Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  Hi Kate,

  When travelling in Peru it was understood even by the natives that llamas were in the camel family.

  Yes, but "Family" is not "Species" --"Family" is a much broader category, two rungs up the ladder from "Species."

  When you use the term "Species," do you maybe have in mind the Biblical designation, "Kind?" --As in "...of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee..."

  We'll find out how close when we know if the offspring is sterile or not.

  This suggests that sterility of the offspring is your yardstick for defining the limits of a "species" (Or kind) Is that a fair observation?
• 

  Apostate Kate

  My mom's chihuahua can hump my parrot for 1 week straight, I gaurentee you, my parrot will not be laying any chihuahua eggs.

  Do you really need a scientist to tell you that? The natives of Peru had more sense.

  DNA may have similarities between different living species since it is the code of all life. That does not mean that said living thing is so volatile as to create new DNA code out of nowhere and change into another species when the replicating code can only allow for so much varience/mutation. The fruit flys show numerous mutations, most all of them flaws. Some just in color or wing shape(neutral). It is still 100% fruitfly.

  After looking at all the evidence over the years of the supposed ancestors of humans, first of all I would expect to see missing links. Lucy in my opinion was possibly an immature great ape, but not human. Not all anatomists agree that she could even walk upright as we have been told.

  We would see brain size skulls from the small Lucy skull, all the way up to what we have today. We would see transitional progress in all living organisms. Otherwise it would not be evolution would it? It would be spontaneous mutational jump that do not fit in to the theory. Something that incredible taking place would be able to be measured today.
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.creationresearch.org A recent book from a former Cornell university researcher (and inventor of the "gene gun") It should be read by everyone sincerely interested in the origins debate: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (available from the creation research society -see below for more: http://creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=CRSOS Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome John Sanford 2005. Ivan Press, 202 pages. The central axiom of evolution is that natural selection acts upon mutations to provide the genetic mechanism for common descent. However, Dr. Sanford, a former researcher at Cornell University, challenges that there are many reasons why this axiom is not a reasonable mechanism for evolution. He demonstrates that various phenomena, such as Haldane’s dilemma, show that mutations create a genetic burden that natural selection cannot compensate. Furthermore, because there are many more mutations than previously thought, the health of organisms is steadily declining, not evolving. This well written book is geared toward the educated layman and deals with many current aspects of genetics.
• 

  TD

  Kate,

  My mom's chihuahua can hump my parrot for 1 week straight, I gaurentee you, my parrot will not be laying any chihuahua eggs.

  Do you really need a scientist to tell you that? The natives of Peru had more sense.

  Strawman -- No one has suggested that such a thing is possible.

  At least insofar as the dialogue between you and myself is concerned, the question at stake is whether or not new species come into existence through the mechanisms that bring about trivial changes in populations. The answer depends to a certain degree in what one understands the term, "Species" to mean.

  I've asked you to explain what it means to you, --I've even tried to guess what it means to you, but your silence amounts to a refusal to do so.
• 

  Apostate Kate

  I've asked you to explain what it means to you, --I've even tried to guess what it means to you, but your silence amounts to a refusal to do so.

  Dang and I though the parrot illustration would clear that all up.

  Certain animals are in a family of the same animal. Like coyotes, wolves, dogs, etc. I am not pretending to be something I am not here so if science classifies something different, then I'll leave that classification to the them.

  Horses can breed with donkeys and zebras since they are in the same family but will be sterile. Not sure about the zebras though. Thus a new kind, species what have you can not just spontaneously pop up right? Kinda like those weeds that skipped a generation of mutations to go back to the orginal code that I added the link to the other day.

  If your trying to make a point why don't you just make it instead of trying to test my knowledge of how scientists classify them?

  As my husband says; the government declared the tomato a fruit, it is still a vegetable to me.
• 

  Apostate Kate

  Hooberus I doubt that many evolutionists will read that book. It seems to me that evolution has become more of a religion based on mythical evidence that must be protected from us lowly ignorant ones.

  There is no evidence that any organism has ever aquired new genetic material from the sun and evolved into a more comlpex organism.
• 

  acsot

  Hey hooberus, is that the same John Sanford as this guy?

  http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?item.181.6
• 

  Leolaia

  There is no evidence that any organism has ever aquired new genetic material from the sun

  Boy the strawmen keep coming thick and fast.
• 

  TD

  Kate,

  If your trying to make a point why don't you just make it instead of trying to test my knowledge of how scientists classify them?

  I wasn't trying to test your knowledge, Kate. "Species" is a nebulous term with several working definitions.

  The point though, is this: Hybridization is direct evidence that new species actually do diverge from common stock.

  You mentioned awhile back that the mule was sterile. You're right. Mules, mollies and hinnies are almost always sterile. Why? Because the horse and donkey are two separate and distinct species. A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62. The mule ends up with 63 which cannot pair up correctly during the synapsis phase of meiosis.

  This begs the question though --- Why can the horse and donkey reproduce at all? The obvious answer is that they are closely related, but again, that raises another question of "Why" Why are the horse and donkey closely related? --Another obvious answer; Because they share a common ancestry.
• 

  Apostate Kate

  Another obvious answer; Because they share a common ancestry.

  In your opinion it is "obvious" but that is because your starting point is that evolution is a proven fact. In my opinion they are two different animals in the same family that are close enough to mate but since they are two different animals they will be sterile.

  I used to believe that but not anymore. I used to believe eohippus (sp) was the common ancestor. But you just can't screw around with chromasomes. Explain what happens to a human when a chromasome is changed. Here is a simple example for us simpletons;Introduction to Chromosome Diseases - CureResearch.com

  Now show me any evidence at all that additional or missing chrmosomes can create a higher life form.