Evolution for Dummies and Christians

No. I am not proposing at all that 2 beasts got together and instantly produced a human. I am simply saying that offspring come from the mating of their parents, which evolutionists seem to overlook entirely. The Oxford Dictionary and Thesausus, America Edition defines a species as; "A category in the classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits cabable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." That does not put humans ans and animals in the same species like evolutionists would like us to believe. Therefore, since species cannot cross-breed, then how in the heck can we be the descendants of apes? it's impossible except in the imagination.So are you saying we can change into birds through random mutation? If so, then where's your proof? If not, then how can you say that apes can turn into humans?You also don't understand that mutation can only occur on what is already present in the cell. It cannot produce new genes that aren't inherent in the cell. Otherwsie, scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone to mutate into healthy ones. Humans would also be able to produce offspring with wings. But we don't because we don't have that gene. Genes are passed from the parent to its offspring. So again, how did these creature acquire these new genes yet apes are still around today?Also, why haven't apes who have been isolated since the beginning of recorded history produced offspring that have turned into human beings since there've been witnesses? Did this simply happen one time so that man could be created? Why would that be?

No we don't. The changes we are talking about are small and would not prevent the creature from mating within it's population. Remember the ENTRE POPULATION is changing, not just the individual.A good example would be dogs. Now, all dog breeds are in the same species, and they all came from wolves. Yet, all dog breeds can't mate with each other.Look at the chihuahua and the Great Dane. Now, both the Great Dane and Chihuahu are dogs, but for obvious physical characteristics (and iirc also genetic variation) they cannot interbreed! Does this change the fact that both came from wolves?Of course not. Chihuahuas, as a population, became succesively smaller over time while great danes became larger. It's the same way with humans and apes except projected over several million years. Well, first of all, animal is not a species. Animal is a kingdom. Species is a much smaller taxa. And species H. Sapiens, contains only us. So you shouldn't have a problem with this. Look at the example I just gave with the chihuahua. Then revisit this point. Random mutation acted upon by Natural Selection. The Natural Selection is the important bit. But let's not go here yet.Before we discuss Natural Selection you first need to grasp how eveolutionary change works. Again, revist the point about the chihuahua and the great dane. Once you understand that concept we will proceed.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 02:44 PM

Message 161This idea is one thing you need to understand before you continue I think.

So how and why did these populations change, particularly since they haven't changed much at all since there have been wintesses? And if they changed enough to turn into humans, then why are humans and apes still not able to mate with each other? You still do not understand that every offspring is capable of mating with all of its ancestors which is precisely what makes them the same species...except the human and the ape. So that is why humans and apes not only not the same species, but cannot be the descendants of an ape!And how do you know that the Chihuahua came from a wolf? Who said? Last I heard, Chrihuahuas came from chihuahuas. And why are wolves not breeding chihuahuas today?You guys believe anything you read, particularly if the person has a Ph.d after his name! You can then be very easily brainwashed by people and not able to think for yourself. All I have to do is earn a Ph.d and people would believe me if I said that a cat came from a dog. Well, sorry, but reality doesn't support that and neither does it support that wolves breed chihuahuas.And what constitutes who is in which kingdom? If I have a degree in science and i say that humans and animals are in the same kingdom because they have certain characteristics in common, then poepl would simply accept whatever I say. Humans and plants have certain characteristics in common; we both need food, water, mate, and grow. But does that make us plants? Sorry but calling a human an animal doesn't make him one nor does it make himcapable of being the descendant of an animal or breeding one.I'm not going to discuss evolutionary changes without first discussing the feasibility of the premise that a human is a mixture of an animal and a human. When talking about "Natural selection" you still forget that apes are attracted to apes and humans are attracted to humans.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 02:50 PM

Carico, do you know what dog breeding is? It is a well documented, known, fact that all modern dog breeds descend directly from wolves because HUMANS CREATED DOG BREEDS.It is a known fact! Some dog breeds have been created as recently as a few hundred years ago. It's done thrugh selective breeding.We can get big dogs from little dogs and vice versa. It's not magic, dog breeders do it all the time. Didn't you know this? This is known as an adhominem attack. So far I have not called you names or accused you of anything. I expect the same courtesy from you.Now, I am not going to proceed unless you understand the point about dog breeding. Do you now accept that chihuahuas and great danes are related even though they cannot interbreed?After all, WE CREATED chihuahuas and great danes.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 02:57 PM

Here is an example of the breeding we have done with dogsPomeranian dog - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Pomeranian originated from the sled dogs of Iceland and Lapland, which were eventually brought into Europe. The Germans improved the coat and bred the dogs down for city living, but they were still 20 pounds or more when they reached England.

​

English breeders, through trial and error and Mendelian theories, are credited for reducing the dog's size and developing the many colors. The Pomeranian of today is small due to selective breeding, but the breed still retains the hardy disposition and thick coat typical of dogs in cold climates.

​

The Pomeranian became internationally popular when Queen Victoria returned from vacation in Florence, Italy with a Pomeranian named Marco.

​

The closest relatives of the Pomeranian are the Norwegian Elkhound, the Samoyed, the Schipperke, and the whole Spitz group.

---

Here is the sort of sled dog (from which pomeraninans descend):
Sled dog - Wikipedia And we KNOW this, because WE, HUMANS, did it.EDIT: Changed the image to a Norweigan Elkhound. A closer relative than the Greenland Dog.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 03:07 PM

But you forget that apes and humans cannot interbreed so your point is moot. We're talking about human origins. And since apes and humans cannot interbreed then apes and humans cannot be intermingled. To say that they can is insinuating bestiality.

Hi Carico, I'm a Biblical creationist and I have to disagree with you. Evolutionists have defined the point at which a species has become another species as the point where mating is no longer possible. I think they are wrong. I think that mating can stop being possible and the new breeds still belong to the same Kind. I believe that a Kind has great genetic potentials for variation, for instance to the extreme types of dog breeds Yaro mentions in his/her? post to you, but that all genetic variation remains within the Kind.

You obviously don't understand the point. Chihuahuas and Great Danes can't interbreed and we KNOW they are related.I am mentioning this is an example of how a POPULATION of animals can change over time to the point where they can no longer interbreed with the parent population.We wouldn't expect modern apes and humans to be able to interbreed. Although, not to cloud the issue, it's pretty likely humans and chimps can interbreed. We are close enugh geneticaly. Though the ethical questions involved prevent such an experiment.Anyway, do you understand now? Do you see how populations can change over time to the point where they can no longer interbreed with the parent population?

The problem with your theory is that mating has never been shown to be possible between apes and humans. Never. It is only possible in the imagination. You would then have to fix a point in time when apes stopped being able to breed with humans and that would be as speculative as saying that aliens came millions of years ago and deposited human beings. You are also suggesting bestiality. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that has any factual bases. And if you're a biblical creationist, you would know that God said he created man separate from the animals, each animal to its own kind, and that man is the only creation in which He breathed life, making him even more distinct from the animals. He also said that man would rule over the animals, not descend from the animals and that He created man out of the dust of the earth, not from the womb of apes. So there doesn't appear to be much about biblical creationism with which you agree.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 04:50 PM

Carico, given all that has been explained, do you now see how a population of animals can change over time to the point where they can no longer interbreed? (e.g. Great Danes and Chihuahuas)This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 05:07 PM

The fuzzyness of the definition of "species" has been discussed in various topic, maybe even up-thread in this one.I believe that Chihuahaus and Great Danes are reproductively isolated because of physical size differences and not by genetics. Perhaps a male Chihuahua could execute the sexual act with a female Great Dane. I suspect artificial insemination could be used to breed a Chihuahau/Great Dane cross breed, althought I strongly suspect there still may be physical problems, especially if the Great Dane wasn't the (dare I say) bitch in the equation.By some perspectives, the Chihuahau and Great Dane are different species.Indeed, by some perspectives, the dog and the wolf are different species, or at the minimum the dog is a subspecies (breed?) of wolf. The wolf is designated Canus lupus. The dog sometimes designated Canus lupus, sometimes disignated Canus lupus familiaris, or sometimes designated Canus familiaris.Not at all a biologist,
Moose

Hey moose, Im aware of the gray areas. And the fact that perhaps, (artifical ensimination) may produce offspring. The greater point however is that the physical difficulties involved with a chihuahua and Great Dane copulating in effect makes them unable to breed (under natural conditions).I am trying to give this topic a narrow focus in order as not to confuse Curico. I want him to understand the larger concepts first. Then we can get specific.

You say this, Carico, while on another thread around here you said there was a "sperm barrier" or some such between humans and apes. Yet human sperm has been observed to penetrate gibbon ova. Do you have any evidence for a "barrier" of any sort?Ref:"Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested." (Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa. Bedford JM, Anat Rec 188(4):477-87)

The most commonly used, and most useful, species definition is (basically) reproductively isolated groups. It doesn't matter what is going on at the genetic level, if mate recognition, behavioral differences, or physical differences prevent gene flow between two groups.Many cricket species are genetically compatible but they don't recognize each other's mating calls; some drosophilia species are genetically compatible but their genitalia can't interact due to morphology. An astounding example is the cichlid flock of Lake Malawi, a thousand or so species that are essentially all genetically compatible with each other, yet rarely interbreed in the wild. It is essential to include the non-genetic element in a species definition because otherwise we would discard all of the these isolated gene pools. A two-foot-long barracuda-like cichlid and a two-inch-long clownfish-like cichlid would be considered the same species because a hybrid could be produced in a petri dish, even though if they ever met the latter would immediately become the former's lunch.All of that said to say this: Great danes and chihuahuas are probably still the same species, but in the way that the two extreme ends of a ring species are. Though they likely would never produce offspring on their own, gene flow is readily accomplished between intermediate-sized breeds (maybe only one might even be necessary).Thus the genes of the great dane and the chihuahua can intermingle fairly easily without any rattling of test tubes...[AbE: If the world decided to undertake the abhorrent experiment of killing off all non-chihuahua/non-great-dane canis in the world, we'd probably have ourselves two separate species...]This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 12-07-2005 06:36 PM