Why Evolution is True

[createdtoworship]

That sounds like breaking the law (biologically speaking).



Species are defined as members of a population that are able to reproduce & produce viable, fertile offspring.

If a "monkey/man" is able to do this to the extent of providing fertile offspring with both monkey's and men then they would have to be genetically similar enough & the same species.

I believe what you say too. Namely that only species and interspecies can interbreed, but I do not think Apes and Humans which are different genus, can interbreed. As they are different kinds, and different populations.

 

[createdtoworship]

Fossils don't mate. Let me repeat.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

As I repeat, they would need to find evidence of intersexual compatibility beteen genra, which has not happened in the hundreds of years of searching for the missing link.

 

[bhsmte]

Fossils don't mate. Let me repeat.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

Grady has been presented the evidence and asked the same questions for a long time on this forum. Clearly, he will continue to deny when necessary and spew the same claims that have shown to be false or intentionally misleading.

The pattern will only continue to repeat itself.

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady has been presented the evidence and asked the same questions for a long time on this forum. Clearly, he will continue to deny when necessary and spew the same claims that have shown to be false or intentionally misleading.

The pattern will only continue to repeat itself.

let me ask you a question, had you asked a question that had not been answered, would you ask it again?

I await your response,

 

[bhsmte]

let me ask you a question, had you asked a question that had not been answered, would you ask it again?

I await your response,

If it truly had not been answered, sure I would.

But, what I often see on this site is not that a question in not answered, it is more of people not liking or willing to acknowledge the answer. At that point, further discussion becomes pointless.

 

[CabVet]

let me ask you a question, had you asked a question that had not been answered, would you ask it again?

I await your response,

Requests for evidence of evolution have been answered, multiple times. Yet, you and others come back here very often asking things like "if evolution is true, how come dogs don't give birth to cats"?

 

[createdtoworship]

Requests for evidence of evolution have been answered, multiple times. Yet, you and others come back here very often asking things like "if evolution is true, how come dogs don't give birth to cats"?

well thanks for the response cabvet.

Let me clarify this for you. Dogs and cats being separate genus's are not sexually compatible. Thus if apes and humans are said to be sexually compatible then the question is the same. Where is the evidence? Where is the fossil that shows sexual compatibility to both ape and human, and thus has a true macroevolution between two separate organisms?

 

[BL2KTN]

Gradyll, do you have a college degree?

 

[Loudmouth]

As I repeat, they would need to find evidence of intersexual compatibility beteen genra, which has not happened in the hundreds of years of searching for the missing link.

So you are saying that no matter what a fossil looks like you will not accept it as being a missing link simply because it is in a different genera. Is that right?

"At the Botswana Ministry of Agriculture in 2000, a male sheep impregnated a female goat resulting in a live offspring. This hybrid had 57 chromosomes, intermediate between sheep (54) and goats (60) and was intermediate between the two parent species in type."

Sheep and goats are from different genera.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thus if apes and humans are said to be sexually compatible then the question is the same. Where is the evidence?

Why do living species of humans and apes need to be sexually compatible in order to share a common ancestor?

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe what you say too. Namely that only species and interspecies can interbreed, but I do not think Apes and Humans which are different genus, can interbreed. As they are different kinds, and different populations.

Why can't living species who are not sexually compatible share a common ancestor who lived in the past?

 

[createdtoworship]

Why can't living species who are not sexually compatible share a common ancestor who lived in the past?

how is this possible. This begs the question as to the validity of macro evolution. When macro evolution is the topic trying to be proved. I don't believe that it is possible to share a common ancestor if macro evolution is not a genuine thing. And I don't believe it is.

 

[createdtoworship]

Off to work, once again. I thank you for your conversations, I believe they are constuctive and have been for the most part polite. TTYL

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do living species of humans and apes need to be sexually compatible in order to share a common ancestor?

again this is begging the question. If evolution is what you are trying to prove on a macro scale you can't, as evidence provide an example of something that hasn't happened. You would in fact need to provide a legitimate example of macroevolution as stated repeatedly in my posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

If evolution is what you are trying to prove on a macro scale you can't, as evidence provide an example of something that hasn't happened.

I can provide evidence that it did happen, such as shared genetic markers that evidence shared ancestry.

You would in fact need to provide a legitimate example of macroevolution as stated repeatedly in my posts.

Already did. Sheep and goats are in different genera and can produce offspring. According to your warped view, that is macroevolution.

 

[Naturalism]

I believe what you say too. Namely that only species and interspecies can interbreed, but I do not think Apes and Humans which are different genus, can interbreed. As they are different kinds, and different populations.

But, but, but, H. Sapiens and other apes in the Great Apes family are in the same Genus, they're also all Primates.

 

[Loudmouth]

But, but, but, H. Sapiens and other apes in the Great Apes family are in the same Genus, they're also all Primates.

Actually, all of the great apes are in different genera, but that usually doesn't stop creationists from putting chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons in the same ape kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

its' a problem because of this:

Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com

This one still cracks me up. It's as if creationists just refuse to think about the problem.

According to the theory of evolution, the phyla represent the earliest branches of evolution. So where should we find these earliest branches, according to the theory of evolution? We should find them in the earliest fossil bearing strata. Where do we find them? In the earliest fossil bearing strata. Creationists consider this a problem for evolution, that we find the first examples of phyla exactly where the theory says we should find them.

It gets even funnier. Next, it is claimed that diversity is upside down, that there is more diversity in the Cambrian than there is now. When you stop laughing, keep reading . . .

I guess they are serious about this. They actually think that the number of phyla is an accurate measure of diversity. I guess they forgot that the real measure of diversity is the higher taxonomic divisions. For example, how many groups of chordates from the phylum Chordata do we see in the Cambrian. All we see are basal chordates similar to lancelets or sea squirts. That's it. We don't see any ray finned fish, lobed finned fish, cartilagenous fish, or even a single fish, jawed or otherwise. We don't see mammals, birds, dinosaurs, reptiles, or amphibians. All we see are a few examples of very rudimentary and simple chordates.

What are we told? We are told that the diversity is upside down. We are told that there is more diversity in the Cambrian than there is now. Yeah, I know. I can't stop laughing at the sheer bravado of this argument in the face of such obvious falsification.

 

[Naturalism]

.Dogs and cats being separate genus's are not sexually compatible. Thus if apes and humans are said to be sexually compatible then the question is the same.

But "apes" is too general of a grouping here. What species of the Great Apes are you referring to? I would think all of them being discrete species they are not able to interbreed & I don't think science suggests modern H. Sapiens could interbreed with any of them.

 

[CabVet]

how is this possible. This begs the question as to the validity of macro evolution. When macro evolution is the topic trying to be proved. I don't believe that it is possible to share a common ancestor if macro evolution is not a genuine thing. And I don't believe it is.

Hmm, let's see, according to your own definition, one population becoming reproductively isolated from another (a.k.a. speciation) is macroevolution. Hmmm, has that happened in the lab? With humans watching? Let's see:

A botanist crossed two different species (or, according to you, populations since they could cross). Some of the resulting hybrids were fertile. They also were immediately isolated from their parent species because their genetic make up was different. We know the complete evolutionary history of this third perfectly good species, generation after generation, it is all documented and can be replicated today. Cases like this are seen in plants constantly.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

There is your "proof" of macroevolution. And that was 102 years ago (granted, this was the oldest example I could find, do you want more recent ones?).

Now, go ahead and change your definition of kind, your definition of macroevlution, your definition of empirical science, or all of them.