No! Don’t you see it??
We do.
Do you pay any attention to the news at all?
This OP is the lone post that Interest was interested in posting. I leave you all to draw the appropriate conclusion.
I subscribe to the theory of multiple creators. At least one was an idiot. Another was OBVIOUSLY a gay man - peacocks? Siberian Irises? Irridencent dragonflies? Come on. But I see little evidence for a single omnipotent, omniscient, and straight creator. Earth really does look like it was built by committee.
Well, let’s take this statement and see what we can do with it. You agree that there is a fossil record showing multiple speiceis of hominids going back millions of years, right? You see that the further back in time you look, the less these hominids look like modern humans, right? So, how did modern humans develop from (one of) those early hominid species?
Yes. Cro-Magnon were Homo sapiens. We are Homo sapiens. There were minor differences in cranial capacity but nothing that would seriously put them in the “different species” category.
But does that apply here, since I’m 90% sure the OP was a troll, and not someone insterested in starting a debate? 
I’ll retract that if the OP ever shows up again. Doesn’t seem likely.
There weren’t even differences in cranial capacity. “Cro-Magnon” is just the term we use for the first modern humans (H. sapiens) in Europe, but’s not a particularly useful scientific term.
Not quite true, John. Cro-Magnon were indisputably Homo sapiens sapiens, modern humans in all respects. And they were the first modern humans in most of Europe. But they were a particular “race” – for lack of a better word – meaning physically distinct form within humanity, the way one can tell a nude Inuit from a nude Tutsi from a nude Khalkha Mongol. They had a distinctive skull shape common among modern populations only in the Canary Islands and certain regions of rural Sweden. Granted, it’s a very minor nitpick, but one that to me speaks of the relative closeness of the relationship: not only were they totally modern in all speciational details, but they were even of a recognizable ethnic form that has survived to the present.
Moderator’s Note: And if he’s a troll, the place to say so is not here.
Thank GOD! Finally, finally, FINALLY we have someone who can finally come up with the one argument that will sink evolution forever.
Phew. Now we can finally move on to whether fat people are a plague or a blessing!
-Joe
Yes and no. We were most likely a lot more genetically homogeneous 30-40k years ago than we are now since it had only been a relatively short time since our population exploded out of Africa (and, after having gone thru a genetic bottleneck). The fossil record is a bit spotty, but the skeletal differences we see today between the various races aren’t evident until much later (more like 10-15k years ago). While modern European populations are no doubt descended from Cro-Magnon peoples*, it would be a mistake to assume that Cro-Magnons looked like modern Europeans (skin color, facial features, etc.). But since the term “Cro-Magnon” can refer to any H. sapiens in Europe up until about 10k years ago, then it’s quite likely that those later residents did look like modern European populations today. The older residents, like the original Cro-Magnon find, probably didn’t, though.
*with genetic input from other regions, too, of course
Your arguments are flawless, good sir, and you have convinced me as none others before you have. I shall change my moniker forthwith to “Darwin’s Fallacy”.
It would appear that the **Interest **has lost interest in his/her thread.
“You’re asking for the “missing link” between humans and amoebas? Do you really think anyone is claiming that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a human being?!? I suppose the amoeba divided, and on the one hand, you had an amoeba, and on the other hand, you had a person.”
of course not…that would be crazy to expect these scientists to support their theory…
I don’t expect “poof” it just occured…
I want to see the evolutionary patterns they teach PROVEN outside of speculative reasoning -
“The whole notion of “missing links”, as popularly supposed, is pretty dubious anyway; the “Great Chain of Being” was more of a medieval concept that anything to do with modern biology. Amoebas, sponges, jellyfish, flatworms, sea urchins, lampreys, coelocanths, salamanders, lizards, platypuses, shrews, lemurs, baboons, chimpanzees, and people aren’t “links”, they’re all twigs in the branching Tree of Life.”
Have you taken a long hard look at this concept? A family tree is known by it’s geneology right? I know it would not be possible to compare a genetic family tree to a chromosome family tree? Or would it?
If I have all my DNA attributed to all things that came before me then somewhere along the line I would be sharing the chromosomes of a plant or a bug or something if we all branched off from each other somewhere down the long line of evolution. Maybe it’s all just to difficult for my simple mind to grasp.
"Picky female frogs in a tiny rainforest outpost of Australia have driven the evolution of a new species in 8,000 years or less, according to scientists from the University of Queensland, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
The yet-to-be- named species arose after two isolated populations of the green-eyed tree frog reestablished contact less than 8,000 years ago and found that their hybrid offspring were less viable. To avoid hybridizing with the wrong frogs and ensure healthy offspring, one group of females preferentially chose mates from their own lineage. Over several thousand years, this behavior created a reproductively isolated population - essentially a new species - that is unable to mate with either of the original frog populations."
You basically said a frog turned into another species of frog -
OK…
so that means it is possible that a frog can turn into an ape?
Forever skeptical~
Probably a complete waste of my time, but…
Obviously you have actually not bothered to even attempt to look into this subject. It has nothing to do with your ‘simple mind to grasp’, and everything to do with the fact you haven’t even tried to grasp it.
Here is a cite that talks about the DNA evidence…has a chart and everything. Specifically, what do you object too in this evidence? What are you, er, skeptical of?
:rolleyes: Of course not. Really, if you are going to debate this stuff you should at least make a cursory study before doing so. Otherwise you look like a complete fool because its obvious you don’t have a clue as to the subject. So, your ‘skepticism’ is silly…how can you look critically at something you obviously don’t understand?? How can you judge and be skeptical when you are clueless about the subject? It would be like a high school drop out who has no aptitude toward math attempting to be skeptical of Quantum Physics, or General or Special Relativity. Their skepticism would be meaningless beause it would have no basis!
Here is a good place to start. Ok, you don’t buy Evolution. Great. But at least know the frigging subject before attempting to debate about it. Know thy enemy and all that…
-XT
Yes! Very good! Maybe not chromosomes as such, but you’re on the right track.
Fruit flies obviously have completely different bodies than we do–six limbs instead of four (not to mention wings), a three-segment insect body, and of course their skeletons are on the outside instead of the inside. But if you sequence a fruit fly’s genes and a human’s genes and compare them, it turns out we share some of the same code, known as the homeobox. The homeobox genes control the development of the body in a very deep way. It obviously doesn’t code for what kind of limbs, but it sets out the basic body pattern–this end is the head, this end is the tail–and alterations to the codes in the homeobox can cause limbs to grow in different places (or antennae to grow where a leg should normally go).
We share some genetic code with yeasts (yeasts are more closely related to us than they are to plants, despite appearances); more code with other animals (even fruit flies) than we do with yeasts; even more code with our fellow mammals; and quite a lot of code with chimpanzees, our close cousins. Note that we had already figured out that we are closely related to chimpanzees, less closely related to other mammals, still more distantly related to all other vertebrates (birds, reptiles, coelocanths, etc.), and very distantly related to fruit flies but more closely related to them than to oak trees before anyone discovered DNA. Once we figured out how to read DNA (and protein sequences) we discovered that the way we’d categorized the tree of life based on anatomy and the fossil record was correct the great majority of the time. (DNA did tell us many new things, of course–I do think the yeasts being closer to us than to plants may have come as a surprise.)
Moderator’s Note: Incidentally, Interest, it would help keep things clearer if you would use the vBulletin tags to show the stuff you’re replying to that’s been said by other posters.
The vBulletin codes are based on tags, which come in brackets, like this – [tag] – and are closed with a tag with a forward slash in it, like this – [/tag].
So:
[quote]The quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog.[/quote]
becomes
By using this form:
[quote=William Shakespeare]To be or not to be, that is the question.[/quote]
You can create a quote block with attribution:
It’s important to include the close quote tag-- [**/quote] – at the end of each block of quoted text, or else the quote formatting won’t work.
If you want to interleave your comments with the other poster’s, put quote tags around each section of the other person’s post, like this:
Well, that’s easy for you to say.
This anti-Bandersnatchism is simply unacceptable in this day and age.
Do you have a cite for any of this?
And so on.
Finally, use the “Preview Post” button (immediately to the right of the “Submit Reply”) button to see what your post will look like before it actually goes on the boards, especially if there’s a lot of complex formatting in your post.
What is a SDSAB?