Evolutionist like to assume that just because man appears to have shared some features with apes and gorillas it means that it descended from a common ancestor. Of course, there could be a problem with this thought concerning the fragmented skulls presented as evidence.
Creatures often have similar features which evolutionists do not believe are derived from a common ancestor. For instance, the giant panda and the red panda are similar enough to both be called pandas, down to their sesamoid thumbs (the only creatures to have them), but they are believed to have no close relationship. The giant panda is believed to have descended from bears and the red panda from the racoon. The evolutionist call this evolution of their thumbs, "Convergent Evolution". This process is said to have made the thumbs of both pandas alike . If it can happen in that instance, on what basis does the evolutionist claim the so-called homologous features of the ape prove descent from a common ancestor and not convergent evolution?
Thumbs up
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
Not really an expert on Panda's, but we share something like 98.4% of our DNA with Apes. Sounds pretty similarly related to me.
Nextly, Red Pandas aren't even in the same family as Giant Pandas. Just because they both have "panda" in their name doesn't make them incredibly related. That's just the common name, not the scientific name. Just because the Red Panda, the Red Fox, and the Red Kangaroo all have the word "red" in their name, doesn't mean they're closely related.
Nextly, Red Pandas aren't even in the same family as Giant Pandas. Just because they both have "panda" in their name doesn't make them incredibly related. That's just the common name, not the scientific name. Just because the Red Panda, the Red Fox, and the Red Kangaroo all have the word "red" in their name, doesn't mean they're closely related.
Post #3
You know the answer to this, YEC. No one except those who try to make evolution look silly would look at a single characteristic to assess evolutionary relationship. It is necessary to look at as many characteristics as possible. There are lots of shared characteristics among primates. There are fewer shared characteristics between red "pandas" and giant pandas. Just look at what you folks call a "Darwin tree" and see. Those trees are a diagrammatic representation of the similarities and differences among organisms, which makes it real easy to see what creatures are most like what others. The Creation vs Evolution question is not about the tree itself, it's about the history of life that gave rise to this pattern of similarity.
The notion of convergent evolution is quite simple. Distantly-related organisms may develop some similar characteristics if selection pressures are similar. If you grow cacti or euphorbs in the desert, you'll get plants that show similar adaptations to hot, dry climates. Apparently, the two "pandas" had similar selection pressures that resulted in wrist-bone mutations being advantageous.
The notion of convergent evolution is quite simple. Distantly-related organisms may develop some similar characteristics if selection pressures are similar. If you grow cacti or euphorbs in the desert, you'll get plants that show similar adaptations to hot, dry climates. Apparently, the two "pandas" had similar selection pressures that resulted in wrist-bone mutations being advantageous.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #4
I already exlained that in my opening post.bigmrpig wrote:Not really an expert on Panda's, but we share something like 98.4% of our DNA with Apes. Sounds pretty similarly related to me.
Nextly, Red Pandas aren't even in the same family as Giant Pandas. Just because they both have "panda" in their name doesn't make them incredibly related. That's just the common name, not the scientific name. Just because the Red Panda, the Red Fox, and the Red Kangaroo all have the word "red" in their name, doesn't mean they're closely related.
Now back to the question
Post #5
Hmmmmmm, they seem to share a lot of characteristics...both have eyes, ears, hearts..THUMBS......your point?Jose wrote:You know the answer to this, YEC. No one except those who try to make evolution look silly would look at a single characteristic to assess evolutionary relationship. It is necessary to look at as many characteristics as possible. There are lots of shared characteristics among primates. There are fewer shared characteristics between red "pandas" and giant pandas. Just look at what you folks call a "Darwin tree" and see. Those trees are a diagrammatic representation of the similarities and differences among organisms, which makes it real easy to see what creatures are most like what others. The Creation vs Evolution question is not about the tree itself, it's about the history of life that gave rise to this pattern of similarity.
The notion of convergent evolution is quite simple. Distantly-related organisms may develop some similar characteristics if selection pressures are similar. If you grow cacti or euphorbs in the desert, you'll get plants that show similar adaptations to hot, dry climates. Apparently, the two "pandas" had similar selection pressures that resulted in wrist-bone mutations being advantageous.
Post #6
That really makes it sound like you read the first two sentences of his post and nothing else.YEC wrote:Hmmmmmm, they seem to share a lot of characteristics...both have eyes, ears, hearts..THUMBS......your point?Jose wrote:You know the answer to this, YEC. No one except those who try to make evolution look silly would look at a single characteristic to assess evolutionary relationship. It is necessary to look at as many characteristics as possible. There are lots of shared characteristics among primates. There are fewer shared characteristics between red "pandas" and giant pandas. Just look at what you folks call a "Darwin tree" and see. Those trees are a diagrammatic representation of the similarities and differences among organisms, which makes it real easy to see what creatures are most like what others. The Creation vs Evolution question is not about the tree itself, it's about the history of life that gave rise to this pattern of similarity.
The notion of convergent evolution is quite simple. Distantly-related organisms may develop some similar characteristics if selection pressures are similar. If you grow cacti or euphorbs in the desert, you'll get plants that show similar adaptations to hot, dry climates. Apparently, the two "pandas" had similar selection pressures that resulted in wrist-bone mutations being advantageous.
How much clearer do you want his point to be stated?There are lots of shared characteristics among primates. There are fewer shared characteristics between red "pandas" and giant pandas.
Post #7
Don't the rules argue against one-liners? They are remarkably uninformative. My point was, as I wrote before, that it is necessary to look at all of the characteristics. You haven't done that. If you do, you'll know what I'm talking about. Of course, when you look, you also have to see, which may be difficult if your conclusions are already firmly set.YEC wrote:Hmmmmmm, they seem to share a lot of characteristics...both have eyes, ears, hearts..THUMBS......your point?
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
By your creationist model, were the Pandas on the Ark, or did they evolve from things that were on the ark?Evolutionist like to assume that just because man appears to have shared some features with apes and gorillas it means that it descended from a common ancestor.
How many kinds of ape were on the ark?
Does your model of hyper-evolution after the flood solve this convergence/divergence problem you are having? Does hyper-evolution not allow divergence?
Or are you saying that creation scientists have shown that the pandas evolved from a single pair that was on the ark?
I don't quite see what the real question is.
DanZ
Post #9
juliod"]
How many kinds of ape were on the ark?
206 different kinds of primates.
Does your model of hyper-evolution after the flood solve this convergence/divergence problem you are having? Does hyper-evolution not allow divergence?
That would be hyper speciation.
Or are you saying that creation scientists have shown that the pandas evolved from a single pair that was on the ark?
I don't quite see what the real question is.
DanZ
By your creationist model, were the Pandas on the Ark, or did they evolve from things that were on the ark?Evolutionist like to assume that just because man appears to have shared some features with apes and gorillas it means that it descended from a common ancestor.
How many kinds of ape were on the ark?
206 different kinds of primates.
Does your model of hyper-evolution after the flood solve this convergence/divergence problem you are having? Does hyper-evolution not allow divergence?
That would be hyper speciation.
Or are you saying that creation scientists have shown that the pandas evolved from a single pair that was on the ark?
I don't quite see what the real question is.
DanZ
Post #10
Perhaps you can present the characteristics and tell me where I am wrongJose wrote:Don't the rules argue against one-liners? They are remarkably uninformative. My point was, as I wrote before, that it is necessary to look at all of the characteristics. You haven't done that. If you do, you'll know what I'm talking about. Of course, when you look, you also have to see, which may be difficult if your conclusions are already firmly set.YEC wrote:Hmmmmmm, they seem to share a lot of characteristics...both have eyes, ears, hearts..THUMBS......your point?
