| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
This really intrigues me. I'm thinking of calling it "Holy Warrior Syndrome." Several Cs I've met have had it bad. Gore has it the worst.
He can't admit anything to the Satan-worshipping-materialist-atheist-communist foe. Catch him on something and you get snarly abuse, buckets of slops over your head, distractions, evasions, and finally flight.
But then you catch him on another thread, same old act in progress.
I know you did not mean to imply this, but the first thing I thought was, "This means that homosexuals are a separate species."
No. I only mean that, while our ancestry runs through the fish, there may be no fish alive exactly like anything that became us. The coelacanth may come close. No extant ape species is exactly exactly like anything we came from, although we probably looked a lot like chimps about 5 million years ago. (That is to say, they've probably diverged less from that common ancestor than we have.)
Evolution isn't teleological. All one can really say is that the next species evolved from homo sapiens will be related. As to whether more than one species will evolve depends mostly on whether there is some form of spatial separation between breeding groups.
3. As an Evolutionist, what determines that an organism's species has changed?
"Species" is not a property of an organism. It is a (rather complicated) relationship among organisms. To some extent, the taxonomical terms (species, genera, family, etc.) are arbitrary. One can draw a tree of relationships and make some judgments about nearness. The entire field of cladistics (several journals) is devoted to these questions.
That WHAT does not occur? Reproductive compatibility?
Yours is the classic definition of "species." That answers #3 above. On this, there is no dispute.
What's the deal, Reep? You figure if you repeat that kind of BS often enough it'll become true??
Neanderthal DNA has been analyzed, the result being that it has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", thus cleanly eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Now, home erectus was clearly much further removed from modern man than the neanderthal, and yet you are claiming that erectus is ancestral to modern man because the neanderthal could not be?? I mean, why not just go all the way back and claim modern man is descended directly from fish or one-celled animals???
Face it, Reep, there is no plausible ancestor for modern man in the fossil record and that is a huge problem for evolutionists.
The bar has quietly slid up, perhaps because the evidence for ring species has percolated into the creationist community.
These retreats and bar-movings are not advertised or acknowledged. They ripple out as one listens to or reads another, much as various arguments have their fashion. (Just now, the platypus is in on FR. Gold chains in coal and trilobites-in-a-human-sandal-print are out. But come back next month.)
Chimp DNA and Human DNA are pretty damned close (sharing between 98 and 99 percent of the same genes). If Neanderthals are "about half way" (which is a pretty vague term) then they share between 99 and 99.5 percent of their genes with us. In other words, they ain't that much different.
My, my. I seem to recall a certain someone posting a list of supposed insults I had made (turns out they weren't insults when taken in context, but that's another story).
You might want to read Jenny's post (164) which I replied to before accusing ME of insulting anybody. There's something comical in the great expert in "online communities" having to use multiple personnas here because she basically doesn't know how to act in an online community...
This does not address what I answered you on, the persistence of "intermediate forms." And it's baloney in its own right.
Neanderthals were a sibling species / variety (pick one) of sapiens. They were not ancestral. There are questions whether there was any interbreeding. Thus "species / variety," depending. European neanderthals are very different from the later sapiens who replaced them, but elsewhere the intergrading of the fossils makes it hard to tell what was what.
None of which helps you that I can see. Modern man has a clear and gap-less line of descent, from Homo erectus and its descendant archaic Homo sapiens, the latter giving rise to both Neanderthals and modern man. If you've been paying attention, I've had to cram this down gore's throat on probably five different threads now.
You ever date chimpanzees? I mean if they're that close, why not??
Hey! You left out the Time Cube! My favorite!
Says who? H. Erectus obviously predated both H. Sapien and H. Neanderthalensis, but that does not make him "further removed." Picture H. Erectus as being the crux of a "V" with H. Sapien and H. Neanderthalensis being the two arms. The differences between the latter two's DNA is only about one percent which is more than possible if both broke from a common ancestor and evolved separately. It would not require that H. Erectus' DNA be all that much different than either modern man's or Neanderthal's.
Don't start that stuff! AndrewC would rather pretend that I've been masquerading as one No-Kin-To-Monkeys than allow that a fellow C would b!tch-slap him for jumping in with his lawyerly razzle-dazzle.
“If the exact comparisons were proof of similarity then we would have to consider certain bacteria which has exactly the same genes contained in humans as do several other various and obviously different creatures…The differences are obviously more than one or two percent between a chimp and a human. The association in the genome is therefore an erroneous indication of similarity because it defies the obvious. Which do we believe the hidden complication and largely unknown operation of the genome or the obvious evidence that is clearly demonstrated and observed and proved fact? Why would we throw out Occam’s razor here and add further complication to a simple problem? “
“If however the exact operation of the genome of both creatures was know then we could gain some valuable insight as to the reasons for the differences in result even though on the surface they are very similar. The other obvious reason why similarity of genome is not proof of common descent is the basic similarity of the two creatures. They are both animals with lungs, hearts, nervous systems, two hands and two legs etc.. So why wouldn’t there be quite a bit of similarity in the genome as well? If the genome were static and there was a direct correlation to its structure and the resulting organism then the comparison would be a valid proof. It clearly is not, so we are dealing with more of the association and causation errors that the theory of evolution is littered with. …”
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.