Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
I don't know if that comparison works. One can't just try to mix a cow and a buffalo. They are separate species. And yes, huge changes would have been involved for human's ancestors to evolve into modern human, but that would have been gradual changes built up over a long time, not a sudden huge change.
Take a look at bonobos and chimpanzees. They are separate species, yet look almost identical. They came from the same common ancestor, but then the Congo river formed and split them up, and thus what we know of a modern chimpanzees developed on one side and the bonobos on the other. It is the same as with the fruit flies. You take one group, evolve them over enough generations, and then compare the ones after enough generations to the original ones and find it's a new species of fruit fly. The ancestor that evolved into humans (which they believe humans, bonobos, and chimps all share a common ancestor) would have taken multiple iterations before arriving at its current form.
|
Brd Sd...I used a cow and buffalo because that 'experiment' was tried...it was called Beefalo....as in Mules...the offspring of a male donkey and female horse...very close DNA, close enough to get an offspring...but all of the offspring are not capable of reproducing....that is the DNA barrier code. IOTW when there is a major mutation, one that would have to happen in Darwinism, the barrier code does not allow reproduction. Please think about that a bit.
BTW, in your example the 'same common ancestor' is unknown, postulation....I am not going to comment upon postulation.
There is not one example of a new species developing from another. Not one.
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ian-evolution/
a news article no less....