explaining common ancestry

let's try this again.my brother and i have an ancestor in common: our father (and our mother).my cousins and i have an ancestor in common: our grandfather (and grandmother).that "common" bit comes from the fact that we SHARE that ancestor. please note this comes in well before we get to anything even reasonably questionable evolution-wise. of COURSE the common ancestor of my brother and me is my father. my brother and i share a lot of features. we have similar eyes, similar hair, similar lips. but my jaw is different than his, and his nose is different than mine. but if you put our baby pictures next to each other, we look almost identical.now, our common ancestor should have all of those features combined, right? well, some of it comes from the mother, and HER side of the family too. so the features are distributed differently between us.me + my brother ≠ my father.rather,my father + my mother = my brother, me.we each have features of of our ancestors, but not all of our features are present in any ONE ancestor -- that's called sexual reproduction. you simply have it backwards.so what we should expect to see in a common ancestor between modern apes and modern humans is not something that has ape features and human features. we should expect to see something with the features that are common to both apes and humans, but is niether modern ape, nore modern human. strawman. complete and utter strawman. i challenge you to find a single reputable source that says this. we don't even claim that h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis are the same species (as creationists are so fond of doing). we say that they share a common ancestor -- just like i share a common ancestor with my cousin, 12 times removed.there are many species of primates. included in that group are many species of apes, and few species of human (all but one extinct). "primate" is an ORDER, that includes monkeys, apes, and humans. somewhere way down the ranks there is the family of hominids, which includes apes and humans. below that are the genii gorilla, pan (chimps) and homo (humans). common to all tetrapods. you forgot "bilateral external symmetry" common to all mammals. how would they be descended from each other? and that's huge jump in logic, btw. they share an ancestor. you've been suggested a better analogy of why successive modifaction of traits leads to difficulties in breeding:chihuahuas and great danes.those actually ARE the same species, but don't interbreed. except for those that don't.i've presented to you above two varieties of a species that cannot breed, and i've presented you with a long list of hybrid animals, resulting from breeding across the species line. lions and tigers will interbreed given the opportunity.

---

אָרַח

"speciation." no, you're not listening. we aren't descendants of primates, we ARE primates.and if i can't exhange genes with my brother, how can we both be descended from my father?

---

אָרַח

well, one, i am a primate. you are a primate. everyone on this board is primate. we are all capable of breeding with primates.although, i'm finding it quite difficult to breed with my great-great-grandmother. why do you suppose that is? the part where you're not capable of understanding that we ARE primates. all human features are primate features. period. humans are primates. as for features in common with GREAT APES and humans, i'm sure i could find you a ton. i didn't claim that human and apes intermingled. i claimed that after a certain point their ancestry matches: one species gave rise to apes, as well as humans. this species was a primate, but neither a modern ape nor a modern human. if a cat gave birth to a dog it would strongly falsify evolution. features are not borrowed laterally, ever. one species of animal that exists today does not ever give birth to a member of another already existing species.and you missed the point: chihuahuas and great danes are the same species: canis familiaris. they are not capable of breeding, thought for strictly practical reasons. lions and tigers are capable of interbreeding across the species line. should we classify them as the same species?i provided you with a list of about two dozen inter-species hybrids. most do not occur in the wild, even though it seems to be possible. why do you suppose this is?

---

אָרַח

yes. they are quite capable of sign language. there was a chimpanzee named oliver in the 1970's, popularized as a hybrid between chimps and humans, that walked on two legs. ask the ones that use sign language. chimps regularly use tools in the wild. does the average human? again, ask the chimps that use sign language. uh, no. let's be clear about this one: cats have four feet, chimps have two. chimps walk on two legs, and two ARMS. they're built different, skeletally. how often do you see a cat take the weight off its front limbs to grasp something with its arms? they'll paw, maybe, but they're not stable. chimps can and do stand on their legs.and they have thumbs.

---

אָרַח

no, all the previous generations are remarkably hairless, even balding.

---

אָרַח

this should be interesting.

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

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

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

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