Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I'll Clarify A Little

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on July 6, 2001 01:56:24 UTC

"you guys are saying that humans are different species within each other which is totally false since they have the ability to mate."

That was an extreme example I used to illustrate my point. Chickens don't hatch from reptile eggs, it's an extremely gradual process. So, to a certain extent, I am a different species than my parents, as you are from me. If you really want to get picky about it. If you leave a man and woman in Antarctica and a man and woman in Bermuda, I would be willing to bet that in a million years the offspring of the two sets would be very different (adapted to environment) and may be incapable of mating.

As far as the wolf/dog thing goes, give it a few hundred thousand years. I think you'll find that the two genuses have evolved (adapted, if you prefer) to a point when copulation is impossible.

"you say today's monkeys are not what humans evolved from? Does that even make sense? Shouldn't monkeys look more and more closely yo humans according to your theory of evolution?"

No, we followed two seperate genetic pathways. Chimpanzees are chimpanzees because they have traits that were useful to their ancestors (prehensile feet, for instance.) Humans are humans because different groups of those same ancestors living in a different area (I think that the first "modern" humans were uncovered in north Africa) had traits useful to them (walking erect frees hands for other tasks, larger cerebrum to compensate for physical frailty, opposable thumbs to grasp, etc) and after millions of years we have branched far enough apart from each other that we can be considered seperate species. Just because two twigs look slightly different does not mean that they didn't come from the same branch.

"Thats not all, no other species has been proved to be linked to any other species."

I have found that somewhat interesting, too. There seems to be a slight quantum leap behind apes and our more recent ancestors. However, there is a progression of human evolution (homo habilus, homo erectus, cro-magnun man, homo sapiens)

How else do you explain away the fact that we share almost 99% of our DNA with chimps?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins