Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Valjean]

Mutation is not the driving force behind natural selection. Natural genetic variation is.

A ***** has a half-dozen puppies. Each one is different. They are not all equally equipped to deal with the particular circumstances they find themselves in. Those who, by simple variation, are better suited, pass on their individual traits to more offspring than the others.
This is how most change occurs.

 

[Valjean]

Hey! I used a proper term for a female dog! What's with this propriety filter?

 

[camanintx]

Yes, but I was responding to camantix, who said:

Those quotes were from Roli. Please don't get us confused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mutation is not the driving force behind natural selection. Natural genetic variation is.

Though most natural genetic variation is likely a result of mutation, if you go back far enough.

Hey! I used a proper term for a female dog! What's with this propriety filter?

I think you've fallen into the 1% of cases where the term is used where it would be appropriate; unfortunately, I think it would be impractical to have the profanity filter try to figure out context.

 

[Smoke]

Hey! I used a proper term for a female dog! What's with this propriety filter?

The automatic censor is kind of a prude. Makes it hard to quote the King James Version of the Bible sometimes, too.

 

[painted wolf]

Mutation is not the driving force behind natural selection. Natural genetic variation is.

Natural genetic variation is the result of mutation as well as random combination.
The puppies inherit a chromosome from each parent each copy has a mutation or two on it that get passed along as well as new mutations that result from putting the two copies together.

Mutation is a conner stone. Sex allows for more mutations and more recombination of genes. You can not have 'natural genetic variation' without mutation.

wa:do

 

[Popeyesays]

Man did not descend from apes according to evolutionary thought. They both (apes and man) descended from am earlier species--cousins, not descendants.

Regards,

 

[painted wolf]

well... yes and no.

We did come from apes... just not any living species.
We share a common ancestor with all the living great apes, the closest being the last one between us and Chimpanzee's. (Something like Orrorin tugenensis)

wa:do

 

[Francine]

Hey! I used a proper term for a female dog! What's with this propriety filter?

I think that's why boys invented their sacred word beeyotch.

 

[Willamena]

Man did not descend from apes according to evolutionary thought. They both (apes and man) descended from am earlier species--cousins, not descendants.

I'm beginning to suspect that no matter how many people say it, in so many different ways, the fiction will persist.

 

[Somkid]

I'm beginning to suspect that no matter how many people say it, in so many different ways, the fiction will persist.

Its a bit like banging your head against a wall is it not? :help:

 

[roli]

Man did not descend from apes according to evolutionary thought. They both (apes and man) descended from am earlier species--cousins, not descendants.

Regards,

Ya, bacteria culture.
There are many common traits in all species .. blood, bone, cells,nerves,bacteria, ears, eyes,hair, molecules, blood vessels, skin,cartilage,yet distinct species

 

[iLL_LeaT]

Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE
Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE
Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE
Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE
Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE
Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE
Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present



Looks like a natural progression to me

 

[kai]

Ya, bacteria culture.
There are many common traits in all species .. blood, bone, cells,nerves,bacteria, ears, eyes,hair, molecules, blood vessels, skin,cartilage,yet distinct species

but no dust
God forms Adam "from the dust of the ground...and man became a living being

 

[Autodidact]

Ya, bacteria culture.
There are many common traits in all species .. blood, bone, cells,nerves,bacteria, ears, eyes,hair, molecules, blood vessels, skin,cartilage,yet distinct species

Ding! Very good! Now a scientist asks, why is there something, anything, that every living thing on earth has in common? Could it be because they share a common ancestor?

Actually, no they're not all distinct species. Earlier in this thread someone explained ring species. None of them are distinct species from each other, but the two on the end are distinct from each other. Actually, organisms are not divided into distinct species, it's a continuum, a gray area between species. Again, why? Because that's how new species evolve--gradually.

 

[Autodidact]

And just think of all the traits that human beings share with our nearest relations, chimps and bonobos. It would take a page to list them all, not just the ones you can see, but in our blood, our bones, our very DNA.

 

[Francine]

And just think of all the traits that human beings share with our nearest relations, chimps and bonobos.

Don't insult chimps and bonobos. They don't go around waterboarding each other.

 

[roli]

but no dust
God forms Adam "from the dust of the ground...and man became a living being

Acrually , there are something like 14 different elements found in the ground that are also found in man, that would make sense if God formed us from the dust of the earth,as I believe he did.
This makes further sense that we all have common traits within the species as I mentioned in my last thread because we have the same creator.

Sorry to disappoint you Autodidact ,but you can't rule out that it is a possibility,even to the scientist, because as it stands ,you don't really have the absolute proof to support your theory,or fill that missing link or any other theory for that matter,just some very close and somewhat compelling data and similarities within species

 

[iLL_LeaT]

And just think of all the traits that human beings share with our nearest relations, chimps and bonobos. It would take a page to list them all, not just the ones you can see, but in our blood, our bones, our very DNA.

Showing the bones of actual creatures that roamed the earth to show an evolutionary progression is completely different.


Just because you can make a fake evolutionary progression does not disprove evolution. I'd hate to tell you this but the theory of evolution is about as likely to be false as the theory of gravity.


I don't see why evolution makes so many people mad. Even the bible states that God made this, then God made this, then God made this.


I can only imagine God trying to explain evolution to a illiterate and uneducated person. I don't think he would understand. On top of that, he would have to explain this to his scribe. What do you think that book would turn out like?" “God made this, then God made this, then God made this.”

 

[Autodidact]

Acrually , there are something like 14 different elements found in the ground that are also found in man, that would make sense if God formed us from the dust of the earth,as I believe he did.
This makes further sense that we all have common traits within the species as I mentioned in my last thread because we have the same creator.

Sorry to disappoint you Autodidact ,but you can't rule out that it is a possibility,even to the scientist, because as it stands ,you don't really have the absolute proof to support your theory,or fill that missing link or any other theory for that matter,just some very close and somewhat compelling data and similarities within species

And remember, science never has absolute proof of anything, ever. It's all about science. We don't have absolute proof that the earth is round--just some pretty compelling evidence. Same for evolution.