simian

jolene555,

Please don't get discouraged if you do get some less than respectful responses - I am sure some will occur.

From what I have read of what you have posted, you do seem to understand that a species can split into two or more species. Please correct me on that, if I am incorrect.

Assuming the universe is old enough (others can get into the evidence of that later), do you think the apes on monkeys could have a common ancestor?

Do you think humans and other apes could have a common ancestor?

I am just trying to figure out where you beliefs and understanding of the world fall.

Simian

jolene555

i have a hard time argueing with y'all if all you do is pick apart my words. what do you mean "what missing link"?? i mean come on, cut a girl some perverbial slack here.

-jo

Godless Dave

I really don't know what you mean. It's not a term you hear in biology circles anymore.

jolene555

hmm . . . i believe the world is 6000 years old, that monkeys and humans do not share a common ancestor, but yes i do believe that monkeys and apes may have a common ancestor. i believe what the bible says . . . amen (lol)

-jo

Principia

jolene,

The scientific theory of evolution requires that you appreciate the beauty of how all organisms on this tiny little planet are all related. It makes no demand that you believe in the caricature that "beauty came from a rock." Far from it. Science has served you this beautiful framework of understanding living organisms in the biotic reality that you live in. You may add a dash of religion and a sprinkle of God if you wish. But do science a favor, one that has been worked on for centuries by the brightest minds this planet had to offer, and give it a try before you spit on it and vomit it out?

jolene555

i know i am gonna catch some hell for that last post . . . geez. this is not a biology circle, i mean how do you communicate with people - constantly asking questions so you know exactly what they are saying?? the missing link between the common ancestor of apes and the like to humans. THAT missing link

-jo

simian

On the subject of transitional forms, there is a rather large problem: when we find a fossil of an animal somewhere between where humans and chimps split, 2 additional "missing links" are created - one between the common ancestor and the fossil and the other between the fossil and modern humanity.

I have tried to explain it to people like this, our mathematical system is continuous, not discrete. A person can disagree and say there is no such thing as 1 1/2 of a thing in any meaningful sense - you can have 1 of something or 2 of something, but . I can state there is such a thing as 1 1/2 gallons of gas - not a whole number. Then the position changes - 1/2 is the discreet number. This can be carried out to 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/2^n where n is any number (whole or not).

You have stated that you understand a species can split into 2 or more. Where exactly would the transitional form be there, or would it be more of a transitional series?

Simian

pz

Here, here, and here, for a start.
No. Do you have this vision that all ancestral species were static things that achieved a "level" of evolution, and then froze in a nice position to be tidily fossilized?

Your argument is most definitely not a good one. We expect that only a tiny fraction of all individuals ever become fossilized and even fewer are discovered, so that the fossil record represents a very sparse subset of the total. What we expect to see is scattered data points that fit within a pattern...and by golly, that's what we do find. And yes, these fossils are "missing links", in the sense that they are extinct representatives of portions of lineages.That's also not a good argument.

Shadowy Man

Please define "proof". You appear to be using the word in a very different way than I do.

pz

Actually, it is. You are talking to biologists and people interested in biology, and you are stating your opinions on a biological matter. You don't get to say that you don't know any biology, therefore you should get a free ride.When people say things that are quite absurd on the face of it, I think it is a very good idea that we ask for clarification -- would you rather everyone just started throwing insults, or dismissed you out of hand? You've said some things that are simply wrong, or that suggest deep misconceptions. You are being politely queried to see where the misconceptions lie. Oh, well then, you do want Jim Foley's page on fossil hominids. We've got a fine collection of transitional hominids; complaining that we ain't got great-great-great grandpa Cletus's skull on the rack doesn't mean great-great grandpa Jebediah was conjured up out of thin air.