Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.
Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Logical fallacy.
Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Logical fallacy.
Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
No, that would be much further back. H. erectus is probably the immediate ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.
Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.
I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.
No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.
No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Logical fallacy.
Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
Why people deny the fact of evolution is becoming more and more obvious with this thread.
Kosher thinks evolution says apes and humans bred.
YWC thinks evolution says chimps and humans bred.
If evolution actually said that, I'd be right on side of you science and math denying fundamentalists.
No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Logical fallacy.
Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.
Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
I never said we descended from chimps.
But if one is going to point out the dog/wolf relationship as some sort of parallel to the human/chimp relationship
Incidentally, re: 94-96% vs. 99%...the person who said humans and chimps had 99% gene similarity was correct.
Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
You are right about dogs and wolves; however, the fact that apes and humans cannot interbreed invalidates YWC's argument, not mine. He is the one asserting that what we see in the fossil record is the result of interbreeding rather than evolution.
Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.
I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.
No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.
I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.
The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.
I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.
The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When humans and chimps split - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
Human/chimpanzee divergence
Sign in to read: Did humans and chimps once interbreed? - life - 17 May 2006 - New Scientist
Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.
The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When humans and chimps split - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
Human/chimpanzee divergence
Sign in to read: Did humans and chimps once interbreed? - life - 17 May 2006 - New Scientist
"We can conclude that humans and chimpanzees probably last shared a common ancestor between five and seven million years ago," said research team member Blair Hedges, an astrobiologist at Penn State. Knowing the timescale of human evolution, and how we changed through time in relation to our environment, could provide valuable clues for understandingin a more general sensethe evolution of intelligent life."
That's better, see that's what happens when we actually read what science says rather than going by what Bible blogs try to say science says.
Chimps and Humans sharing a common ancestor is what I've been trying to get through to you for pages, you aren't learning anything about science but at least I'm helping you become a better listener.
How did they share a common ancestor ?
How come you exclude other animals that's DNA is similar to humans from being realtives to humans ?
Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
How did they share a common ancestor ?
Ancestry of both humans and apes is determined from examination of the fossils of extinct primate species, and seeing how a primitive primate had descendants some of whom were apes, and others were hominids, from the latter of whom humans are descended. It's like putting together the pieces of a puzzle.
Old-world monkeys branched into both apes and hominids.
How come you exclude other animals that's DNA is similar to humans from being realtives to humans ?
All animals and plants are related to humans, however distantly.
These questions have already been answered. You are repeating yourself.
Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
You do know that Clan of the Cave Bear and its sequels are fiction, right?
