Posted on 09/06/2013 9:50:05 PM PDT by DennisR
Humans evolved from a common ancestor of today’s apes because a niche opened for humans to fill. Niches for apes still exist so they do too.
That's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. Conflating the two is a common ploy in the debate, effectively making biblical literalism and philosophical naturalism the only arguments allowed. They call that a fallacy of false dichotomy.
HETEROsexuality is only way mammalian evolution is possible...
Despite appearances, genetically there isn’t much difference between humans and great apes. Adding to the mix is the incredible adaptability of humans. We fill niches from the amazon rain forest to the desert to the arctic. So long as adaptable humans fill such a wide range of environments, there isn’t a lot of room for another species to evolve.
If America broke away from England, why does England still exist? You need to learn better arguments.
Anyone with a high school education can answer that question. The other, not so much.
Really? There are no transitional fossils, they have created ape men from pigs teeth, fake skulls (piltdown man, nebraska man, peiking man. All fake and that is the whole reason why there is no grounds for those who think that evolution is real. Just a junk science created by the atheist. Pumped into the skulls of the kids and college crowd for the last hundred years. No evolving apes, no crap that we evolved from fish. The quote about why there is still Europeans because they are human beings. Darwinism was junk science and those that followed it were idiots.
So true. These folks can take a pig tooth and draw a sketch to look like the unibomber.
The questions are not dumb...you just cannot answer them. And there is a big difference between a computer (which was designed) and life. You cannot even compare the two.
Not sure - please elaborate.
Where is the physical data / proof for your hypothesis?
“...genetically there isn’t much difference between humans and great apes...”
But there is a difference, right? Your statement is like saying there is not much difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari. There are some similarities, of course, but that means absolutely nothing, especially when it compares a man to an ape. The argument is specious.
The genomes are almost identical. It’s more like comparing a Buick and an Oldsmobile. Nothing specious about unassailable facts.
Is a Buick an Oldsmobile?
Which of the questions were you able to answer clearly, logically, and reasonably?
——Despite appearances, genetically there isn’t much difference between humans and great apes. -——
From a chromosome standpoint that is true...but the sequences within the chromosome is the key to why that argument is now a strawman....
There are vast differences...in the code...
You have two similar looking cables but have only 40 % of the fiber optics in them set up the same way...
This review provides an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of the eukaryotes. The primitive coelom, characteristic of early multicellular organisms ( approximately 800 million years ago), is lined by endoderm and is a passive receptacle for gas exchange, feeding, and sexual reproduction. The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Further evolution of this structure in the bilaterian branches Ecdysoa (Drosophila) and Deuterostoma (amphioxus) culminate in a peristaltic tubular heart, without valves, without blood vessels or blood, but featuring a single layer of contracting mesoderm. The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. With differentiation of the cardiac chambers, regional specialization of the proteins in the cardiac myocyte can be detected in the teleost fish and amphibians. In mammals, growth constraints are placed on the heart, presumably to accommodate the constraints of the body plan and the thoracic cavity, and adult cardiac myocytes lose the ability to re-enter the cell cycle on demand. Mammalian cardiac myocyte innervation betrays the ancient link between the heart, the gut, and reproduction: the vagus nerve controlling heart rate emanates from centers in the central nervous system regulating feeding and affective behavior.I'm sure similar material is available for the development of the citculatory system, sexual reproduction, and everything else he asks about. But I suspect he's not really interested in the answers to his questions.
No but almost and very clearly related which is the point I’ve been making. Certainly much more closely related than a Yugo and a Ferrari.
Nice try. The point isn’t that the codes are interchangeable but that they are clearly derived from a common source . Humans and other apes are obviously related. If you want to argue the contrary, with all resoect, I think you need to waste someone else’s time.
There were no genuine questions, only rhetorical ones, framed dishonestly.
An honest discussion would not be framed exclusively by one side or the other.
Why would anyone of good faith want to to engage in such a distorted farce?
Some evidence points to the fact that we were bred by something or someone for some reason. I know how “far out” that sounds, but think about it. Usually, when a species of animals have distinct variations, they are unable to produce offspring or the offspring are sterile (mules) but all humans, no matter how different seeming, are able to breed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.