explaining common ancestry

So then why haven't humans changed into a different species since the beginning of recorded history? Why are apes, dogs, cats, etc. still the same since the beginning of recorded history? Maybe the former apes just got tired of mutating. What an amazing coincidence that they simply stopped changing into new and different species since there have been witnesses. Sorry, that's more than a little supicious to be considered pallatible. And it still doesn't explain how human genes got into the genes of an ape or why dog genes got into a cat without the 2 interbreeding. Or do you think breeding is a waste of time and species just evolve into other species without it?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-24-2005 04:41 PM

They aren't. Again, you are just plain wrong. There have been substantial changes in all animals, just not that noticeable on the surface due to the SHORT time span of recorded history. But there certainly have been more changes in dogs and cats than in most other species (due to active breeding by humans as an additional selection process). Look up breeds and see when some were established -- these are new varieties.We now are immune to many disease strains that didn't even exist at the turn of the century. Unfortunately the bugs have also evolved so we still get sick, but it is from a changed form of the bugs (if not a different species). If you doubt this then use last years drugs.You can take a well documented person from 200 years ago, recover DNA from them and compare it to the whole population alive today and you will not find a single person on earth that matches that benchmark.You don't have to have great changes over time if a species is well adapted to their environment, and humans are about as adapted as you can get (for a mammal) -- they cover the globe, living in a wide variety of environments that other animals are not able to bridge.I suggest you stick to the great debate forum with Nuggin until you reach a stopping point there. That way you won't keep making the same mistakes on other threads.http://EvC Forum: Nuggin & Carico - Evolution ExplainedThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12*24*2005 05:42 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

oh, this is my FAVOURITE! let's look at cats. actually, a specific variety. these are some purebred persian blue winners from past cat shows. i'll arrange them chronologically. (1907) (1927) (1938) (1970) (1971) (1990) (2005)all pictures blatantly stolen from: bluepersian.ndirect.co.ukyou know, since we'ce been actively breeding dogs and cats since the beginning of recorded history, and controlled HOW they breed (artificial selection) we quite literally control their evolution to a large degree, and generally have a record of it.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-24-2005 06:23 PM

---

אָרַח

Carico, Why would they is the short answer. Just because speciation can occur rapidly doesn't mean it has to. There is no reason why speciation has to occur even in populations that are isolated from each other for geologically long periods of time. They aren't. We share homologous genes with the great apes (among others) because we got them from the same ancestor.What you mean by dog genes in a cat is less clear, but if I interpret your comment the same way, the answer is the same, they share homologous genes inherited from the same ancestor. In both cases the genes may perform the same function but generally differ slightly in amino acid & nucleotide sequences, with exceptions. Silly boy! I have provided three examples of speciation where one interbreeding population became two: speciation. What's your point?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 12-24-2005 06:56 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ID in action!

Not all that intelligent - those recent models are as ugly as a mud fence!And yes, Randman, we are aware that artificial selection, like cat breeding, involves deliberate choice on the part of the breeder. That's part of why it's so much quicker than natural selection.

mud fence, cunt face. tomato tomahto.

well. why don't we start a thread about changes in modern humans since the beginning of recorded history. it'll be hard, but i think we can manage it.

if you consider humans intelligent, maybe. so do you think that god could "intelligently design" something by a similar process, entirely within the realm of evolution?

---

אָרַח

God could do anything so of course. The issue is whether God did it that way or not.

i guess the question i'm really looking for an answer to is:if we can "intelligently design" something within the framework of evolution, do you think that evolution rules out the action of god?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-26-2005 11:34 PM

---

אָרַח

Maybe it's because it is so late, but I don't get the question.This message has been edited by randman, 12-27-2005 01:30 AM

ok, i'll phrase it a little better.we can manipulate and control the evolution of particular variations of species, and maybe even species themselves by means of artificial selection.do you think it is possible that god uses or used a similar means (ie: supernatural selection) to create, within the evolutionary framework? do you accept then that the natural explanation does not superceed the supernatural aspect, and that god could plausible work through evolution?the point i'm trying to make is that if messing with cats like this is a form of "intelligent design" then belief in god and acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

---

אָרַח

Carico,To avoid intruding on your great debate, I have reponded to your last mail to me in that thread here. Where did I say that humans couldn't breed with apes in order to contradict myself? What everybody has been saying is that humans breed with their own species of ape & no other.Humans ARE apes, they breed within their own species, therefore they breed with other apes. I am a male ape, my wife is a female ape. If we breed then we have both bred with another ape. What is so hard to understand? They are apes too. I never said humans could breed with every other species of ape. Neither did anyone else. So why are you acting like they did? What they, & I are saying is that since humans are apes, they breed with apes when they breed with other humans. I repeat:Humans are apes, therefore if a human male ape breeds with a female human ape, the two human apes have bred with their own species of ape. They bred with other apes of the same species. What they haven't done is outbreed with another species of ape. Yes I can, watch this & learn. A perfectly logical non-contradictory statement coming up:Humans, gorillas, orangutans, chimps etc. share both genetic, molecular, & morphological apomorphies that place them in the same taxonomic group. Fossils also exist possessing characters of an intermediate nature that phylogenetic analysis indicates a common ancestor with other great apes. Cladistic analysis of amino acid & nucleotide sequences support the conclusion of common descent divergence sequence. Increasing dissimilarity of pseudogenes follow the same general pattern of divergence. All of the above provide independent & mutually supporting evidence that humans share common ancestry with the other great apes.Where was the contradiction? You mean your inability to understand enough of the science involved to appreciate the context in which discussion is taking place? Again, I repeat:Humans are apes, therefore if a human male ape breeds with a female human ape, the two human apes have bred with their own species of ape. They bred with other apes of the same species. What they haven't done is outbreed with another species of ape. But then no-one claimed they did. Sadly, I have to drum this into you by rote....Again, I repeat:Humans are apes, therefore if a human male ape breeds with a female human ape, the two human apes have bred with their own species of ape. They bred with apes. In the same way a dog breeds with a canine when it breeds with another dog. They bred with other apes of the same species. What they haven't done is outbreed with another species of ape. But then no-one claimed they did.Has the penny dropped yet? It just isn't that hard. Good grief. Firstly no-one has contradicted themselves. Secondly, no-one has lied. A lie is a deliberate act of deception, show where I have perpetrated a deliberate act of deception or retract your accusation & apologise.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2005 02:36 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico,Would you do me a favour and classify the species listed at the end of this post into three groups? You may group them any way you like, and give the groups any description you like, as long as you can give a reason for why you put each species into a certain group. And the only other condition is that no group may contain less than two species.To give you an example of what I mean, here is a list of species: and here is a possible grouping: Here is another possibility: Now you. Here are your species: And please remember, no group may contain less than two species.Good luck. {edited to change shark to salmon}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 27-Dec-2005 10:33 PM