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.
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?
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.
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,
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"?
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.
Thus if apes and humans are said to be sexually compatible then the question is the same. Where is the evidence?
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?
Why do living species of humans and apes need to be sexually compatible in order to share a common ancestor?
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.
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.
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
.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.
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.
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?