Sexual Reproduction 2

Atheist cannot explain the evolution of reproductive organs.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Sex
• Male
• Female
• Reproduction

[UltraSWG]

"Parsimony is not statistically consistent."

You just copied that off the web and have no idea how that applies to Cladistic Taxonomy, do you?

"Are you also saying that science doesn't "prove" anything?"

In the technical sense of the word "prove", no, science does not prove anything.

If you wants proofs, go to the Math department.

This is how I can further tell that you really don't understand science. You'd know these kinds of things if you ever took a college level science course.

[UltraSWG]

"any extinct animal is non-modern?"

Did I say that? Why do you say this kind of crazy stuff?

I just have to wonder how you jump from simple statements to these convoluted, ignorant statements.

This is a question anyone who has taken an undergraduate biology class can answer, so it's obvious you don't know biology as well as you think you do.

To answer the question, no, there are extinct species of modern and pre-modern animals.

The Bali Tiger is an example of an extinct modern animal.

[Bodhitharta]

So all living animals are modern and any extinct animal is non-modern? So will the polar bear be non-modern when it is extinct?

[UltraSWG]

"Can you give an example of a non-modern animal?"

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Archaeopteryx is a non-modern animal.

You've never heard a taxonomist speak of modern birds, modern reptiles, etc?

No, I don't suppose you have ever spoken to a taxonomist at all.

[Bodhitharta]

Modern animals? Can you give an example of a non-modern animal?

[UltraSWG]

"why not believe that man evolved first and then the chimp?"

That question doesn't make sense.

Your misunderstanding of scientific concepts is not helping your argument.

Humans and Chimps are both modern animals, one did not evolve before the other.

"and assuming that that ancestor was more like a chimp than a human"

That is an incorrect assumption. Chimp genes have changed more than human genes in the last 6 million years, making humans more similar to our common ancestor, not chimps.

[Bodhitharta]

If their is a common ancestor that would mean that their is mutual descendency or in other words they "came from" that ancestor and assuming that that ancestor was more like a chimp than a human, the claim would be accurate. However why not believe that man evolved first and then the chimp?

[UltraSWG]

"Interesting enough you will not believe that Chimps have come from men"

Why would anyone believe that?

Chimps are not descended from humans, nor are humans descended from chimps. No scientist says that. Again you show a gross misunderstanding of science, particularly the ToE.

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, this isn't even disputed in science anymore.

It's rather pointless even arguing with you. All you will do is reject the evidence. You'll never learn anything this way.

[Bodhitharta]

Interesting enough you will not believe that Chimps have come from men when you must know that the ToE is not a progressive process i.e. it is not goal oriented.

[Bodhitharta]

In otherwords looking at telomeres in one species and comparing them to a different species is speculating that one of them is correct and the other incorrect, it requires an assumption. Do you believe that chimps came from men?