We are evolving (or de-evolving), but we did not evolve from Monkey’s and no one on this site or in the World can prove otherwise.
Actually, the commonly accepted theory is that we did NOT evolve FROM monkeys, thus there is no need to prove it. We, humans and monkeys, are descended from a common ancestor, and we are very distantly related cousins. Related to, not descended from.
The proof you seem to seek will never be found, because we will never have a 100% fossil record. But that doesn’t disprove human evolution from lesser forms of primates, any more than a fictional book proves some holy being created us in the form we now exist. So, we can keep looking for answers in the real world, or quit searching for answers and blindly accept what is written in a book.
I though interbreeding and producing fertile offspring is proof (by definition) that two populations are the same species.
The ability to share DNA by natural interbreeding demonstrates that all the groups are one species.
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
No LDB. That is not correct. Two separate species can mate and produce offspring. The most obvious is the horse and donkey or bison and cow. It happens both naturally and artificially (scientific experiments or commercial breeders). There are multiple examples in the plant and animal kingdoms (snakes, canines, dolphins). DNA between two totally different species is shared. Some of the offspring are fertile and some are not. In fact, a Monk did a lot of the foundational work on genetics. Oh, the irony.
And no, that is not how evolution really works. Change is gradual with variations over a long period of time, separation, and ability to survive and reproduce.
Perhaps you should probably open your mind. Just a bit. Using some logical and critical thinking you might actually discover and learn a few things. Open a science book, Google it, talk to a real evolutionary scientist (not a creationist).
Gosh Darn it… No way was the EARTH created in six days/of human understanding… GOD created the Heavens and the Earth, it took some time for GOD to get it(Earth) where he wanted and decided to Create MAN. YES there was Dinosaurs, Ice ages, and lots of evolution, BUT not in MAN. Evolution can be proven in pretty much every other species on Earth, BUT not in Man. NO missing link has ever connected us with sub-man or Monkey’s. Yes we have Black, Yellow, Red, Brown, White and a mixture of all in Humanity and some evidence of environmental adaptation. BUT no missing link to tie us(Humans) to monkey’s.
WE are the smartest creature on Earth and also the newest by tens of thousands of years. We are evolving (or de-evolving), but we did not evolve from Monkey’s and no one on this site or in the World can prove otherwise. Or can you bollyball? nope didn’t think so.
“If Bruce Jenner can keep his wiener and be called a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed.”
And then he gave us the Ar-15 assault rifle to fight off the dinosaurs.
Humans are a product of evolution. Just because the fossil record is incomplete doesn’t mean you can just cast is aside.
Come on Ed, I cast it aside because you and no one else has proof!!! Never has never will!!
You are against your own self!! You really do have faith!!! Your faith is the fact that un-found fossil record will prove man came from monkeys.
Where you falter is you idiotic statement on an AR15 fighting off a
No LDB. That is not correct. Two separate species can mate and produce offspring. The most obvious is the horse and donkey or bison and cow. It happens both naturally and artificially (scientific experiments or commercial breeders). There are multiple examples in the plant and animal kingdoms (snakes, canines, dolphins). DNA between two totally different species is shared. Some of the offspring are fertile and some are not. In fact, a Monk did a lot of the foundational work on genetics. Oh, the irony.
And no, that is not how evolution really works. Change is gradual with variations over a long period of time, separation, and ability to survive and reproduce.
Perhaps you should probably open your mind. Just a bit. Using some logical and critical thinking you might actually discover and learn a few things. Open a science book, Google it, talk to a real evolutionary scientist (not a creationist).
j
Would it surprise you to learn that the definition of a species as a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring came from a secular biology book that fully supports evolution?
Would it surprise you that I am a scientist who has published scholarly papers in the field of populations and evolution?
Speciation (the advent of new species) is the central event in the evolutionary process (“On the Origin of Species”, remember?). Yet to recognize when a new species occurs, a testable and rigorous definition of species is needed. The most testable and rigorous definition of species is the textbook definition given above.
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will you
“The Origin of Species by the means of natural selection” is the correct title. Pay attention to the later phrase of the title. The book has a secondary title - “The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”. Both clue you in to the fact the speciation does not occur because two different species gave birth to a hybrid. Speciation occurs when there is a variation from parent to offspring and that variation persists in future generations. It takes lots of time (measured by many generations of subsequent and successful offspring) for variations to result in a new species.
And don’t use circular reasoning, it gets you no where.
You have published? Good for you. I would be interested in reading those “scholarly papers”. You don’t have to post them here, send your citations to me by PM. I would like to see if your papers are published in reputable scientific journals, what your hypotheses are, how you reason your arguments, references, etc. Or to see if you have published in one of those wanna-be science-creation-theory publications.
You have published? Good for you. I would be interested in reading those “scholarly papers”. You don’t have to post them here, send your citations to me by PM. I would like to see if your papers are published in reputable scientific journals, what your hypotheses are, how you reason your arguments, references, etc. Or to see if you have published in one of those wanna-be science-creation-theory publications.
That was an interesting take on mans evolution. But the proof is still not shown. Just speculation. No proof of a sub man with half a tail has been found.
Man is the youngest species on earth and nothing else comes remotely close to our intelligence.
One thing for sure we will all know everything one day as I believe or just be dead as others believe.
“If Bruce Jenner can keep his wiener and be called a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed.”
Come on Ed, I cast it aside because you and no one else has proof!!! Never has never will!!