EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

On 9/12/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Indeed he is. And a good example to us all on how to comport ourselves with

> integrity.

It's a wonder I learned any ethics at all, considering my parents were monkeys.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I agree whole-heartedly with you .....thank you Chris.

Re: Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> popping in to admit that I was completely wrong, and Hovind was

>not lying. Here is a textbook company admitting their own error which

>they did not fix until the late 1990s:

>

><http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html>http://www.millera\

ndlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

As I stated, the last I saw was mid 90's but I don't recall the publisher.

It may have been the same one you found here. I don't always agree with

your viewpoints, but many would have not posted something like this

and admit they were wrong. They would wait for someone else to prove it

first. You are truly a man of honor.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>On 9/12/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

>> Indeed he is. And a good example to us all on how to comport

>ourselves with

>> integrity.

>

>It's a wonder I learned any ethics at all, considering my parents

>were monkeys.

Word on the street is that your dad was actually homo erectus.

Suze Fisher

Web Design and Development

http://www.allurecreative.com

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

---------------------------->

[Guest guest]

Ok, from what I've learned, it is Natural Selection that determines how

something evolves. ( I hope I'm stating this correctly). Now, having stated

that, if man evolved from an ape, then can you cross breed an ape with a human

being? I'll agree that all dogs, horses, cats, etc had one common

ancestor.....for the dog it was a dog, for the horse a horse, and so on. You

can breed a German shepherd with a Doberman, and get another species of dogs.

The same with the different breeds of horses and cats. So, if man shares the

same common ancestor with an ape, why can you not breed an ape with a man and

produce another species?

[Guest guest]

>

>Ok, from what I've learned, it is Natural Selection that

>determines how something evolves. ( I hope I'm stating this

>correctly). Now, having stated that, if man evolved from an ape,

>then can you cross breed an ape with a human being?

I think they've had a hard time finding volunteers. Although homo erectus

always seemed up for the challenge. No existing records of their trists

though.

I'll agree

>that all dogs, horses, cats, etc had one common ancestor.....for

>the dog it was a dog,

This is incorrect. Dogs " evolved " from gray wolves. Probably within the last

10,000-100,000 years. They can interbreed. But as stated earlier in

the thread, evolutionary theory doesn't hold that humans evolved from apes,

but rather that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. That

ancestor no longer exists, so it's unknown whether humans could interbreed

with them. I believe that the timeline for humans branching off from that

ancestor would've been much longer ago than the timeline for dogs " evolving "

from wolves.

Additionally, dogs didn't evolve in the sense that most other critters did

in the evolutionary paradigm, as they were *bred* by humans from

domesticated wolves and, IIRC, are still the same species as the gray wolf.

So the dog example is not analagous to human evolution.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Indeed he is. And a good example to us all on how to comport ourselves with

> integrity.

>

> Suze

Until he starts whooping and flinging poop. Then it's clear his

monkey morality isn't as nice as all that.

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> This is incorrect. Dogs " evolved " from gray wolves. Probably within the last

> 10,000-100,000 years. They can interbreed. But as stated earlier in

> the thread, evolutionary theory doesn't hold that humans evolved from apes,

> but rather that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. That

> ancestor no longer exists, so it's unknown whether humans could interbreed

> with them. I believe that the timeline for humans branching off from that

> ancestor would've been much longer ago than the timeline for dogs " evolving "

> from wolves.

To make a minor clarification, the common ancestor shared by humans

and apes would probably be considered an ape. But the more important

point is that this ape would not be identical to any present-day ape

species. Thus it was important to make this point within the context

of the question of why apes would still exist if they evolved into

humans. (Although it could *also* be true that a present-day existing

ape species was the ancestor of humans and nevertheless exist, though

to my knowledge noone believes this to be the case.)

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Word on the street is that your dad was actually homo erectus.

I thought he was Piltdown Man.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Ok, from what I've learned, it is Natural Selection that determines how

something

>evolves. ( I hope I'm stating this correctly).

Natural selection is one of several mechanisms that determines which

variation gets passed on, and thereby sculpts the evolution of a

species. There are other mechanisms, including sexual selection (a

female mates with a male who is bigger or more colorful, for example),

randomness (an avalanche happens to land on a bunch of animals with

stripes while the ones with spots were doing something else, for

example), immigration and emmigration, the founding of new and

isolated populations, and probably other mechanisms that we haven't

thought of/discovered.

It is important to recognize that this doesn't generate any

information or variation. It simply sculpts the variation that is

there. The information and variation itself is provided by mutations,

which are usually said to be random, although this is a vast

oversimplification and they are not really random.

> Now, having stated that, if man evolved from an ape, then can you cross breed

an ape > with a human being?

If apes and human beings could interbreed, we probably would not be

speciated. I have " heard " that chimpanzees and humans cannot mate

because their gametes are incompatible, but I don't know if this has

been experimentally verified. I have read elsewhere that humans and

chimps could probably mate.

In any case, the formation of reproductive barriers is the single most

important step in the development of new species. There are a number

of mechanisms by which these reproductive barriers could form. One is

geographical -- either the populations separate by moving away from

one another, or they are divided by some new geological structure,

like a glacier splitting a population into two that reside on either

side of it.

However, when populations are not geographically divided, there are a

number of mechanisms that could lead to reproductive barriers. One

might be preference for food. For example, if birds used to eating

one food (say, widget seeds) are naturally selected to have a certain

size and shape beak that is best able to obtain and process widget

seeds, then they will all tend to have a certain variation of beak

shape/size within an ideal range. Birds that have an extreme on

either end of this shape/size range will be selected *against*. That

is, they will die for lack of food rather than reproduce abundantly,

and they will therefore not pass on their genes. Say, then, that to

obtain widget seeds one must have a round beak of 2 cm. Now if a bird

has a flat beak or a beak that is much shorter or longer than 2 cm,

this bird will not be able to get seeds. So the birds with the beaks

that are the roundest and the closest to 2 cm survive the best and

reproduce the most abundantly, and therefore, you will have a narrow

range of variation.

Yet, say that some new food is introduced that bears wodget seeds that

are best obtained by birds with flat beaks 3.5 cm long. Birds of the

existing population that have somewhat more flat beaks and somewhat

longer beaks than their compatriots may have died when they could not

eat widget seeds but now they might be better able to obtain wodget

seeds. If they interbreed with each other, they will produce birds

that are better able to obtain wodget seeds. If they interbreed with

the ones who obtain widget seeds, they will produce birds that are not

able to specialize for widget or wodget seeds but are bad at obtaining

both. Thus, natural selection will select for those birds that

interbreed with their own kind. This might lead to reinforcing

barriers. For example, a wodget-seeking bird who prefers a distinct

smell made by wodget-seeking birds would be favored by natural

selection because that bird would reproduce to make efficient

wodget-seekers, whereas a wodget-seeking bird who does not

discriminate against this smell would reproduce to make wodget/widget

crosses that are bad at seeking any kind of seed. Thus, over time,

the presence of wodget seeds could lead to selective pressure that

selects for these types of smell discrimination or other types of

*behavioral* reproductive isolation.

These could include different mating behaviors, different times of the

year or day in which they mate, the gradual evolution of incompatible

sex organs, or chemical changes to their gametes (sex cells) that make

these gametes no longer able to fertilize one another.

So, I don't know whether there are any apes that humans can interbreed

with. What we would expect from evolutionary theory is that humans

would either NOT be able to interbreed with other apes, or that we

would develop certain behaviors that preclude us from doing so. This

could be, for example, the lack of sexual attraction between the two

species, social taboos, or any number of other factors. However it

occurs, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation.

> I'll agree that all dogs, horses, cats, etc had one common ancestor.....for

the dog it was

>a dog, for the horse a horse, and so on. You can breed a German

shepherd with a

>Doberman, and get another species of dogs. The same with the

different breeds of

>horses and cats. So, if man shares the same common ancestor with an

ape, why can

>you not breed an ape with a man and produce another species?

It is possible that over time, if dogs are bred with their kind,

certain strains of dogs will no longer be able to interbreed with

others. If so, this would set the stage for the accumulation of

genetic mutations that may make them even more different, and at that

point, there will be no turning back.

At the current point, however, dogs can interbreed with each other, so

they are still able to mix traits. The fact that different groups are

so morphologically distinct from one another, however, suggests that

they are in the process of what will turn out to be a very, very long

speciation event. Of course, it could also turn out that human

activity will not promote speciation of certain types of dogs. We

can't know now what will happen in the future. But this is a stage

that we expect any speciation event to involve -- the segregation of

traits over time, EVENTUALLY leading to the segregation of breeding

traits that will form a reproductive barrier, but not yet having

segregated THOSE specific traits.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

-

>You can breed a German shepherd with a Doberman, and get another

>species of dogs.

No, because all dogs are members of the same species. In fact it was

recently determined that dogs haven't even diverged enough from their

ancestors, grey wolves (AKA timber wolves) to be considered a separate species!

>The same with the different breeds of horses and cats.

Breeds, I believe, are even below the rank of subspecies.

> So, if man shares the same common ancestor with an ape, why can

> you not breed an ape with a man and produce another species?

Maybe I'm just opening up a nasty can of worms, but are familiar with

zorses, wholphins, ligons, and the like?

-

[Guest guest]

You can

>breed a German shepherd with a Doberman, and get another species

>of dogs.

Oh, I missed this earlier. This is entirely false. German Shepards and

Dobermans are different *breeds* not different species. All dogs are the

same species. You don't get a new species when breeding two different breeds

within the same species. If that were the case, all mutts would be their own

species.

Suze

[Guest guest]

lol.... I don't know.......just remember, I'm the student here. But, I guess

that could go along with zakes and wabbits?

Re: Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

-

>You can breed a German shepherd with a Doberman, and get another

>species of dogs.

No, because all dogs are members of the same species. In fact it was

recently determined that dogs haven't even diverged enough from their

ancestors, grey wolves (AKA timber wolves) to be considered a separate

species!

>The same with the different breeds of horses and cats.

Breeds, I believe, are even below the rank of subspecies.

> So, if man shares the same common ancestor with an ape, why can

> you not breed an ape with a man and produce another species?

Maybe I'm just opening up a nasty can of worms, but are familiar with

zorses, wholphins, ligons, and the like?

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> However it occurs, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation.

I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I'm curious -- does this mean you don't believe in erosion because God

>created mountains?

I have it good authority that chihuahuas don't exist either.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I have almost a hundred EVOLUTION emails from NN. As fascinating as all

>this is, can we now move on to another topic please?

You can very easily set up a filter in your email client to direct

all EVOLUTION-tagged messages to the trash so you never even have to

notice they're there.

-

[Guest guest]

>> OTOH, I've seen dogs that were the offspring of parents of very

>>disparate sizes, and assuming they didn't have help, I can't figure

>out >how they did it!

>

>Well, I have neighbors who had a bitch German Shorthair Pointer and a,

>um, a bigger dog that looks Labarodorish. Well, he got fixed, but

>they didn't keep her away from him long enough and she got bred. She

>died shortly after birth due to complications (she got ripped up, even

>with a c-section, I think). I am not vet, and I am sure, Suze, that

>you know way more about dogs than I do. But in this case, size was a

>factor for disaster, and the size difference was not that great (55

>lbs. vs. 85 lbs. about). And it may not have been weight but

>dimensions, I dunno. What do you think?

I doubt that size was a factor in this case, although it's possible. But it

is a good point that size of the puppies is a factor beyond the problem of

large and small dogs copulating. They might be able to copulate, but it

could certainly be disaster for the small bitch who has pups developing in

her with the genes of a large dog. :-(

Suze

[Guest guest]

>> Suze,

>Chihuahua conformation is six pounds maximum.

>Little jerks.

> B.

Yeh, I thought so. But I'm so used to looking at my 12 lber. every day that

I forget that most of the little buggers are half his size!

Suze