Macroevolution:

[Loudmouth]

i actually refer to convergent loss. if it's the result of convergetn loss- then they are homologous. but again: your claim about hierarchy is wrong in both cases.

If there was a loss in those lineages, then it isn't wrong.

 

[xianghua]

If there was a loss in those lineages, then it isn't wrong.

they only believe that it's the result of a convergent loss. they cant prove it.

 

[stevil]

you are welcome to believe it. but it's only a belief.

Supported by lots of empirical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Supported by lots of empirical evidence.

Only on paper.

 

[xianghua]

Supported by lots of empirical evidence.

such as?

 

[stevil]

Each nation had a primary deity, usually with the deity coupled with man in some way; and the scientific community is no exception.

I found that post quite funny.

Of course, no-one thinks evolution has modern man mating with a chimpanzee though, and neither of these are gods.

 

[stevil]

Only on paper.

In electronic format also.

 

[Loudmouth]

they only believe that it's the result of a convergent loss. they cant prove it.

Or it evolved separately in each lineage resulting in two analogous neural systems.

 

[Loudmouth]

such as?

Such as the twin nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

Or it evolved separately in each lineage resulting in two analogous neural systems.

again: you are welcome to believe it. the claim about nested hierarchy has been falsified and this is my main point.

 

[Loudmouth]

again: you are welcome to believe it. the claim about nested hierarchy has been falsified and this is my main point.

Analogous neural systems do not falsify a nested hierarchy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, no-one thinks evolution has modern man mating with a chimpanzee though, and neither of these are gods.

Um ... either HitchSlap or Loudmouth (can't remember) can enlighten you on this disgusting topic I addressed some time ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

In electronic format also.

Indeed.

Scientists program their software for desired results.

In my opinion.

 

[xianghua]

Analogous neural systems do not falsify a nested hierarchy.

the fact that the authors conclude that it may be the r esult of convergent loss prove that even according to evolution theory there is no problem with non-nested hierarchy. so your claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution isnt true even by the experts in the field. but you are welcome to believe that it's false.

 

[stevil]

such as?

Here is a start for you
'Your Inner Fish' traces human evolution back to our earliest ancestors

 

[stevil]

Indeed.

Scientists program their software for desired results.

In my opinion.

Do you think that the scientific community have an agenda that goes beyond empirical based discovery?

 

[xianghua]

Here is a start for you
'Your Inner Fish' traces human evolution back to our earliest ancestors

so your evidence is a "missing link"? are you aware that a tetrapod track fossil found to be eariler then this fish?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ack-the-invasion-of-land-by-18-million-years/

 

[Subduction Zone]

so your evidence is a "missing link"? are you aware that a tetrapod track fossil found to be eariler then this fish?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ack-the-invasion-of-land-by-18-million-years/

All of this time and you still don't know what a transitional fossil is?

 

[Astrophile]

so your evidence is a "missing link"? are you aware that a tetrapod track fossil found to be eariler then this fish?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ack-the-invasion-of-land-by-18-million-years/

Why do you believe this evidence but not all the other evidence that tetrapods evolved from fish?

What do you think the Silurian ancestors of the animals that made the Zachelmie tracks were? Were they tetrapods, in spite of the lack of body fossils and trace fossils of tetrapods in Silurian rocks, or were they something else?

 

[stevil]

Um ... either HitchSlap or Loudmouth (can't remember) can enlighten you on this disgusting topic I addressed some time ago.

The evidence (DNA) does suggest that the human and chimpanzee ancestry did diverge for a while, and intermingle again and then diverged again, I would imagine while we were intermingling we didn't look too dissimilar at the time. Most of us do seem to have a built in mechanism as to be lustful only for those closely related to our own species. We don't tend to get excited sexually about sheep and cows and donkeys and the such. Even our close cousins the chimpanzees as they appear today, aren't too seductive.
It wasn't that long ago though when we intermingled with neanderthals. Most whitey's have some neanderthal in them.
Sometimes there isn't a clear delineation between species. It's much like a child becoming an adult. There is no point where you would say yesterday they were a child and today they are an adult. So we would never say that a homo erectus gave birth to a homo sapiens.