Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....
Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....
Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....
Maybe this is why: 'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist | Mail Online
The human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, an American geneticist has suggested.
The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, who is also one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.
He points out that while humans have many features in common with chimps, we also have a large number of distinguishing characteristics not found in any other primates.
Dr McCarthy says these divergent characteristics are most likely the result of a hybrid origin at some point far back in human evolutionary history.
What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.
'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'
Dr McCarthy elaborates his astonishing hypothesis in an article on Macroevolution.net, a website he curates. He is at pains to point out that that it is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.
We also are far more dexterous than other apes. That is a positive evolutionary trait. We probably sacrificed strength for dexterity. They have identified one mutation that weakened our jaw. I will let you mull over how that could be a positive mutation.
So we didn't break our pearl whites doing the teeth gnashing monkey smile?
And your English is incorrect. You should have asked if we share a common ancestor with other apes why...... See we are apes. That was recognized long before Darwin's time.
So we didn't break our pearl whites doing the teeth gnashing monkey smile?
No, be serious.
What positive result could come from a much weaker jaw?
Okay then...
I imagine; it might make speech more relaxed and articulate...smaller jaw muscles would require less anchorage....allow for skull expansion?
Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....
Notice any differences at the top of the skull?
Those big pieces of bone at the top fo the gorilla skull are called sagittal crests, and they serve as anchoring points for their massive jaw muscles. Guess what? Those massive muscles require a thick cranium, and a thick, supportive cranium needs to have a small radius so it doesn't break apart.
GradyGrady
The problems is that if it cannot be measured in some way, science cannot deal with it.
How do we measure God? How do we measure the divine?
The divine foot in the door, so to speak, would be for you to find a way of measuring it. It doesn't mean that it can't be done but that no one to date has done it.
Good luck, I await your showing us the way.
I am not understanding what you mean by "admittedly wrong". Can you clarify?so then being admittedly wrong is better?
Multiple individuals from the same transitional species are still transitional.
I am not the one who believes in magical poofing. That would be you.
Based on what criteria?
Show me the wild population of fertile hybrids. Show me that a tiger is just as likely to mate with a lion as they are a tiger.
Why isn't mammal a kind, or vertebrate? Why aren't humans a subspecies of the mammal kind?
Snakes and humans are both subspecies of the Amniote kind.
Amniote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Separated by what?
And every time you say "it's still a Felidae" you are playing the name game.
Whenever you fail to recognize that they don't interbreed, and do not have gene flow between their wild populations, you are playing the name game.
Notice any differences at the top of the skull?
Those big pieces of bone at the top fo the gorilla skull are called sagittal crests, and they serve as anchoring points for their massive jaw muscles. Guess what? Those massive muscles require a thick cranium, and a thick, supportive cranium needs to have a small radius so it doesn't break apart.
Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....
What you need to do is just be honest and erase the imaginary lines connecting 428, 583 and 965. Then you will have an accurate showing of the bushes, that make up the tree of life, or reality.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2164-8-339-5-l.jpg
Why does a bush refute the transitional features in these fossils?
Are you yet another creationist who doesn't understand the difference between transitional and ancestral?
Because bushes are all separate, unlike your tree which is being falsified. If it is transitional, it is still ancesteral. Transitional species must still come from the same ancestors, they do not magically appear out of nowhere in your theory. And later life must still come from those transitional ones, which they would still then be ancestral. Yet biology is starting to show with technological advancements that there is no genetic links between these bushes. Each bush is showing to be its own distinct Kind.
There is NO difference between transitional and ancestral, since every transitional species must also be an ancestral species, in the same exact ancestral line. Double-talk or lack of knowledge on your part will not foot the bill.
If we came from those transitional species they are our ancestors, and the species before them are their ancestors, as well as ours. I am not sure you understand there is no difference, except in your attempt to double-talk your way out of it. And on a subject of ancestry you apparently fail to understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?