The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans

I agree, we have one of our first agreements... Evolution did not creat life and did not create laws that govern life and non life. (therefore me having this inside my signature, gives us more common ground, and we can apparrently all accept this as a fact. Great... We have agreement)We differ on evolution diversifying life, but I shall try studiying up on this new concept you mentioned about it, not creating new and different species from an original species or KIND.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Dogs show the range of variety possible within a species, and using it as such is not intended as "proof" of evolution -- the process of evolution has been observed and documented, it is fact, "proof" is not needed. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesisNeutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.Thus the many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.Only those desperately denying these facts argue about them. See absence of reference to inbreeding in the definition above. See absence of any need for approval in the definition above. Repeat after me: the processes of evolution are observed, documented, known facts, and denial of this only leads to delusion. Stop lying about this Davidjay: you have not done anything close to "proving" that evolution is racist. Repeating assertions to that effect are not proof nor substantiation of you claim. You have a whole thread dedicated to this delusion of yours, and yet even there you fail to address the criticisms of your assertion that show it is a falsehood. Intentionally repeating a falsehood is lying. Actually that is evolution 101 and rational use of objective empirical facts. This too has been covered. Division of a parent breeding population into two independent daughter populations creates a clade, evolution results in a hierarchy of nested clades, each clade includes the founding population and all descendants of the founding population. Thus dogs will always be dogs, cats will always be cats.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.Note how neither daughter population is considered de factobetter or worse than the other or the parent population, just different. Being different is not racist.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

Inconsistent Razz, or should I say Abby... it appears you are a designer, yet you reject design and the ultimate DESIGNER... Choosing rather luck and chance as your quiding principle and motivater and your god of selection.At least thats what your profile says..... Razz the designer.You probably wont see the contradiction in your Zen state of mind, but for your sanity I thought I would try to bring you back to consistency....So as mentioned inbreeding is not proof of evolution and dogs remain dogs, and dont turn into a new species or KIND.Unless and wait for it, some brave evolutionist comes foreward and answers the question ..Does evolution teach that one species or KIND turns into another species or KIND ?Basic evolution and not one evolutionist can answer it ?Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

"Kind" is a religious term, with no meaning in science.But the chart below, which RAZD posts frequently, shows one species turning into another.But wait! There's more! As an added bonus, there is a change in genus as well!

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

Of course, this is obvious. It's just that you are a Christian Troll and are not even trying to comprehend.

Diomedes, thank you so much for stating the obvious.... you are literally the first brave evolutionist that admits that in your theory one species or KIND turns into another species or KIND.Evolutionists HERE have been evading that obvious answer over and over again. Why because they know, it means that humans are supposedly still evolving and different branches or different humans in different envirorments must also be branching out from the originals, and that again provesEvolution is a racist doctrineCreationism wins again unless you promote racism and wars.

It took a new to this thread evolutionists to answer this question about evolution because he was naive enough to answer honestly that evolution dictates branching, and dictates that one species supposedly turns into a new species.
As he or she said, its obvious, but evasive evolutionists who are hard core wouldn;t admit it.... and now they have been found wanting and again found to be losers, as they run from their own doctrine, and the consequences of their own doctrine.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

And this is stated where in my post? Nowhere of course. That diagram showed species diversity. It is evident. But of course, you are a Christian Troll that focuses on bending words and spewing nonsense. Sorry Troll Boy, but no. As everyone on this thread has stated. But once again, you are simply a Christian Troll that focuses on bending words and spewing nonsense. Nice hyperbole. But your statement is what I would expect. Because, after all, you are simply a Christian Troll that focuses on bending words and spewing nonsense.What is rather fascinating from our point of view is every single one of your posts actually reaffirms evolution and demonstrates the absurdity of intelligent design and creationism. Why? Because while I can attribute your blatant nonsense and stupidity to a bad random mutation, there is no way any supreme being could have screwed up so badly as to have you as the product of their efforts. Unless you assertion is that you 'god' is just a temp with a poor work ethic.By the way, I think I have found a kindred spirit for you: Can't spell? Check.
Spews nonsense? Check.
Uses hyperbole? Check.
Doesn't understand science? Check.Sounds like Davidjay to me!

NOBODY has claimed that inbreeding is proof of evolution, stop lying.As soon as you define "kind" and show that it accurately represents the diversity of life we see, this question can be investigated.Are you saying that "kind" is "species" and not "genus" or "family"?Then you lose, because evolution shows actual evidence of one species changing over time until the individuals are all different from the older individuals (anagenesis) and it shows one becoming two species (cladogenesis) -- both are shown in abundant detail in the Pelycodus diagram that coyote re-posted. That this happened is FACT.Enjoy

Your first post and original post and GRAPHICS depicts a wolf becoming different dog breeds and then you suggesting that this variation is proof that evolution can jump the gap into new KINDS.Not just a variation of dogs but a new KIND or new species.So Yes you are free to remove your original graphics that suggest and you later suggest proves evolution.No problem simply remove the graphics and edit out your jumping gap proof.Very simple Razz, only would take about three minutes.And then you might also consider choosing another occupation that designer, when you always seem to be against design, and the DESIGNER.But your choice...No I am not lying, its your graph, and your words, and your principles of jumping the gap. But if you choose you can state that INBREEDING IS NOT EVOLUTIONARY CHANGEEdited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Let me make it easier for you to clarify your mystifying comments and hoped for proofs. Just come out and state Inbreeding proves evolutionary change OR INBREEDING does not prove evolutionary change.Have some courage as it only takes about ten seconds to make up your mind and post clearly..... come on, you can do it. Make up your mind.... and answer this very simple question rather than calling me a liar, and a mis-representer.

You're playing "Gotcha"? Grow up already... I'm not following the logic here, can you walk me through it? How does branching prove racism?

RAZD, I would say this question might be unwittingly incorrect. You seem to be asking if the anatomy of the skeleton, comparative anatomy between skeletons of primates like chimps and humans have more or less variation than, "seen in dogs".To remain logically correct you must ask, "than seen in dog skeletons".You full well know that none of the great apes can speak, write, do complex mathematics, pray, be spiritual, have sophisticated morality, etc...so a large part of what makes a human a human, is NOT comparative skeletal anatomy. And that is the error in your argument.I would say your argument is a compositional error. You take SOME of the anatomy of humans and apes, and compare it to ALL of the anatomy of dogs, presumably. (I am sorry if I misunderstood you in some way but that's how it seems.)I appreciate your point that the anatomy of the skeleton seems close. I would argue that for an ape of a certain size it is beneficial to have that type of anatomy similar to humans, by reasons of design. But there is no way to test if there is a common ancestor, IMHO.Sure, you can make a theoretical case. I would have to ask Bonedigger about the specific bones as he's an expert in studying them (EFF) but I would say the mistake in your argument is that you fail to see that any dog you take is a typical example of a dog in pretty much every way, but if you include humans as "apes" then obviously if you take a human being, a human isn't a typical example of an ape, with features of brachiation, and the inability to speak, etc...but to take a dog, well no matter what species it is it seems at least plausible they could stem from a common ancestor as they all have the same abilities. (i.e. baraminology isn't as simple as going from anatomical closeness, as with the example of the differing cauliflowers)As for the diagram of, "Ardi" those statements about what Ardi could do, you full well know require an anatomist expert in that field to carefully delineate each and every subtle difference and if the skeleton is not complete and part of the evidence could change those conclusions, then this could affect the validity of the argument.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Diomedes, I amnot arguing why are there still monkeys but on your diagram it seems that all of the common ancestors are represented as dots, and the real-life lifeforms are represented.Can you perhaps show the evidence of the quadruped ape-ancestors and how they transitioned to an arboreal type? (quadruped to more biped) I would dearly love to see these ancestors - please don't tell me that all of those ancestors I have to assume existed.Note I am asking for direct evidence of evolution not DNA comparisons or conjecture of any king - where are those ancestors on the picture? Can you also show me the ancestors for pre-bats, pre-pterosaurs, pre-pterodactyls, pre-Ichthyosuars, pre-dugongs, pre-manatees, pre-seahorses, please, to name but 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the ancestors of evolution which it seems we have to believe because you put some dots on a page representing them.

Don't be so sure, they can do more than you're giving them credit for.In fact, they can probably do everything that we can do, just to a lesser degree. That is, by type we can do all the same things, humans can just do them to a more degree, i.e. more complication or complexity, etc., but still technically the same thing.For example, speaking. Chimps and Gorillas can communicate, to a fairly high degree*, they just lack the vocal cords needed for complex speech patterns. As humans, our speaking is not a type of things that the greater apes lack, we just do it to a more degree.Make sense?So, give me an example of a type of thing that humans can do that we can know that the greater apes cannot.I bet I can show that the things you think humans can do and apes cannot are just types of things that they can do but we can just do to a more degree.*In fact, in captivity Gorillas can use devices to string together word-sounds into sentences. That's basically speaking, just artificially because they lack the physical biology.**Here, check this out: And here's a longer and more informative vid: