Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,798 Year: 4,055/9,624 Month: 926/974 Week: 253/286 Day: 14/46 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 128 (266457)
12-07-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:36 PM


I used to think that was how it worked as well, until I read more about it. Think about the definition of the word "species". It is vaguely defined. The reason it is vague is that sometimes closely related animals can interbreed, and sometimes they can't, and so it is hard to draw the line between two species. The theory of evolution does not require a huge jump from one species to another. Rather, it implies small changes in each generation. These small changes are not usually enough to prevent reproduction.
After enough time however, these changes build up, and reproduction becomes impossible, or flawed. This is why horses and donkeys produce sterile mules as their offspring. If they were more closely related, the mule would be able to breed with horses or donkeys. If they were less closely related, no mules would be born at all.
Given a few thousand more years, maybe donkeys and horses will no longer be able to interbreed and make any mules at all. This is because too many changes (mutations) have built up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:36 PM Carico has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 128 (266476)
12-07-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Carico
12-07-2005 3:13 PM


Have you even read anything that I posted? Have you looked for any evidence for evolution, or did you just decide that your understanding of evolution was all that there is to know about it? Whether or not you agree with it, you have it all wrong, and even if you agreed with it for 30 years like you say, with all due respect you had it wrong then too. It does not contradict our understanding of mating. Why do you think we would accept such an explanation if it did? If it contradicted anything, we would change it so that it would fit the evidence better. That way we don't have to stick to old beliefs religiously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 3:13 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 4:41 PM Gary has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024