Christian Looking For Debate

[The Grand Nudger]

And Evolution is proven science there are two types micro evolution and macro evolution.

You didn't eh?

As to your objections. We do mate with monkeys all day every day. Each other.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
(apes, but what the hell right?)
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary..._Sterility
(hybrid sterility)

[Mister Agenda]

So why would something evolve into something that its predecessor cant mate with?

Finally, If it is just gradual change over a long period of time like humans and apes coming from a common ancestor then why cant we mate with monkeys even though we came from the same source? This extends to all life if we all came from a common ancestor then shouldn't dogs be able to breed with pigs and people with dolphins? On the few cases that different species can breed they offspring is always sterile. And if its just that they eventually became so different that they can't breed then why did that happen?

These are legitimate questions that I've had.

Because I can tell you make an effort to understand science and at least refer to readily-available sources, I will take this on sans sarcasm.

One thing is that part of the definition of species has to do with difficulty with interbreeding, creatures that can readily interbreed are usually considered the same species (not always, for historical taxonomic reasons).

I will focus for a moment on one of those exceptions: dogs. Dogs and wolves can interbreed readily, despite obvious phenotypical differences that are greater than some between related species that can't interbreed. The reason for this is that, although dogs have been bred into a wide variety of types, the thousands of years we've been doing so haven't been long enough to bring into play the chief obstacle to interbreeding: genetic drift.

As has been found in nature on small islands that used to be joined(particularly with burrowing mammals who can't readily travel between islands), long separation of populations (25-30,000 years in the island study of which I'm thinking) of the same species will eventually result in speciation even if the selection pressures have resulted in them remaining superficially identical. You could say that it's lack of interbreeding that results in a lack of ability to interbreed. Over thousands of generations of separation (it doesn't necessarily have to be geographical isolation, anything that severely reduces interbreeding will suffice), mutations unique to each seperated population accumulate within that population, but not the other. If the change isn't acted on by natural selection, it will have no particular pattern, the genomes of the separate populations will just get more and more different over time.

Our common ancestor with chimps (our closest living relatives) is estimated as living about six million years ago. Genetic drift alone makes it unlikely that we would be able to interbreed with them. Monkeys are right out. However, it may have been possible, say 5.75 million years ago, for our ancestor then to have bred with the chimp's ancestor of the time.

I hope that answers your question to your satisfaction. I will be happy to provide more information if you need clarification.

[justthetruth]

So why would something evolve into something that its predecessor cant mate with?

Finally, If it is just gradual change over a long period of time like humans and apes coming from a common ancestor then why cant we mate with monkeys even though we came from the same source? This extends to all life if we all came from a common ancestor then shouldn't dogs be able to breed with pigs and people with dolphins? On the few cases that different species can breed they offspring is always sterile. And if its just that they eventually became so different that they can't breed then why did that happen?

These are legitimate questions that I've had.

Because I can tell you make an effort to understand science and at least refer to readily-available sources, I will take this on sans sarcasm.

One thing is that part of the definition of species has to do with difficulty with interbreeding, creatures that can readily interbreed are usually considered the same species (not always, for historical taxonomic reasons).

I will focus for a moment on one of those exceptions: dogs. Dogs and wolves can interbreed readily, despite obvious phenotypical differences that are greater than some between related species that can't interbreed. The reason for this is that, although dogs have been bred into a wide variety of types, the thousands of years we've been doing so haven't been long enough to bring into play the chief obstacle to interbreeding: genetic drift.

As has been found in nature on small islands that used to be joined(particularly with burrowing mammals who can't readily travel between islands), long separation of populations (25-30,000 years in the island study of which I'm thinking) of the same species will eventually result in speciation even if the selection pressures have resulted in them remaining superficially identical. You could say that it's lack of interbreeding that results in a lack of ability to interbreed. Over thousands of generations of separation (it doesn't necessarily have to be geographical isolation, anything that severely reduces interbreeding will suffice), mutations unique to each seperated population accumulate within that population, but not the other. If the change isn't acted on by natural selection, it will have no particular pattern, the genomes of the separate populations will just get more and more different over time.

Our common ancestor with chimps (our closest living relatives) is estimated as living about six million years ago. Genetic drift alone makes it unlikely that we would be able to interbreed with them. Monkeys are right out. However, it may have been possible, say 5.75 million years ago, for our ancestor then to have bred with the chimp's ancestor of the time.

I hope that answers your question to your satisfaction. I will be happy to provide more information if you need clarification.

Two questions:

What did monkeys and chimps evolve from?

Why are there still monkeys and chimps in the world today? Or did they just fail to get the evolution memo?

[HeyItsZeus]

Two questions:

What did monkeys and chimps evolve from?

Why are there still monkeys and chimps in the world today? Or did they just fail to get the evolution memo?

Educate yourself about something before you decide to "disprove" it.

You're not worth anyone's time in debate.

[5thHorseman]

Two questions:

'What did monkeys and chimps evolve from?'

Same COMMON ancestor as us.

'Why are there still monkeys and chimps in the world today? Or did they just fail to get the evolution memo?'

I don't get this statement. Are you saying they should be dead or like us? If it's death, it's because they have bred well and evolved well to suit THEIR circumstances. Or, as already said, we evolved from a common ancestor and went in different directions, we went into the savannah and evolved for life their, they stayed in jungles and amazingly they handle their 'arena' better than we handle ours. So who really evolved more?

Read this. You'll learn something, but you have to open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.



then you may stop being ignorant and realise,

[ElDinero]

Two questions:

What did monkeys and chimps evolve from?

Why are there still monkeys and chimps in the world today? Or did they just fail to get the evolution memo?

Since several people have already addressed this point after you already made the EXACT SAME ONE before, I'm going to assume you're a fat headed little cunt who can't comprehend even the simplest idea. GO BACK. READ THE RESPONSES. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, ASK SOMEONE TO CLARIFY.

Failing that, get someone to help you reading. You've got one more chance before my foot evolves into a big hammer that gets lodged into your asshole, asshole.

---

I don't see whats wrong with being affiliated with Islam please clarify that. As far as the other religions are concerned: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism offer something completely different than every other religion out there, and that's a personal God who wants a personal relationship with his people. Surely if there really is a God who created everything then he would want to be involved with his creation as it grew. If a god is not personal and doesn't want a personal relationship with his creation then he's not god. I have an adopted sister and I gave her the opportunity to meet her physical parents and she told me "no, mom and dad are my parents not them. They abandoned me so there's no way I could call them my mom and dad." If you have a child but never communicate with it then you're not their "parents" the people who care for him are.

I don't see what any of this has to do with anything. We were discussing whether things were true or not, and the safety of putting all your eggs in one basket when you could face consequences if any of the others are correct. What they 'offer' is irrelevant. Do you think you've nullified Pascal's Wager with your post?

Also, your analogy of God and parents doesn't work in the least. You're saying that if something created the entire universe but then lost interest in the creation, that it would not be God? Even though it would have enough power to obliterate you with a thought? Are you sure about that? And on what basis do you assert that 'SURELY God would want to be involved with his creation?' And why is that? Don't you think it's a little audacious to even suggest what God's opinion on that would be?

Given that comment, answer me this: If we could show that your God wasn't interested in humanity, would that mean he wasn't God, and would that fuck up your belief? Because I think I could make a fairly compelling case.

And with morals, society does that anyway. Even if you were to reject everything you were told about morals and make your own moral code it would be shaped by something, the law, society, religion, etc.

Yes, society does that anyway, correct. So we need religion because...

[Tiberius]

There are still monkeys and chimps in the world because they evolved from previous species, just like us. Go back a few million years, and the "chimp-like" and "monkey-like" creatures you'd see wouldn't be the same species as you see today; they are their ancestors.

This diagram explains it quite simply:

[ElDinero]

It's been explained, Adrian. Several times, by several people. He has no intention of reading the replies. Much easier to thump his chest and laugh like a hyena. Closer to nature than he thinks, this one.

[Joe Bloe]

I'm not looking to attack anyone's beliefs only to defend mine. I am open to any questions that you have for me.

What are the beliefs you wish to defend? Be specific - and then defend them.

[Minimalist]

So why would something evolve into something that its predecessor cant mate with?

There is no "why." You have to lose that whole concept of some sort of end purpose of evolution. Evolution happens but there is no "plan" to it. It is a reaction to stresses on a given population and the individuals which adapt best to those stresses survive and breed more than the ones who do not.

I always like this graphic, over-simplified though it may be it shows the point.