Carico writes:
If the poulation HAS to change, then why have humans not changed into a species so different from themselves as to be given the name of another species? Humans are still the same as they have been since the beginning of recorded history. None of us has wings or four legs or fins. We still have the same organs and looks that we've had since the beginning of recorded history.
Recorded history is an incredibly short period of time, in the broad scheme of things. The "wings, four legs, fins" idea is a straw man- we share our general body plan with most other terrestrial mammals. Evolutionary theory would not predict such radical changes within a few thousand years.
Calico writes:
Within the human poplutation there are many variables. But there are actually fewer variables within the ape population.
This is actually not true. Nuclear genetic diversity among chimpanzees, for example, is equal to or greater than that of humans, and mitochondrial DNA shows much greater diversity in chimp lineages than human (see
this genetics article (.pdf)).
Carico writes:
So within each species, the traits can change. But one species can NOT acquire the traits of another species unless he is capable of breeding with that species. Humans cannot acquire wings unless humans can mate with a species with wings. Therefore, humans can not acquire ape characteristics unless he can breed with an ape, nor can an ape acquire human characteristics unless an ape can breed with a human. This again, is basic biology.
None of these scenarios are predicted by the theory of evolution, so why do you bring them up?
This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-12-2005 09:26 PM
This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-12-2005 09:30 PM
{edits: trying to fix link}
This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-12-2005 09:32 PM
™ Version 4.2