. It did sound very close to the meaning of the quote from the Appendix. I had to take a university exam which was including the TOR. I have not been doing any reading lately, and I am not planning, even if it causes some sweet memories.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case said:
More accurately, Einstein said that Relativity "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one." And that Relativity "may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought." .

Originally Posted by justone said:
Would an evolutionist understand what does mean "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one."? No way.

OK. You tried. And?

How do you feel? Still in the shower spraying deodorant around?

Just for you, Tucker:

Einstein exactly says that the TOR follows rules of science and is not anything exotic is not anything like evolution. Einstein exactly says that the deductions from Newton’s theory (or mathematical formulas) give positions of the planets, and allow pre-calculate other observed phenomena, and the deductions from the TOR give practically the same positions, only more accurate (exactly as it is worded in Rule IV) Thus it checks out to be valid on the day arrival, which is totally opposite to evolution which neither checks out nor has a day of arrival.

As simple as that.

The TOR makes Newton’s theory liable to exceptions in cases of new occurrences of phenomena of movement of light and electromagnetic waves which were not observed by Newton and thus couldn’t be explained/ included in Newton’s consideration. Einstein points in the TOR that the deductions = formulas are also result of Maxwell’s observations of electromagnetism and the TOR confirms to them as it confirms to the motions of the planets in the paragraph above. Thus the TOR checks out to be valid on the day arrival, and that is totally opposite to evolution which neither checks out nor has a day of arrival.

Einstein points there are only very few things in the Theory that are “”new” and don’t have observations but only evidence behind them.

Like Newton couldn’t mention or think how the discovery of Neptune on a piece of paper will be made possible by his theory in the same way Hubble’s suggestions or Cosmology have nothing to do to the few investigations mentioned. The particular reference of Einstein to observations of the Doppler effect in the TOR is a reference to observations, and the Doppler effect caused Hubble’s suggestions, too.

Both theories are inducted by observations of phenomena, by occurrences observed and produced and reproduced in experiments. (Take their deductions, calculate – we need such an acceptation to lift the body of such a weight from the earth and transport it to the orbit. Theoretically. It will take so much time for the body then to reach the moon. Theoretically. Experiment. Confirmed. We are very close.) This is their fundamental difference from evolution which makes no such deductions and refers to no occurrences observed, which is a pure speculation. Both TOR and Newton’s theories satisfy the main task of science – they produce equations which describe the occurrences and predict the same occurrences of the same bodies in the universe. Moreover they are used for development of such useful theories as the theory of structural materials, or rocket science, astronomic calculations of a comet hitting /not hitting the earth etc; they predict and explain appearances of Cosmic events, - we pre-calculate the events. Evolution does not satisfy the main task of science it produces no equations and it has not been having any use.

So you are quite close in your consideration and you are absolutely correct about evolutionists, - it is quite clear they are totally misread the basic text, which is another proof that they cannot comprehend a simple sentence. It is quite clear they have never read the TOR or any texts related to Hubble and Big bang, it is quite clear that they are not capable of reading. On your own experience you have seen the aggressive and violent ignorance of evolutionists.


Now for everyone else:

No decent man – however he understands or does not understand Einstein, quotes, etc would not see clearly that evolutionists all over suddenly came up with blaming me for denial of the TOR when it is quite clear that I am basing my statements on the TOR and I know what I am talking about. It is quite clear that they cannot understand a simple sentence.

Switching back to Tucker:

It should be proven for you now that there is no blame you can put on me for spraying loads of deodorant when an evolutionist shows up in the room. It should be proven for you that there is no sense to exercise sweetness with them, - you can see I tried for you - it makes no difference.
 
Last edited:
What I don't get is that there are people who look at apes and at humans and think we're somehow not related. Man and ape share common ancestor, evolution is known to have happened. Measured fact. .

What I don't get is that there are people who look at apes and at humans and think we're somehow related and share and common ancestor which could be anything else but not a superman from whom we and apes has evolved.

During all existence of humanity we have conducted huge, uncounted number of most extensive experiments with species but we have never observed species evolving from a common ancestor no matter to what extremes we have gone trying to make it happen. What I don't get is that there are people who say that it is a fact that it happens. These people call themselves scientists. When I move to a new neighborhood I make sure that there are no scientists among my neighbors.
 
When I move to a new neighborhood I make sure that there are no scientists among my neighbors.

I couldn't think of a better way to end this thread.

Please stop. You're killing us!

:rofl
 
……- and this is Tucker. He steals wooden spoons. I hope you have a few in the house, if not we brought some with us. Can you put them somewhere for him?
- Oh, don’t worry, Jim was cleaning our attick yesterday, and he found about 4 wooden spoons. He was going to put them in dumpster tomorrow. I will ask him to rinse them for Tucker.

SCORE!!!! :mrgreen:


Tucker, I apologize that I could sound somewhat mentoring in my last reply to you, it was not an intention, I was tired, was thinking about something else and just did not want to play games around.

I think you may have some self-identity problem, - atheists are not those who collect wooden spoons, - atheists are those who cannot understand 2 simple sentences whoever long you try to explain to them, those who gather in groups attracted to each other and who exhibit indecent and repulsive behavior and whose ignorance is not excusable but aggressive. Since you keep on failing these checks I am not going to call you an atheist anymore and I apologize for previous cases. I was confused by your self-identification.

Whatever works, bro. :mrgreen:





Einstein exactly says that the TOR follows rules of science and is not anything exotic is not anything like evolution. Einstein exactly says that the deductions from Newton’s theory (or mathematical formulas) give positions of the planets, and allow pre-calculate other observed phenomena, and the deductions from the TOR give practically the same positions, only more accurate (exactly as it is worded in Rule IV) Thus it checks out to be valid on the day arrival, which is totally opposite to evolution which neither checks out nor has a day of arrival.

As simple as that.

The TOR makes Newton’s theory liable to exceptions in cases of new occurrences of phenomena of movement of light and electromagnetic waves which were not observed by Newton and thus couldn’t be explained/ included in Newton’s consideration. Einstein points in the TOR that the deductions = formulas are also result of Maxwell’s observations of electromagnetism and the TOR confirms to them as it confirms to the motions of the planets in the paragraph above. Thus the TOR checks out to be valid on the day arrival, and that is totally opposite to evolution which neither checks out nor has a day of arrival.

Einstein points there are only very few things in the Theory that are “”new” and don’t have observations but only evidence behind them.

Like Newton couldn’t mention or think how the discovery of Neptune on a piece of paper will be made possible by his theory in the same way Hubble’s suggestions or Cosmology have nothing to do to the few investigations mentioned. The particular reference of Einstein to observations of the Doppler effect in the TOR is a reference to observations, and the Doppler effect caused Hubble’s suggestions, too.

Both theories are inducted by observations of phenomena, by occurrences observed and produced and reproduced in experiments. (Take their deductions, calculate – we need such an acceptation to lift the body of such a weight from the earth and transport it to the orbit. Theoretically. It will take so much time for the body then to reach the moon. Theoretically. Experiment. Confirmed. We are very close.) This is their fundamental difference from evolution which makes no such deductions and refers to no occurrences observed, which is a pure speculation. Both TOR and Newton’s theories satisfy the main task of science – they produce equations which describe the occurrences and predict the same occurrences of the same bodies in the universe. Moreover they are used for development of such useful theories as the theory of structural materials, or rocket science, astronomic calculations of a comet hitting /not hitting the earth etc; they predict and explain appearances of Cosmic events, - we pre-calculate the events. Evolution does not satisfy the main task of science it produces no equations and it has not been having any use.

Well said, justone. I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head regarding the fundamental differences between evolution and traditional science. I agree. This is the fundamental flaw with evolution.

It has a high propensity for subjectivity that doesn't exist in traditional science. I must say that you have posed a very convincing argument in favor of a paradigm shift regarding evolution where it is moved from the "science" category into the philosophy category.

Now, it still remains a philosophy that I believe warrants consideration, but I can now see why you have a strong aversion towards it's designation as a science with far more clarity than I could before. Thank you for that.


It should be proven for you now that there is no blame you can put on me for spraying loads of deodorant when an evolutionist shows up in the room. It should be proven for you that there is no sense to exercise sweetness with them, - you can see I tried for you - it makes no difference.

Perhaps all evolutionists were not created equal? (pun fully intended ;))
 
What I don't get is that there are people who look at apes and at humans and think we're somehow related and share and common ancestor which could be anything else but not a superman from whom we and apes has evolved.

Yeah, fancy that.

Humans and chimps share 98.5% of their DNA.
Humans and chimps are morphologically similar.
Fossil evidence linking humans with ancient ape-like species exists.
Retrogression studies of DNA show the point of divergence between chimp and human occured roughly seven million years ago.
The oldest fossils in the hominid line are...gee, about seven million years old.
The fossil evidence shows irrefutable proof of evolution happening in all species.

But some people still have to insist that humans didn't evolve.

What's wrong with them?

During all existence of humanity we have conducted huge, uncounted number of most extensive experiments with species but we have never observed species evolving from a common ancestor no matter to what extremes we have gone trying to make it happen.

You mean like making corn out of the humble teosinte? Those kinds of "experiments"?

Then again, of course, there's irrefutable evidence that species do evolve into other species.

Hyracotherium, for instance, is the parent species of ...the horse, the donkey, and the zebra. This is borne out by the fossil record, and by the fact that the three species can interbreed but produce sterile offspring.

What I don't get is that there are people who say that it is a fact that it happens.

That's because it is a fact.

That's a strange idea for some, but many people call facts facts. Many of those people call dogmatic blindness to facts simple ignorance.
 
What I don't get is that there are people who look at apes and at humans and think we're somehow related and share and common ancestor which could be anything else but not a superman from whom we and apes has evolved.

During all existence of humanity we have conducted huge, uncounted number of most extensive experiments with species but we have never observed species evolving from a common ancestor no matter to what extremes we have gone trying to make it happen. What I don't get is that there are people who say that it is a fact that it happens. These people call themselves scientists. When I move to a new neighborhood I make sure that there are no scientists among my neighbors.

Evolution happened. If you deny evolution, then tell me where are the dinosaurs. Where were the humans? Evolution means change, it surprises me that people don't understand this. Things obviously have changed. Humans have been on this planet for only a small small fraction of its lifetime. We've seen fossil record, measured changes on a micro scale, seen the measured effects of evolution. Only the most ravenous of extremists would still deny that evolution happened at all. Sure, many dynamics are not quite known at this point; but the over all phenomenon is known to have occurred. Some people choose ignorance I guess...these people wouldn't want scientists as neighbors because why would you want someone who is smart and could maybe challenge your beliefs when you can find a bunch of sheep to live with who will just nod their heads in agreement without applying any amount of rational or logical thought to a problem. They can take field trips to that creation museum where they actually have displayed humans riding dinosaurs. Ignorance I guess is bliss.
 
Evolution happened. If you deny evolution, then tell me where are the dinosaurs. Where were the humans? Evolution means change, it surprises me that people don't understand this. Things obviously have changed. Humans have been on this planet for only a small small fraction of its lifetime. We've seen fossil record, measured changes on a micro scale, seen the measured effects of evolution. Only the most ravenous of extremists would still deny that evolution happened at all. Sure, many dynamics are not quite known at this point; but the over all phenomenon is known to have occurred. Some people choose ignorance I guess...these people wouldn't want scientists as neighbors because why would you want someone who is smart and could maybe challenge your beliefs when you can find a bunch of sheep to live with who will just nod their heads in agreement without applying any amount of rational or logical thought to a problem. They can take field trips to that creation museum where they actually have displayed humans riding dinosaurs. Ignorance I guess is bliss.

by the same logic..then...where are there apes....and people?????

we're both still here.....

if WE evolved from apes.....why are there still apes...????

and where did the majic break come????:roll:
 
joe astronaut landed on the moon.....when she stepped out of the landing module....she looked down and behold....there was a rolex watch laying on the moonscape......

she picks it up....and ...damn ...its working...and the date is correct....

...she carries it back on board the mother ship...and askes captain kirk ...."where might this have come from?"....to which he replied....

"well....millions and millions of years ago there was a rock...and over millions of years...it evolved................":roll::roll::roll:


now for your daily dose of reality.....humans have been at war since the beginning of time.....

...wheres the evoloution????????:roll:
 
by the same logic..then...where are there apes....and people?????

we're both still here.....

if WE evolved from apes.....why are there still apes...????

and where did the majic break come????:roll:

We didn't evolve from apes, apes and humans share a common ancestor.

The magic comes in when people invoke deities as answers. It are the gods whom are the magic answers. Evolution is a natural process, gods are magic and alchemy.
 
joe astronaut landed on the moon.....when she stepped out of the landing module....she looked down and behold....there was a rolex watch laying on the moonscape......

she picks it up....and ...damn ...its working...and the date is correct....

...she carries it back on board the mother ship...and askes captain kirk ...."where might this have come from?"....to which he replied....

"well....millions and millions of years ago there was a rock...and over millions of years...it evolved................":roll::roll::roll:


now for your daily dose of reality.....humans have been at war since the beginning of time.....

...wheres the evoloution????????:roll:

Idiotic stories about measured inorganic devices do not prove a point. We know what a watch is, we made them. We know they're designed because we designed them. We know they were made, because we made them. There is a large difference between organic organisms and inorganic elements. Biology is alive and can adapt.
 
by the same logic..then...where are there apes....and people?????

we're both still here.....

if WE evolved from apes.....why are there still apes...????

and where did the majic break come????:roll:

Someone else asked this same question, and I answered it.

Questions such as these are demonstrative of a basic misunderstanding of the science and processes of evolution. Generally, a species does not evolve all together, in the same way, like one big happy family. A fortuitous mutation occurs, giving one organism an advantage over the rest, allowing this organism to reproduce more than others. If this happens enough times, the new strain will not be able to reproduce with the old (non-mutated) strain, and it will be considered a new species. When a new ecological niche opens, where resources are available, a species (or multiple species) often evolves to fill this niche (as an organism that is able to take advantage of these resources will be able to reproduce more, et cetera). There is still an ecological niche for apes where they exist, resources from which they can live and reproduce, therefore, there are still apes. Humans are a branch of the Greater Apes; there are other branches.

There's no magic. Only facts and science. If you don't believe in evolution, it is you who believes in magic.


Duke
 
Last edited:
joe astronaut landed on the moon.....when she stepped out of the landing module....she looked down and behold....there was a rolex watch laying on the moonscape......

she picks it up....and ...damn ...its working...and the date is correct....

...she carries it back on board the mother ship...and askes captain kirk ...."where might this have come from?"....to which he replied....

"well....millions and millions of years ago there was a rock...and over millions of years...it evolved................":roll::roll::roll:


now for your daily dose of reality.....humans have been at war since the beginning of time.....

...wheres the evoloution????????:roll:


Humans at war is a lot like natural selection, a functional law, if you will, of evolution.

Organisms reproduce, scrambling DNA; mutations add and subtract and change DNA genomes. Organisms are born, organisms die; the ones with the best DNA reproduce the most. If/when things change, organisms with mutations or differences that make them most suited to the change reproduce the most. It's so simple, some people can't understand it.


Duke
 
joe astronaut landed on the moon.....when she stepped out of the landing module....she looked down and behold....there was a rolex watch laying on the moonscape......

she picks it up....and ...damn ...its working...and the date is correct....

...she carries it back on board the mother ship...and askes captain kirk ...."where might this have come from?"....to which he replied....

"well....millions and millions of years ago there was a rock...and over millions of years...it evolved................":roll::roll::roll:


now for your daily dose of reality.....humans have been at war since the beginning of time.....

...wheres the evoloution????????:roll:


Nice analogy. We know for a fact that watches are made by people.

Got any evidence at all that people are made by watches?
 
Yeah, fancy that.

Humans and chimps share 98.5% of their DNA.
Humans and chimps are morphologically similar.
Fossil evidence linking humans with ancient ape-like species exists.
Retrogression studies of DNA show the point of divergence between chimp and human occured roughly seven million years ago.
The oldest fossils in the hominid line are...gee, about seven million years old.
The fossil evidence shows irrefutable proof of evolution happening in all species.

But some people still have to insist that humans didn't evolve.

What's wrong with them?



You mean like making corn out of the humble teosinte? Those kinds of "experiments"?

Then again, of course, there's irrefutable evidence that species do evolve into other species.

Hyracotherium, for instance, is the parent species of ...the horse, the donkey, and the zebra. This is borne out by the fossil record, and by the fact that the three species can interbreed but produce sterile offspring.
That's because it is a fact.

That's a strange idea for some, but many people call facts facts. Many of those people call dogmatic blindness to facts simple ignorance.
Whatever you say you are talking to yourself, because again you are cannot understand meaning of 2 simple sentences.

The bolded red tells exactly that all you can do is to make a strawman and base your post on a strawman. Anybody with a minimum conscience would see what I mean when I say:

Originally Posted by justone :
During all existence of humanity we have conducted huge, uncounted number of most extensive experiments with species but we have never observed species evolving from a common ancestor no matter to what extremes we have gone trying to make it happen.

I am trying again, - please answer the question:

Have we ever observed different species evolving from a common ancestor?

Answer: Yes or No?


I am accepting 5 separate bets (it is time to make money on scientists):

1. Scientists will not understand the simplest question.
2. Scientists will not be able to give the simplest answer.
3. Scientists will cut and run
4. Scientists will turn to meaningless personal insults

And the highest stake is

5. Scientists will do all the above.


People, make your bets.

Can mods make it a Poll?
 
joe astronaut landed on the moon.....when she stepped out of the landing module....she looked down and behold....there was a rolex watch laying on the moonscape......

she picks it up....and ...damn ...its working...and the date is correct....

...she carries it back on board the mother ship...and askes captain kirk ...."where might this have come from?"....to which he replied....

"well....millions and millions of years ago there was a rock...and over millions of years...it evolved................":roll::roll::roll:


now for your daily dose of reality.....humans have been at war since the beginning of time.....

...wheres the evoloution????????:roll:

I made up my own. It is still raw… but. Let’s go sci=fi. joe astronaut from a silicon based non-organic civilization landed on the earth. (Like supercomputers have developed intelligence) joe astronaut supercomputer walk on the earth wiped by a biological disease or swine virus. He is finds the remnants of bicycles, cars, airplanes etc and comes to a logical conclusion that they have evolved from a simple non-organic form, like a needle and a staple. He looks at these fossils:
http://www.tofslie.com/files/evolution_apple.jpg

and draws an evolution tree starting from a basic calculator. Then he makes theories why the evolution of Apple died out and did not reach his level. Then silicon Smith Terminator #10101 redraws the tree and makes another theory. Silicon john archeologist digs out a bunch of telephones and makes a better theory. And so they go.

The same idea – if it 2 things look similar to my eye and feelings then they have a common ancestor is entertained.
 
Evolution happened. If you deny evolution, then tell me where are the dinosaurs. Where were the humans? Evolution means change, it surprises me that people don't understand this. Things obviously have changed. Humans have been on this planet for only a small small fraction of its lifetime. We've seen fossil record, measured changes on a micro scale, seen the measured effects of evolution. Only the most ravenous of extremists would still deny that evolution happened at all. Sure, many dynamics are not quite known at this point; but the over all phenomenon is known to have occurred.
As usual, we see the same meaningless foaming void of any logical construction. Evolution happened, believe or you are ignorant.
Some people choose ignorance I guess...these people wouldn't want scientists as neighbors because why would you want someone who is smart and could maybe challenge your beliefs when you can find a bunch of sheep to live with who will just nod their heads in agreement without applying any amount of rational or logical thought to a problem. They can take field trips to that creation museum where they actually have displayed humans riding dinosaurs. Ignorance I guess is bliss.

As usual an inability of understanding 2 simple sentences is demonstrated again.


You base your belief in evolution on logical deductions from empirical evidence (at least I hope so since you flatly refuse to demonstrate any rational). I base my beliefs on logical deductions from empirical evidence as well. I have not been even arguing so much against your rational, logical thought and evidence leading you to your belief in evolution, - why do you want me to start? Do you really believe that you are ready to challenge my logic? Why are you so aggressive? Why do you have to impose your beliefs on my children as the only right beliefs?


I am trying again, - please answer the question:

Have we ever observed different species evolving from a common ancestor?

Answer: Yes or No?


I am taking 5 separate bets- it is time to make money on scientists:

1. Scientists will not understand the simplest question.
2. Scientists will not be able to give the simplest answer.
3. Scientists will cut and run
4. Scientists will turn to meaningless personal insults

And the highest stake is

5. Scientists will do all the above.


Can mods insert a Poll here or something?
 
The same idea – if it 2 things look similar to my eye and feelings then they have a common ancestor is entertained.

Such willful ignorance. Similarity in appearance in organisms was simply the clue that tipped us off that evolution happened/is happening. We looked into it, and whaddya know, proof; fossils, genetic records, et al.


Duke
 
We looked into it, and whaddya know, proof; fossils, genetic records, et al.


Duke

And each time you decided:
if these things look similar to my eye and feelings then they have a common ancestor.


I am trying again, - please answer the question:

Have we ever observed different species evolving from a common ancestor?

Answer: Yes or No?


I am taking 5 separate bets- it is time to make money on scientists:

1. Scientists will not understand the simplest question.
2. Scientists will not be able to give the simplest answer.
3. Scientists will cut and run
4. Scientists will turn to meaningless personal insults

And the highest stake is

5. Scientists will do all the above.
 
Nice analogy. We know for a fact that watches are made by people.

Personally, I grow most weary of people using William Paley's argument without citation.

There are so many people who seem to think this is some great sort of logic, but it is really just a very well-known case of the fallacy of accident.
 
And each time you decided:
if these things look similar to my eye and feelings then they have a common ancestor.

No, not at all. You're simply ignoring the facts and substituting your own whacked ideas. Science has proven that evolution happens via observation and testing in regards to the genetic code. I say this to you, although I know you will not let this information into your head. You are more comfortable living in your delusion than accepting the truth, and there is very little any of us can do, though we are armed with the facts, to tear down your delusion. I am done trying to prove evolution, a truth of our world to you.

So I ask you, disprove or invalidate evolution.


Duke
 
I am trying again, - please answer the question:

Have we ever observed different species evolving from a common ancestor?

Answer: Yes or No?

Well, viruses do it all the time (if you count those as species).

What exactly is a "different species" aside from a series of mutations in DNA? If you accept that genes can change over a short period of time as organisms adapt to their environment, then it logically follows that there will be a LOT of changes over a LONG period of time. And that's all speciation really is...a lot of genetic changes from the original until you have something very different.
 
Last edited:
Well, viruses do it all the time (if you count those as species).

What exactly is a "different species" aside from a series of mutations in DNA? If you accept that genes can change over a short period of time as organisms adapt to their environment, then it logically follows that there will be a LOT of changes over a LONG period of time. And that's all speciation really is...a lot of genetic changes from the original.

I don't really know if viruses qualify as a species. Some argue that because they can't self-replicate, they aren't truly "alive", depending upon one's definiteion of life.

And where would prions fit in all of this?
 
Back
Top Bottom