explaining common ancestry

YYYYAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNCarico, I for one am getting very bored with your rhetoric. Please post a theory and data to support the theory, or go back to burning nonbelievers at the stake.Frankly, you are taking up good bits here on the internet which could be used to other more important things.

You are close, "changing on their own."The original species would have split into two separate populations and each population would have their own mutations and changes. Eventually these mutations would add up and each population would "change" into a different species, one more like modern apes and one more like modern humans.

---

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

So I take it that you don't know that one species cannot turn into another without breeding with that species. Is that correct?So where is there evidence of any animal since the beginning of recorded history changing into another species without breeding with that species? Thank you.

They don't know this, mostly because it is utter rubbish. Given that, as you correctly note, different species cannot breed with each other there can clearly be no such cross-species hybridisation.Of course there are some things that we identify as different species, or even higher taxonomic orders, which can yet produce offspring. But this is to do more with the fact that our grouping of organisms into species has not been traditionally based on testing their interfertility. This never has and never will be the proposed mechanism of human evolution. Do you have a single scrap of evidence to support the idea that it has?TTFN,WK

So I take it that you don't know that mutations occur and accumulate? Is that correct?So where is there evidence of any barrier to accumulating mutations dividing a species into two? Thank you.

---

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I have never known a mutation to cause one species to turn into another since the beginning of recorded history without that species being able to breed with the first species. Have you?You are therefore insinuating that breeding is a waste of time because all animals magically turn into other species on their own which cannot be born out by any facts. It has also never been shown to be possible. Mutations are merely aberrations that cause damage to existing cells. Otherwise, again, scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone to mutate into helathy ones, but they don't. Therefore, again, evolution is a figment of the imaginations of men which many, many scientists are now claiming. You can find them all over the web.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-22-2005 10:56 AM

Last time I checked, humans have four limbs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, whisters, mammary glands and hair on their bodies as well.You've done an excellent job of describing MAMMALS.How are cat and dog legs similiar or different? Do dogs have retractable claws? Are dogs more flexible than cats?How are cat and dog eyes similiar or different? Are dog pupils round or slit?How are cat and dog ears similiar or different? Do dogs ears rotate individually like a cats?How are cat and dog noses similiar different? Do bloodhounds have a greater sense of smell than a siamese?How are cat and dog mouths similiar or different? Do dogs have barbs on their tongues for cleaning their fur?How are cat and dog whisters similiar or different? Do dogs have sensitive whisters that spread out from their snouts like a cats? So, exactly how similiar are cats and dogs really? And cats and dogs can? Wow! You really need to visit a pet store.

So can cats and dogs breed and produce offspring? If so, then a dog can change into a cat. How then can a dog change into a cat without being able to breed with cats? And if they can, why is one species called dogs and the other called cats? Sorry, but you're again not showing how it's possible for apes to turn into humans without being able to breed with humans. You are again claiming that one species can turn into another without being able to breed with that species. And the last I saw, cats still haven't turned into dogs even unless they can mate with dogs. So again, why do evolutionists claim that apes turn into humans without mating with humans if no other psecies can do it? Thank you.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-22-2005 11:01 AM

"apes" are not a species. Humans are apes, gorillas are apes, chimps are apes.And no one is claiming that humans, gorillas and chimps are the same species. No one would expect that humans, gorillas and chimps could interbreed.You have repeatedly built a strawman about evolution. Either you are being disingenuous or ignorant. Which is it?Are you lying, or are you just uneducated about this topic?

Sorry, but again, as the dictionary says, members of each species have to be able to interbreed with each other to be considered a memeber of the same species. And since animals and humans cannot interbreed, then you can call a human anything you want, but you cannot change the fact that apes and humans cannot inter breed. Therefore, if you say that humans are the result of mating between humans and apes, you are suggesting bestiality, are you not? So which is it?

Have you ever seen a great dane/chihuaua hybrid? How about great dane/daschund mix? Great dane/pug?Technically, same species. Differences between them are only minor mutations effecting size. Yet, despite all these breeds being very popular, I don't see any mixes. Why is that?Could it be that these very minor differences have split great danes off from these other breeds?

Wow! You really don't know the answer? Maybe you shouldn't have been making the claim that dogs and cats are so similiar you think? You are the only person on this thread making that claim, Carico. The fact that you've now made it about two dozen times only to declare yourself wrong, just shows us once again how little you actually understand about biology.

Actually, it's you who claims that one species turns into another without breeding with it and without any proof that this is possible. So I'd suggst you look at your own contradictions before attacking me who has proof for my claims. Breeding is what causes one species to acquire the genes of another. And I have tons of proof for this! So I'll simply have to assume that evolutionists are simply ingorant of the fact that one species cannot turn into another without breeding with that species. Although, I still find it hard to believe that they are that ignornant, so my conclusion is that that they balantlty and openly lie about how genes are passed on to offspring. Again, which do you think it is? Ignorance or outright lying? I'd again really like to know which one it is. Thank you.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-22-2005 11:17 AMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-22-2005 11:18 AM

Uhh, the question was why you think that cats and dogs are the same species. Are you backing down on that now?Since biology is obviously a HUGE weakspot for you, let's move onto something you might be able to understand. Math.1 is a number.
2 is a number.
3 is a number.
4 is a number.
5 is a number.They go in order. The order is this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 51 signifies a single unit. 2 signifies a doubling of that unit, with each subsequent number being an additional single unit.I'll demonstrate1 of something would look like this: *
2 of something would look like this: **
3 of something would look like this: ***Get it? Let's move on.1 is not 2. 2 is not 3. 3 is not 4.If you have 1 and you get another 1, you can call that two.It would look like this: * *
or like this: **See how 1 and 1 make 2?In the same way, if you had 2 and you got another 1 it would look like this: ** *
or: ***So 2 and 1 make 3.You can extend this forward until you reach 5.(really, you can go much further than 5, but I don't want your brain to explode)So: * * * * *
is 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 or is the same as *****But: * is not *****It's just a step on the way to 5.The fact that you jump up and down and post that "1 is not 5" and "1 can never be 5" doesn't change the fact that 1+1+1+1+1=5.You are right, 1 is not 5. No mathematician is out there saying that 1 and 5 are the same.Do you understand this? Or, is your understanding of math based on those same "30 years" of study you did about evolution?

You just said that two species can not interbreed, so how is it that "breeding" is what causes a species to acquire genes of another species?You are contradicting yourself. Personally, I think you are ignorant, since someone with an education should be able to come up with a better lie than what you are spouting here.