I'm also not denying that the chimp is the nearest to us genetically - but that doesn't make him a relative unless we can trace our lineage back to the same common ancestor, which we haven't yet been able to do.
Now that is going round in circles Ish, how close does a blood relative have to be before they share an ancestor.
If Human and Chimps were around 6 million years ago then evolution is definitely wrong, no mammalian species that I am aware of has ever survived that long without change and evolution.
It would be stretching the point with bees and wasps as they are insects, not mammals.
That would seem to require a special case for mammals, we are getting close to the creationists view of man a special case, Lords of Creation.
Digit wrote:
Now that is going round in circles Ish, how close does a blood relative have to be before they share an ancestor.
But if you re-read my quote, you'll see that I'm not agreeing that they are a relative. I'm saying that it appears that we are more genetically similar to them than to others, but that to claim that we are relatives would require us to find the common ancestor.
If Human and Chimps were around 6 million years ago then evolution is definitely wrong, no mammalian species that I am aware of has ever survived that long without change and evolution.
Don't understand your point here.
That would seem to require a special case for mammals, we are getting close to the creationists view of man a special case, Lords of Creation.
No .... just like with like. ...
And you still haven't shown me this common ancestor bat of all bats.
Sheesh..... this being ten hours behind the rest of the world leaves a lot of catching up to do!
But, unlike a creationist, I have given my reasons
They give their reasons...."goddidit" to them, is a reason.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Are you guys doing this in relays? Don't I get a break?
Well, I'm off now to meet some friends for a drink ...that may lead to several, so don't expect my replies any time soon, or at least not rational ones.
We merrily pass the baton across the time zones, Ish! Enjoy your drink.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
When The Origin Of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. At that time, the complaint about the lack of transitional fossils bridging the major vertebrate taxa was perfectly reasonable. Opponents of Darwin's theory of common descent (the theory that evolution has occurred; not to be confused with the separate theory that evolution occurs specifically by natural selection) were justifiably skeptical of such ideas as birds being related to reptiles. The discovery of Archeopteryx only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species was seen a stunning triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Archeopteryx has been called the single most important natural history specimen ever found, "comparable to the Rosetta Stone" (Alan Feduccia, in "The Age Of Birds"). O.C. Marsh's groundbreaking study of the evolution of horses was another dramatic example of transitional fossils, this time demonstrating a whole sequence of transitions within a single family. Within a few decades after the Origin, these and other fossils, along with many other sources of evidence (such as developmental biology and biogeography) had convinced the majority of educated people that evolution had occurred, and that organisms are related to each other by common descent.
Since then, many more transitional fossils have been found, as sketched out in this FAQ. Typically, the only people who still demand to see transitional fossils are either unaware of the currently known fossil record (often due to the shoddy and very dated arguments presented in current creationist articles) or are unwilling to believe it for some reason.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
I thought that the animal that was the most closely matched genetically and DNA wise to humans was the pig.
That is why there are millions of people walking around with valves from pig hearts sown into their hearts.
The close DNA prevents rejection.
If the chimp was such a close match, why aren’t we using chimp heart valves?
Or are we artificially restricting our matching to animals that have arms?
Probably a question of availability. Living tissue valves are preferred because they are less likely to form clots as opposed to mechanical valves. Use of them eliminates the need for long term use of anti-coagulants.
The down side of living tissue valves is that they have a more limited useful life.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
When The Origin Of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. At that time, the complaint about the lack of transitional fossils bridging the major vertebrate taxa was perfectly reasonable. Opponents of Darwin's theory of common descent (the theory that evolution has occurred; not to be confused with the separate theory that evolution occurs specifically by natural selection) were justifiably skeptical of such ideas as birds being related to reptiles. The discovery of Archeopteryx only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species was seen a stunning triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Archeopteryx has been called the single most important natural history specimen ever found, "comparable to the Rosetta Stone" (Alan Feduccia, in "The Age Of Birds").
Right, this is positively my last post tonight before I go out.
Min, this is interesting but it is about evolution, which I haven’t doubted. My doubt is that as a result of that evolution, we have a common ancestor with the chimp or ape. My argument is not with the Origin of Species. My argument is with Darwin’s later Descent of Man.
Hope that makes sense.
Also, I don't think you've answered KB's questions. If we are closest genetically to pigs, why isn't our common ancestor a pig?
Suspicion tells me that all mammals are going to have a significant DNA overlap but I haven't researched the issue to know whether it is true or false.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
My argument is with Darwin’s later Descent of Man.
What was the fossil record in 1860? Neanderthal? That initial discovery resulted in a mistaken image of HNS which persists to this day. Darwin's prediction of transitional forms has museums full of evidence to now support it whereas "creationism" has one discredited old book and not a shred of evidence.
I really don't think that the idea of "evolution," as a noun, is in doubt. Evolution as a verb (or a process) is open to debate and it may be far more complex that merely natural selection but the result of it....be it man or pig...seems clear enough.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Min, on evolution - I think there is evolution...but that evolution of itself does not automatically lead to a common ancestor. This natural world has been known to progress by evolution for a while but has also been known to make big transitons via revolutions - like the Neolithic revolution.
For example: During the first two billion years, earth was only inhabited by anaerobic bacteria, for which oxygen is a poison. These bacteria lived in water, and some of them learned to use the hydrogen contained in the H2O molecule while expelling the oxygen. This opened up new and more efficient metabolic pathways and the gradual enrichment of the atmosphere with oxygen allowed the appearence of a new knd of cell, capable of using oxygen and with a nucleus for packing together its DNA. These nucleated cells were about 30 times bigger than bacterial cells and of this transition, biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan said:
"The biological transition between bacteria and nucleated cells .... is so sudden, it can be effectively be explained by gradual changes over time."
