Summations Only

YEs. I don't think that. Neither does Dr. A. Yes. I've never seen a modern ape,aside from humans, argue, let alone about what it's ancestors were. Maybe not perfectly, but rather well. They couldn't. Not only do they lack a big enough brain needed for arguing, they'd also be wrong. I wouldn't say perfectly, but pretty good, yes. No one said this. Your arguments sure have.

Of course, since all evidence points in that direction.

You do this stuff on purpose don't you?Ok, fine I should've corrected you on that in your previous post. There, happy now? I didn't correct a mistake you made.It's still dumb to say that fish evolved from monkeys.

We could, but you'd probably misrepresent or misinterpret it and ask another stupid question or make a dumb statement. So no, thanks.

Only because the evidence shows that it happened the other way around. Yes, the evidence only shows this. It has, look at whales for example. Land animals "returning" to the sea. Of course, whales aren't fish, but it shows that evolution isn't bound to go in one driection. It's not about logic, it's about what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows that there were fish first, and monkeys later, there is no denying this.

No. It's not about what is around today and what isn't. There were never monkeys before there were fish. Unless you can show evidence that monkeys evolved into fish, all you have is the evidence that fish evolved into monkeys. And until that time, saying that monkeys evolved into fish is not waranted by anything.

Yes. Not in their environment, no. Put it in a tree, however, and I gurantee you it will die out more quickly than that monkey did. Uhm yes. However, since the two envirnoments are so far apart, there's no real competition between the two, and so, comparing them is rather pointless. They either continue to adapt to their environment, or they go extinct, it's as simple as that.

I'm sorry what? Could you please explain to me how you reached that conclusion from anyhting I said?

Not likely. It would be an ancestor of modern fish, in any case. How much do you think that will cost? And finding an ancestor to modern fish isn't really what we need, we've got those already. DNA evidence points to the fact that the common ancestor of modern fish and monkeys was an ancestor of the modern fish.You see, modern fish aren't related to monkeys as monkeys are related to say, apes. There are many more steps to get from a fish to a monkey, then from a monkey to an ape. In fact, (and guys more knowledgeable than me would need to confirm this), I feel pretty confident to say that no fish species alive today is descendant from the same branch of the tree of life that brought us monkeys. But like I said, I could have this wrong.

Yes. Not directly, there are more intermediate stages, amfibians and reptiles, for example. No, since Fish eventually evolved into monkeys, therefore the ancestor of all fish is also the ancestor to all monkeys. It's therefore their common ancestor. Well, we have fossil fish, so yes. Yes, you would be wrong.I'll try to visualize it for you. As you can see, the common abcestor for all modern fish and monkeys is a fish. This is what you asked for. Keep in mind though that this is a very very very simplistic representation, I left out a lot of intermediate forms everywhere.Edited by Huntard, : Changed a bit for clarity

Ok. Ok. Ok. Ok. No. We should say that all rabits and everything that B produces shares a common ancestor, A, which it does, according to your example. So? It can, you said so yourself, remember? C turns into a rabbit, and C was a fish. Nobody said a rabbit evolved into a fish. This statement is irrelevant to your example. It's also wrong, if rabits gave birth to something other than rabits it would falsify ToE. Yes. So? It's your example, so sure. Again, if you say so. Well, it's your example, so you're free to let them appear by magic. In nature though, they would appear through mutations. No they're not. That you not only contraddicted yourself, but also your logic is wrong? I just did.

No you weren't. You were talking about the appearance of "new genes" in your species C. New genes appear through mutations, natural selection is the thing that determines if they get to propogate or not. I don't. Mutations are part of the current ToE.

It's not my theory. It's the normal ToE. I suggest reading up on that if you want to find out about mutations.

No, but genes X, Y and Z do.

No they're not, you said so yourself in the example. A, B and C all have the X,Y and Z genes, as do all the rabits. So?Edited by Huntard, : Added a bit for clarity.