Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[jwu]

Nevermind...obsolete. Please delete.

jwu

 

[MarkT]

There is a fairly simple way to determine whether or not humans are apes. You make a list of the generic characteristics of apes. You do not include any character which is specific to one type of ape such as the saggital crest of gorillas. Or even a character common to some apes but not to all. This leaves you with only species common to all apes.

Now which of those characters are lacking in humans? If humans do not have some of the essential characters of apes, they are not apes. But if they have the characteristics of apes, then they are apes.

How do you explain 30 families of frog then? Why aren't they considered species ie. they come out of a single gene pool.

I'll bet you can tell they are frogs just by looking at them. So in my opinion, they belong to one family.

What you're saying about humans is not a fact.

Anyone can see humans are not apes. Apes belong to the monkey kind. That is apparent.

Of course I'm aware of what science says. I don't agree with them.

I don't agree with the "fact" of evolution. Therefore I don't agree humans are apes.

Apes and humans do not share any characters. It only looks like they do but they don't. You can easily tell them apart. Apes have characters that are peculiar to apes that resemble human characters but they are not the same. It doesn't mean they are related.

Bears and dogs have dog-like faces but it doesn't mean they are related.

The difference between apes and humans is far greater in my view. What you call non essential or minor are evidence they don't all come from the same gene pool.

And besides, I don't believe in evolution by modification and descent so I have no reason to think they are related.

Cats have retractable claws, better night vision and a rough rather than a smooth tongue. Some dogs have floppy ears and some have a pug nose and they show more variation in size. But those are pretty minor differences, surely. Not enough to consider them a separate kind, since kind can include more than one species.

You can see they are separate kinds just by looking at them. There's alot of variation in the cat family; sabre toothed tigers, house cats, lions, bobcats, etc. But you can tell at a glance they are cats. So genetically they belong to the cat family.

Same with dogs.

How you classify them is an entirely different matter. It's an arbitrary thing. Artificial.

I can sort books, for example, by the author, title, subject, etc.

Even in this case, I can't say for sure they are a different kind. I can only say they are different families.

No, they are not. Each of those 30 families contains one or more genera. Each genus contains one or more species (some contain over 100 species) and some of the species have sub-species. There are over 3,000 different species of frogs and toads. (By comparison, the whole class of mammals is made up of about 4,000 species).

See. You can call them families because frogs speciate at a faster rate but the definition of family has now changed.

It's now a step in the hierarchy of the system of classifying things that is being used.

So these examples are "families" because they contain species.

However, my definition of family remains "the gene pool" the animal comes from.

Why are amphibians a kind and mammals not?

Well you're using the scientific terms that came out of the system you're using. Again, it's a matter of different rates of speciation which is confusing the picture.

I would suspect mammals are more complicated. Therefore I would not use "kind" to refer to mammals.

It is not a matter of what you think or what I think. It is a matter of being able to defend what you think through a review of the evidence.

It's also a matter of interpretation. How you interpret the evidence, whether it is evidence, how you know to begin with, whether you have the a priori knowledge of evolution.

So it does come down to what we think.

True. You are actually arguing with reality.

No. What I meant was, if I wanted to know what science said, I wouldn't be arguing here. I would be reading books and journals etc.

The reason we're here is to discuss this reality, what science says, to see if there is any truth in it.

You have to defend your belief.

I don't have to have the answers. My argument is not that I have the answers. My argument is that science doesn't have the answers. Science has not proven descent by modification.

How can that be, in light of what you said above? Doesn't "parent kind" imply a common ancestor?

I asked you that question before. I'll repeat it here:

I thought the point of a kind is that an original kind was the common ancestor of the various species in the kind. Wouldn't that make them all related?

Or do you have a different concept of kind than other creationists? I am really puzzled as to how species can come from the same gene pool and not be related.

No. Not the way I'm using it. A kind would include several, maybe many families. When I use the word, I'm guessing, because I don't have a clear definition of "kind".

Like I said, there are many ways to sort things. Like how living creatures move, what they eat, whether they walk on all fours or not, whether they have wings etc. So a family would fall into a kind on that basis.

So sorting by morpholgy is only one way.

But the way of classifying things should not be informing you. A classification system can not by definition tell us how things are related.

This system you're using isn't balanced. It's not being truthful.

As I said, mammals are less likely to speciate, with the exception of birds, I guess, because they can range further, than frogs and insects.

Therefore you can't see the hierarchy that probably exists as you can with frogs and insects. Mammals have fewer offspring, take longer to breed, have fewer places to hide unless they live in a jungle.

So the family is the original parent population that species come from.

 

[Tomk80]

You can see they are separate kinds just by looking at them. There's alot of variation in the cat family; sabre toothed tigers, house cats, lions, bobcats, etc. But you can tell at a glance they are cats. So genetically they belong to the cat family.

Same with dogs.

How you classify them is an entirely different matter. It's an arbitrary thing. Artificial.

I can sort books, for example, by the author, title, subject, etc.

Even in this case, I can't say for sure they are a different kind. I can only say they are different families.

And this is the central point. What you fail to realize Mark, is that it is actually the other way around. We cannot tell how to classify species just by a casual glance, which is what you want to do. Classification is far more rigorous and far less arbitrary then 'just looking'. Of all the things nature is, obvious is not one of them.

Furhtermore, there is a difference between the ability to classify books and to classify animals which you have to understand and which holds up whether you are a creationist or evolutionist. It also is one of the big supporting arguments for common descent. You see, If I sort books according to author I will get a very different sorting than if I sort them according to title. However, with animals this is not the case. No matter which combination of traits I take, my classification will continue to be the same. This is called the twin-nested hierarchy, and can only be explained by common descent.

 

[Aron-Ra]

evolution is real as in small changes over time already stated by me. the theory that we all came from one ancestor is what not right. Speciation is evolution but will never go beyond the structure or sytems with in itself.

Why don't you come back to my thread, Will, show me where evolution ever does this?

Well bacteria can change in our stomach to digest a multitude of things so i dont see the problem or concern that this proves the theory from a comman ancestor. Change is not the problem. Show me a bacteria that is a multicellular system.

I can't. Only eukaryotes have that capacity. Prokaryotes are too simple.

Most simple cells are the same now or very nearly the same as the ones in the fossil record arre they not.

Don't know. Can't tell.

Are obviouse your and others opinion. So i quess they acguired other means to sweat at the same time. I said reptiles to mammals not amphibians, and this is a problem since you say reptiles came from amphibians so they deevolved this and then evolved it back.

In my thread, I've already written the article that deals with this too. But I can't post it until I get the replies from the previous ones.

There is one egg laying mammal.

Three actually. The platypus and two species of echidna. But there are only three orders of mammals alive today, and there were three more orders of mammals which no longer exist anymore, and came before monotremes, so all of them likely laid eggs.

and if this is true then what you believe to be reptile fossils could well be mammals, and this duckbill platypus could be the last of this type of mammal because they didnt adapt well after the flood.

There was never any global flood, no question about that. But there were several fossils that were part reptile and part mammal, and some where they're so close to both that we can't decide which side they should be. We call those "transitional species". My thread deals with them a lot.

Why do i need to present this info when it is you that suggest that DNA gets new info When all you show is deletions duplicastion and lose ect.

There are also insertions, and transcriptions, both of which count as "new".

none which is new info just the same read different.

Different information is new information too. Think about it in terms of a news story, and you'll understand what I mean.

I can say just the same as you in that it isnt and you say it is because we can not prove either or for fact. We do not know all about the DNA as of yet or ever so it is all still speculation on our parts.

We've now mapped the entire human genome. And one of the Ph.D. geneticists on that project really wrote the following:

"The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely-related and even distantly-related species. The DNA of yeast and humans shares over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue ithe other genome. Comparison of non-gene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible."
--Jill Buettner; Professor of genetics and cellular biology, Richland College, Dallas TX

 

[Aron-Ra]

How do you explain 30 families of frog then? Why aren't they considered species ie. they come out of a single gene pool.

I'll bet you can tell they are frogs just by looking at them. So in my opinion, they belong to one family.

Exactly. You're identifying generic characteristics held in common amongst all of them. The same applies to the apes, including people.

What you're saying about humans is not a fact.

Yes it is, and we're trying to prove that to you, but you refuse to answer the question for some reason.

Anyone can see humans are not apes. Apes belong to the monkey kind. That is apparent.

We come from the "monkey kind" (Primates) too. To prove that, why don't you make a list of the generic characteristics of monkeys while you're at it.

Of course I'm aware of what science says. I don't agree with them.

Yes, you think your storybook about creation somehow trumps creation itself.

I don't agree with the "fact" of evolution. Therefore I don't agree humans are apes.

But it is a fact because it can be demonstrated. But only to someone who will open their eyes, answer questions, and take up our challenges to prove it.

Apes and humans do not share any characters.

Do you have pentadactyl, grasping digits with flat, keratinous nails? Do you have Fingerprints? Opposable thumbs? Two nipples on your chest? Cuspids, bicuspids, canines, incisors, and molars; (a dentition that is shared with all the other apes, but not with one other kind of animal anywhere.) Can you manufacture your own vitamin C? Or are you susceptible to scurvy if you don't get any citrus fruits for a long time? That's common with all apes too. But no other animal is like this. Is the venom of the male Australian funnel web spider deadly to you? Because for some reason, it only seems to kill things from the "monkey kind", yet it kills people too. I would say that you share quite a lot of traits with the apes, traits that are otherwise unique to the apes, and not found in any other animal.

It only looks like they do but they don't. You can easily tell them apart. Apes have characters that are peculiar to apes that resemble human characters but they are not the same. It doesn't mean they are related.

OK. Then tell me which one this is:

Bears and dogs have dog-like faces but it doesn't mean they are related.

What about prehistoric amphicyonids? The famous fossil "Bear-dogs"?

The difference between apes and humans is far greater in my view. What you call non essential or minor are evidence they don't all come from the same gene pool.

And besides, I don't believe in evolution by modification and descent so I have no reason to think they are related.

That's right. You believe in magic spells instead.

You can see they are separate kinds just by looking at them. There's alot of variation in the cat family; sabre toothed tigers, house cats, lions, bobcats, etc. But you can tell at a glance they are cats. So genetically they belong to the cat family.

OK then, what are these?

Same with dogs.

OK then. What are these?

How you classify them is an entirely different matter. It's an arbitrary thing. Artificial.

Do me a favor. Read these,

message # 01 (Biota)
message # 05 (Eukarya)
message # 17 (Opisthokonta, Animalia)
message # 23 (Eumetazoa, Coelemata, Bilateria)
message # 36 (Deuterostomia, Chordata)
message # 82 (Craniata, Vertebrata, Gnathostomata, Sarcopterygii)

And then tell me how "artificial" it is.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

And this is the central point. What you fail to realize Mark, is that it is actually the other way around. We cannot tell how to classify species just by a casual glance, which is what you want to do. Classification is far more rigorous and far less arbitrary then 'just looking'. Of all the things nature is, obvious is not one of them.

I'm not classifying. If I was, I would look things like what an animal eats, how it moves, where it lives, whether it has wings or horns, etc. Stuff like that. My way wouldn't lend itself to measurement.

I think science is wonderful but I also think the people who are engaged in science are mistaken in their view of life.

I think the evidence is everywhere. It's overwhelming; they are on the wrong track.

For example, drugs that don't do anything and that are harmful ie. Celebrex, Vioxx, hormone replacements and then there are the diets that don't work and the promises of cures that never materialize. Think of all the research and the money that goes into cancer research, for example, year after year.

Furhtermore, there is a difference between the ability to classify books and to classify animals which you have to understand and which holds up whether you are a creationist or evolutionist. It also is one of the big supporting arguments for common descent. You see, If I sort books according to author I will get a very different sorting than if I sort them according to title. However, with animals this is not the case. No matter which combination of traits I take, my classification will continue to be the same. This is called the twin-nested hierarchy, and can only be explained by common descent.

I didn't fail to realize. I'm the one pointing it out.

Morphology lends itself to measurement and that's why science uses it. One way of classifying lends itself to measurement and another doesn't. But it doesn't mean one way is better than the other.

And no classification system can tell you which animals are related.

There are many ways to sort things. Books, for example, can also be sorted alphabetically, fiction and non fiction, etc.

You can even say there are "kinds" of books ie. fiction.

Men should not be led by the very system they created. That's common sense. Who serves who? Does man serve the system or does the system serve man.

You believe in evolution because you sort by morphology. You sort by morphology because you believe in the system.

But more scientific in this case is not better. It can also be misleading.

You need to be more objective and less emotional. You can't be afraid of seeing what's not there.

There is no evidence mutations add up to new characters. The evidence the classification system puts animals that undergo rapid speciation into new families and groups other animals that don't into one family. The evidence that species that belong to a family look alot like the parent population. The evidence of a gene pool for a family. The evidence of connecting the dots and using a system of classification to create evidence.

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

Aron-Ra, you seem to have alot of information regarding evolution. I was just wondering if you could give me a simple summary of when life began as we know it (first micro-organisms) or a molecular form of life - to how we are today, as simple as can be, dont worry about backing it up with scientific references or anything just from what you know, I'd like to see how you say we came to be,
I mean if you dont mind, and if it isnt too time consuming thanks.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Morphology lends itself to measurement and that's why science uses it. One way of classifying lends itself to measurement and another doesn't. But it doesn't mean one way is better than the other.

And no classification system can tell you which animals are related.

Cladistic taxonomy can. It relies not only on these measurable morphologies, but on comparative physiology as well. Using these, in-depth character analysis can determine derived synapomporphies, which can then be cross-confirmed genetically, to show how a given life-form is related to another one through a tiered succession of clades.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm not classifying. If I was, I would look things like what an animal eats, how it moves, where it lives, whether it has wings or horns, etc. Stuff like that. My way wouldn't lend itself to measurement.

Which makes it completely arbitrary.

I think science is wonderful but I also think the people who are engaged in science are mistaken in their view of life.

How so? What is the view of life of scientists according to you?

I think the evidence is everywhere. It's overwhelming; they are on the wrong track.

But you don't provide any except "it's obvious". The problem with this argument is that Galilei already demonstrated that this is incorrect in the 1600's (or somewhere there).

For example, drugs that don't do anything and that are harmful ie. Celebrex, Vioxx, hormone replacements and then there are the diets that don't work and the promises of cures that never materialize. Think of all the research and the money that goes into cancer research, for example, year after year.

Which has given quite some ways of fighting it, starting with operations to cut it away up to chemical and radiotherapy. Given, cancer is a very tough disease to fight, but pretending that no progress has been made is to misrepresent what has happened.
Furthermore, do a little research. See what people died of 100 years ago, 200 years ago and so on. You'll see that a lot has changed and whether you like it or not, science made that possible. Think of simple thinks as sanitation. Scientists have pointed to it's importance in reducing disease and developing improvements in it. Or look at AIDS. Indeed, we cannot cure it yet, but we certainly can give HIV-infected people a much longer life span than they could ever dream of 10 years ago. Think of malaria, which we have a much better handle on (at least in developed countries) because of science. Think of vaccinations, which stop people from dying from polio, the flew or the measles. Think of simple medication against headaches. Anafylactic shock? If we get there in time we can treat it, because of science. Badly wounded in a car accident? Better hope someone is nearby who has listened to what scientists told him. Better working conditions? Science. Lowered childbirth? Science. Improved life span? Science.
You can look at the things that went wrong in science and point your finger at them. But that is only realistic if you also consider the benefits it has given us.

I didn't fail to realize. I'm the one pointing it out.

Morphology lends itself to measurement and that's why science uses it. One way of classifying lends itself to measurement and another doesn't. But it doesn't mean one way is better than the other.

And no classification system can tell you which animals are related.

There are many ways to sort things. Books, for example, can also be sorted alphabetically, fiction and non fiction, etc.

You can even say there are "kinds" of books ie. fiction.

The above clearly emphasises that you don't understand what is so special about the classification of life.

Men should not be led by the very system they created. That's common sense. Who serves who? Does man serve the system or does the system serve man.

Science serves man, not the other way around.

You believe in evolution because you sort by morphology. You sort by morphology because you believe in the system.

I sort by morphology since it isn't as arbitrary as saying 'look, it's obvious'. I also sort by morphology because than other people can take a look at it and clearly understand what I did and why I made the choices I did. That the conclusion of this morphology is evolution, does not mean that evolution is the system.

But more scientific in this case is not better. It can also be misleading.

You need to be more objective and less emotional. You can't be afraid of seeing what's not there.

I try to be as objective as possible. The way to be objective is to very clearly define what we are talking about, what we are measuring and what our reasoning is. The conclusion of this objectivity is a twin-nested hierarchy, which further indicates common ancestry. The subjective way is what you are doing, not what we are doing.

There is no evidence mutations add up to new characters. The evidence the classification system puts animals that undergo rapid speciation into new families and groups other animals that don't into one family. The evidence that species that belong to a family look alot like the parent population. The evidence of a gene pool for a family. The evidence of connecting the dots and using a system of classification to create evidence.

The classification system does not put animals that undergo rapid speciation in new families. It is clear form what you write that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. That isn't a bad thing. However, before you want to criticize it, you might want to try to fully understand it first.

 

[MarkT]

Aron

But it is a fact because it can be demonstrated. But only to someone who will open their eyes, answer questions, and take up our challenges to prove it.

You want me to prove you're right? Sorry, you need a better defense than that.

Do you have pentadactyl, grasping digits with flat, keratinous nails? Do you have Fingerprints? Opposable thumbs? Two nipples on your chest? Cuspids, bicuspids, canines, incisors, and molars; (a dentition that is shared with all the other apes, but not with one other kind of animal anywhere.) Can you manufacture your own vitamin C? Or are you susceptible to scurvy if you don't get any citrus fruits for a long time? That's common with all apes too. But no other animal is like this. Is the venom of the male Australian funnel web spider deadly to you? Because for some reason, it only seems to kill things from the "monkey kind", yet it kills people too. I would say that you share quite a lot of traits with the apes, traits that are otherwise unique to the apes, and not found in any other animal.

Alot of animals have hooves but they aren't related. However you could say they belong to a kind.

Yep there are similarities but why would you think we inherited these traits from an ape ancestor?

How do you account for the differences?

Wouldn't our parent population have to look alot like us? Or do you think they looked less like us? If they did then how could they be our parents?

If we came out of a common gene pool with apes, then we would be ape/monkey-like in everyway, same as every member of the monkey kind. There would be no controversy. No question. You would be a monkey.

We wouldn't be humans. We wouldn't be discussing these things. We would be swinging from the trees somewhere in Africa.

Aron. You answered your own questions. The first skull looks human. The other animals would belong to the cat family. The other skulls, can't tell, but I'm guessing they would be dogs.

 

[MarkT]

Cladistic taxonomy can. It relies not only on these measurable morphologies, but on comparative physiology as well. Using these, in-depth character analysis can determine derived synapomporphies, which can then be cross-confirmed genetically, to show how a given life-form is related to another one through a tiered succession of clades.

Sorry. In depth analysis assuming something a priori, what is that? How can you analyze something with out any prior knowledge?

Similar looking things have similar genetic sequences. Why? Because genes determine the physical appearance of things, the way things look. It's circular reasoning to say genetics confirm what is seen. And then creating a whole system of analysis. What is that?

 

[I am an ape]

Sorry. In depth analysis assuming something a priori, what is that? How can you analyze something with out any prior knowledge?

Have you something against the Reverend Thomas Bayes?

You frequentist you!

 

[MarkT]

Which has given quite some ways of fighting it, starting with operations to cut it away up to chemical and radiotherapy. Given, cancer is a very tough disease to fight, but pretending that no progress has been made is to misrepresent what has happened.
Furthermore, do a little research. See what people died of 100 years ago, 200 years ago and so on. You'll see that a lot has changed and whether you like it or not, science made that possible. Think of simple thinks as sanitation. Scientists have pointed to it's importance in reducing disease and developing improvements in it. Or look at AIDS. Indeed, we cannot cure it yet, but we certainly can give HIV-infected people a much longer life span than they could ever dream of 10 years ago. Think of malaria, which we have a much better handle on (at least in developed countries) because of science. Think of vaccinations, which stop people from dying from polio, the flew or the measles. Think of simple medication against headaches. Anafylactic shock? If we get there in time we can treat it, because of science. Badly wounded in a car accident? Better hope someone is nearby who has listened to what scientists told him. Better working conditions? Science. Lowered childbirth? Science. Improved life span? Science.
You can look at the things that went wrong in science and point your finger at them. But that is only realistic if you also consider the benefits it has given us

I guess there really is such a thing as being blinded by science. Sanitation, good water, good food, did improve our lives.

It has nothing to do with the way scientists view human beings.

Drugs that probably do more harm than good are everywhere. Even though the side effects are listed, people still take them. We can't be sure if they are beneficial but we do know that they can kill.

Most of these cancer treatments are probably worse than the disease, if it is a disease.

Maybe people used to die of other things in the past. Now they're dying by going to a hospital.

 

[I am an ape]

I guess there really is such a thing as being blinded by science. Sanitation, good water, good food, did improve our lives.

It has nothing to do with the way scientists view human beings.

Drugs that probably do more harm than good are everywhere. Even though the side effects are listed, people still take them. We can't be sure if they are beneficial but we do know that they can kill.

Most of these cancer treatments are probably worse than the disease, if it is a disease.

Maybe people used to die of other things in the past. Now they're dying by going to a hospital.

Oh oh.

Are you a Jehovahs Witness?

 

[MarkT]

With all this knowledge you would expect progress but that isn't evident. And I'm not talking about their mistakes. I'm talking about their training.

 

[Tomk80]

I guess there really is such a thing as being blinded by science. Sanitation, good water, good food, did improve our lives.

It has nothing to do with the way scientists view human beings.

Yes it has. It has at least as much to do with the way scientist view human beings as pharmacological progress has. It has everything to do with looking at people as 'systems', as biological entities.

Drugs that probably do more harm than good are everywhere. Even though the side effects are listed, people still take them. We can't be sure if they are beneficial but we do know that they can kill.

Of some. Of a lot we know they are beneficial. Of a large number of medicins with side effects the side effects are worth the cure they give.

Most of these cancer treatments are probably worse than the disease, if it is a disease.

Why wouldn't it be a disease? I'm very puzzled by that statement. Care to explain. And indeed, most treatments are very hard and a lot of them don't work very well. This is in the nature of cancer. However, a number of them do work. And yes, the treatments are harsh. But they often give people a precious number of years extra.

Maybe people used to die of other things in the past. Now they're dying by going to a hospital.

This is a very idiotic line of reasoning. People not only used to die of other things, they also used to die a large number of years earlier than people do now.

 

[Tomk80]

With all this knowledge you would expect progress but that isn't evident. And I'm not talking about their mistakes. I'm talking about their training.

Their training?

 

[raphael_aa]

Maybe people used to die of other things in the past. Now they're dying by going to a hospital.

A lot of people died of simple infections until antibiotics came along. Are you really suggesting that medicine has not made gigantic progress?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You want me to prove you're right? Sorry, you need a better defense than that.

What I'm asking for is for you to show accountability. That's all.

Alot of animals have hooves but they aren't related.

Yes they are.

However you could say they belong to a kind.

Superorder; Ungulata, a group which includes the "cattle kind".

Yep there are similarities but why would you think we inherited these traits from an ape ancestor?

If you are an ape right now, then was your mother not also an ape?

How do you account for the differences?

I can list many differences between gorillas, seven different species of them. I can show differences between chimpanzees and bonobos too. I can even show differences between different groups of people. But that doesn't mean that one group of people aren't people, right? Nor does it mean that one group of apes aren't apes either. So what you have to do is come of with a description of all the characteristics that describe people, without using any description for one culture that would exclude another. Then you do the same thing with apes. If you describe every character that is common to all apes, excluding none, extant or extinct, then you will describe people at the same time whether you wanted to or not.

Wouldn't our parent population have to look alot like us? Or do you think they looked less like us?

They would look a lot like us, but not exactly like us.

If they did then how could they be our parents?

Do you look exactly like your parents? Or in pictures when you're both the same age, can other people still tell you apart from your dad?

If we came out of a common gene pool with apes, then we would be ape/monkey-like in everyway, same as every member of the monkey kind.

That is correct. That is why you're still ape/monkey-like in every way.

There would be no controversy. No question. You would be a monkey.

Specifically, a Catarrhine, an Old World monkey, which is what we are.

We wouldn't be humans.

Yes we would. Humans are the best kind of monkey to be!

We wouldn't be discussing these things. We would be swinging from the trees somewhere in Africa.

Monkeys are among the most intelligent animals on Earth, but apes are the most intelligent of all monkeys. And humans are easily the most intelligent of all apes. So we wouldn't be swinging in trees when we've got all this neat technology to play with.

Aron. You answered your own questions. The first skull looks human.

Good guess. Despite the fact that it has no forehead, it is an early member of Hominine apes referred to as "Homo".

The other animals would belong to the cat family.

Nope. None of them are. They are each viverrids, an ancient order of cat-like carnivores, most of which look more like weasels. This is the ancestral group from which cats evolved.

The other skulls, can't tell, but I'm guessing they would be dogs.

They are a mixture of dogs and nearly-dogs, with a wolf, jackal, fox, bear, hyena, and even a lion thrown in for good measure. The point being that there is more variance just within the breeds of one species than there are between the different genera of that group. So what makes it so easy to accept the ridiculous changes from rotweiller to a Chihuahua, but not the relatively slight change from a rotweiller to a bear?

 

[MarkT]

Are you really suggesting that medicine has not made gigantic progress?

That would depend on your definition of gigantic. People still die of infections. I would say vaccines and antibiotics were useful discoveries but it doesn't change my opinion of medicine in general. What have they done recently?

People live longer because they are better fed and have clean water, not because they use drugs.

Some useful discoveries have been made in the past. I will give the credit to the men who made the discoveries, not to science.

And not to the wannabes on this forum.