explaining common ancestry

No, WK said that it wouldn't have any uniquely human traits - it would have many traits in common with humans and many in common with apes, just as humans and modern apes share many traits in common. But the differences that we consider uniquely human would, almost by definition, be lacking in an ancestor species that we and modern apes have in common.

Carico, you may be aware that biologists use a heirarchical classification system for organisms. For instance, within the group, "insects," (class Insecta), we have a smaller group called "beetles" (order Coleoptera). Within that group we have smaller divisions (families, genera, species, etc.). Right? So, for example, a southern pine beetle (genus Dendroctonus, species frontalis) is in the bark beetle subfamily (Scolytinae) of the weevil family (Curculionidae) which is a type of beetle (order Coleoptera) and an insect (class Insecta) and an arthropod (phylum Arthopoda) which is a type of animal (kingdom Animalia).An "ape" is not a species. Apes are a superfamily of animals (superfamily Hominoidea), which includes many species, such as gibbons, siamangs, gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. The "great apes" are in the family Hominidae, and according to biologists, humans are placed within this family, along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.So, you confuse the issue terribly when you argue that "apes and humans are not the same species." I hope that this explanation will help you communicate more productively.Edit: whoops, Percy beat me to it.This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-23-2005 10:13 AM

The term "homonid" applies to humans, too. It's a shorthand for an animal in the family Hominidae, the great apes, which includes those of us in the genus Homo.Could you clarify something? You keep talking about a species "turning into another species." Now, most of us automatically translate this to mean, "turning into a new species," because the alternative doesn't make any sense. The alternative in this case being a species turning into another, already existing species (even one from an entirely different class) such as in your example from Message 94: Given some of the other things you've said, it's possible that you're not being facetious, and that you really think that evolutionary biology says that birds can turn into dogs and so forth. If so, I can assure you that this is a terrible misrepresentation. I know you've been asked this before, but can you explain what you think evolution is?

Actually, it comes primarily from mutation of genes and natural selection acting on those mutations. Both of these mechanisms are factual, observable in populations of modern organisms everywhere. Even most creationists are aware of this.Do you know what mutation is? You should, if in fact you studied evolution for 30 years as you claim. Evolution isn't about one species changing into another already existing species by breeding with it. That is a straw man and a red herring.

ONCE AGAIN, this is not what evolution predicts. If anything, a cat turning into a dog (regardless of its mating behavior) would be evidence against evolution. Try going back and reading what has been posted. We are trying to explain how evolution actually works, and you appear to be stuck on the above misunderstanding.This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-24-2005 10:39 AM