Why make the distinction between yak and buffalo if they are one synablob? Because they are not the same.
Evolution - True Or False
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. Muddle through the muddle it is, then.
It has been established that the yak, buffalo, and common cattle are of the same common ancestor, spidergoat, but you can't group horses, for instance, into that group, as much as you'd like to.
You can always make it the outgroup.
Why? for what purpose? What is it about the region that caused these unique traits to develop?
And what about Europe, Africa, ME, South America etc.?
You are saying man evolved from Apes in one specific form THEN evolved into their present appearances based on where they relocated? for no particular reason?
Where are the Darwinists to answer these questions? Frag, goat, spur, superdim, inverto, any help?
IAC:
So, you admit that a yak could evolve into a hereford, for example? And a buffalo could evolve into a yak, hypothetically.
Why couldn't a yak evolve into a horse, then?
Can you provide some lists of groups of animals you believe can evolve into each other?
John99:
It is only your religious thinking that leads you to imagine that everything must have a "purpose". Evolution doesn't have a set of end goals that it aims for.
In the case under discussion, the explanation is a phenomenon known as genetic drift. Populations that initially shared the same features become geographically isolated and then, over long periods of time, develop genetic differences due to random variation.
What about them?
Not for "no particular reason". The particular reason was genetic drift and relative geographical isolation. Some features, by the way, might have been naturally selected as a result of environmental pressures. Other types of selection may also have operated (e.g. sexual selection). All of these things are the "reasons" you're looking for.
So, you admit that a yak could evolve into a hereford, for example? And a buffalo could evolve into a yak, hypothetically.
Why couldn't a yak evolve into a horse, then?
Can you provide some lists of groups of animals you believe can evolve into each other?
John99:
It is only your religious thinking that leads you to imagine that everything must have a "purpose". Evolution doesn't have a set of end goals that it aims for.
In the case under discussion, the explanation is a phenomenon known as genetic drift. Populations that initially shared the same features become geographically isolated and then, over long periods of time, develop genetic differences due to random variation.
What about them?
Not for "no particular reason". The particular reason was genetic drift and relative geographical isolation. Some features, by the way, might have been naturally selected as a result of environmental pressures. Other types of selection may also have operated (e.g. sexual selection). All of these things are the "reasons" you're looking for.
Sure James R, yaks evolve into horses all the time.
Q is for Quaint.
Yeah, and they also evolve into herefords, I hear.
Yaks can interbreed with herefords, but not with horses, see the difference?
They're two of the many which are interfertile.
Notice it's the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, not the Darwinian Law of Evolution.
Wouldnt be the only theory generally held as true.
Your comments are generally the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you", so why should I bother?
It's not my religious thinking James, YOU are the one who believes exactly as you are taught.
What environmental pressures would cause their distinctly asian features? Geographic isolation? Incredibly they managed to travel thousands of miles on foot then became isolated, THEN developed their distinct appearance?
And this process was mimicked throughout the earth and has now stopped because???, is that right?
Another thing, why in the world would they travel thousands of miles to begin with? just relocating would take generations.
Lastly, how many doctors and scientists have religious beliefs and how many are atheist, do you think they are all atheist?
Last edited:
Yeah, and it's Einsteins theory of relativity. And Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. And Feynman's theory of quantum electrodynamics. And Boltzmann's theory of thermodynamics. etc. etc.
Even if that was true, it doesn't automatically mean what I know is wrong. As it happens, though, you're way off the mark anyway.
What environmental pressures would cause their distinctly asian features? Geographic isolation? Incredibly they managed to travel thousands of miles on foot then became isolated, THEN developed their distinct appearance?
We're talking periods of tens of thousands of years here. It wasn't like people walked from Africa to China in a few weeks, then settled down and never had any contact with any other people ever again.
I already told you that no environmental pressures are needed in this case, although they might possible have played a part. Climate variation is one possible environmental pressure. Siberia has a different climate to northern Africa, for example - I'm sure you've noticed that.
Do you understand genetic drift from my previous explanation, or do you have further questions on that?
People are still evolving. Evolution hasn't stopped.
That's right. It did take generations. Why? Many reasons. Overcrowding at home. Lack of sufficient food for the existing population. Changes in climate. Many reasons.
I have trouble believing you don't know any reasons why humans have tended to migrate from place to place. How much history have you read?
Doctors and scientists are people, same as everybody else. Some of them are religious, some are not. What's the relevance of that?
By the way, there's no problem at all with being religious and accepting the findings of modern science, including the modern evolutionary synthesis.
This sounds like a rant. What is the relevance?
- Status