[_ Old Earth _] What if humans came from dogs

[Heidi]

The story of evolution came from an imaginary scenario called a hypothetical premise (hypothetical always means something not based on fact). So I'll use the "scientific" process to show that humans came from dogs by starting with the premise; "What if humans came from dogs?" Which is the same thing as; "What if humans came from apes"?

Again, I'll use the same process that evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes.

Once upon a long time ago there was a dog who mated with an animal common to humans and dogs. (I'll skip the part about where the half-dog, half-human came from as evolutionists skip where the common ancestors came from. After all, we have to keep the same process.) ;)

They produced a hybrid called a homocanine. But the problem is, their genes kept changing in their offspring because...well because. Let's say it was the weather. This happened in the rain-forest...no, let's say the desert. The climate was bad in the rain forest so the smarter dogs moved.

Then way down the road, some of the homocanines were concerned because some of their offspring had dropped their tails! 2 But they decided not to panic and just kept on breeding. (They had become smarter by now since their genes just couldn't stop changing. But since it was for the better, then they didn't worry too much). ;)

Until one day they became more alarmed when the front 2 legs of some of their descendants were shorter! It was as if they'd been cut off. :ohmy Fear ran through the packs of the homocanines because the dogs with the shorter front legs could walk! :bounce

This caused tremendous hostility and jealousy between the tribes and they began to fight. :fight The dogs with the shorter legs won out of course because they could walk and their oponents couldn't. So I'll give them a new name to differentiate them from their ancestors: Superhomocanines. This caused tremendous pride in their packs so they killed all the homocanines and hoped they would never produce an inferior homocanine again.

Then several hundred thousand years later, their genes had changed so much that they were all sitting around the campfire eating. Then suddenly, one of the superhomocanines began to speak! :angry2 It was quite a night. The other dogs began barking in unison, but the speaking superhomocanine had the ability to think things through so he quieted them all and they began to see the error of their ways.

And that's how dogs evolved into humans because...speciation happens. And it won't be hard at all to prove my story because all I have to do is find some bones in the dirt, piece them together to form creatures that look like both dogs and humans and my story will be proven. The End. ;)

 

[Free]

Again, I'll use the same process that evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes.

I'm pretty sure they claim that humans and apes had a common ancestor. A straw-man does not an argument make.

 

[Heidi]

Again, I'll use the same process that evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes.

I'm pretty sure they claim that humans and apes had a common ancestor. A straw-man does not an argument make.

It sounds like you don't believe Genesis 2:7 any more than you believe MT. 23:10.

Sorry Free, but I used the exact same process that evolutionists use to describe how monkeys, apes, or better yet, imaginary animals turned into humans. ;) Genes mutating millions of times into genes that work better than the previous ones. That process is as impossible and ridiculous as the one I described in my OP. But since you believe the secular world that's ruled by Satan, then I can see why you don't know why animals can't evolve into people any more than evolutionary scientists can. Satan is the wrong teacher which you should know if you claim to believe the bible.

 

[Free]

I didn't say what I believed in.

 

[Heidi]

I didn't say what I believed in.

So do you believe in evolution?

 

[lordkalvan]

The story of evolution came from an imaginary scenario called a hypothetical premise (hypothetical always means something not based on fact).

Well, no. In the context of scientific understanding hypothetical is derived from hypothesis, that is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon made on the basis of limited evidence and as a starting point for further investigation, i.e. for testing by observation and/or experiment to determine whether or not it can be falsified; if the hypothesis stands up to this testing without being falsified by additional evidence, it is considered to be increasingly robust. For example, we could start with a hypothesis that apparently conforms to the observable phenomenon that the Sun moves round the Earth and then test that hypothesis by observation and measurement. So I'm afraid your proposition falls at the first hurdle.

So I'll use the "scientific" process to show that humans came from dogs by starting with the premise; "What if humans came from dogs?" Which is the same thing as; "What if humans came from apes"?

It is unlikely that any scientific hypothesis based on the proposition that Homo sapiens evolved from Canis lupus familiaris would be put forward as there is no observable evidence to suggest that this might be the case. There is a great deal of observable evidence that suggests Homo sapiens and the other Hominidae are directly related in a much closer way than Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris are, however.

Again, I'll use the same process that evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes.

More confusion, I'm afraid. Our understanding of the evolution of Homo sapiens leads us to conclude from the available evidence that Homo sapiens is one of the four genera of the family Hominidae that also includes chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. It seems clear that we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees most recently, with gorillas in the more distant past and with orangutans before that.

Once upon a long time ago there was a dog who mated with an animal common to humans and dogs.

Oh dear, this is terminally confused. You really need to find a good basic textbook on evolutionary theory and read it.

More later.

 

[Heidi]

It is unlikely that any scientific hypothesis based on the proposition that Homo sapiens evolved from Canis lupus familiaris would be put forward as there is no observable evidence to suggest that this might be the case. There is a great deal of observable evidence that suggests Homo sapiens and the other Hominidae are directly related in a much closer way than Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris are, however.

First of all, you missed my point. My point is that by the "scientific" process of evolution, then humans could have come from any animal. The process is that the genes simply changed from one animal to humans because...well...they just did. Over time, of course.

Secondly, when you say it is "unlikely" that humans came from dogs (although you used "scientific" terms to make your post sound more authentic), that means that you don't know where humans came from or you wouldn't use the term "unlikely'. You would simply know where humans came from. ;)

But you don't know because the story of evolution is as imaginary as each individual imagination. That's called science fiction, not science. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

They produced a hybrid called a homocanine.

Again a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Individuals do not evolve into different species; populations evolve.

But the problem is, their genes kept changing in their offspring because...well because.

So you imagine that your genes and your parents are absolutely identical? Well, obviously they're not, are they? Because some you inherit from your father and some from your mother. So already you are different, aren't you. And some of those genes will have mutated - most with no significant effect, but some with possibly advantageous benefits and some with disadvantageous benefits. Consider how ABO polymorphism arose and how it also exists in chimpanzees. Consider also the implications of sickle-cell anaemia.

Let's say it was the weather. This happened in the rain-forest...no, let's say the desert. The climate was bad in the rain forest so the smarter dogs moved.

Why do you say it was the weather? What evidence do you think would support this hypothesis? What evidence that already exists leads you to suppose that weather caused mutation in the genes of a particular population? Why do your hypothetical migrants have to be 'smarter' to move? Again, what evidence supports your hypothesis?

Then way down the road, some of the homocanines were concerned because some of their offspring had dropped their tails! But they decided not to panic and just kept on breeding. (They had become smarter by now since their genes just couldn't stop changing. But since it was for the better, then they didn't worry too much).

Is there a point to this rambling nonsense?

Until one day they became more alarmed when the front 2 legs of some of their descendants were shorter! It was as if they'd been cut off. Fear ran through the packs of the homocanines because the dogs with the shorter front legs could walk!

Apparently not.

This caused tremendous hostility and jealousy between the tribes and they began to fight. The dogs with the shorter legs won out of course because they could walk and their oponents couldn't.

Dogs with four legs can't walk? I think your hypothesis needs some serious work to even make it internally consistent, never mind rational.

So I'll give them a new name to differentiate them from their ancestors: Superhomocanines. This caused tremendous pride in their packs so they killed all the homocanines and hoped they would never produce an inferior homocanine again.

The fact that you give these hypothetical creatures a post facto name gave them 'tremendous pride'? Are you a time-traveller?

Then several hundred thousand years later, their genes had changed so much that they were all sitting around the campfire eating. Then suddenly, one of the superhomocanines began to speak! It was quite a night. The other dogs began barking in unison, but the speaking superhomocanine had the ability to think things through so he quieted them all and they began to see the error of their ways.

And that's how dogs evolved into humans because...speciation happens. And it won't be hard at all to prove my story because all I have to do is find some bones in the dirt, piece them together to form creatures that look like both dogs and humans and my story will be proven. The End.

Well, quite demonstrably the end of rational argument and quite clearly a wholly uninformed understanding of evolutionary theory. Again, individuals do not evolve into a new species, populations evolve into new species. If you're interested in the evolution of language , I suggest you do some reading around current research into the FOXP2 gene, for example.

 

[lordkalvan]

First of all, you missed my point. My point is that by the "scientific" process of evolution, then humans could have come from anyanimal.

It depends at what time you begin your analysis of the process. There is undoubtedly an ancestral species that is common to both Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris, but that species was not and could not have been a dog. If you believe that the evolutionary theory suggests that any given animal could evolve from any other given animal, you need to support that belief with argument and evidence, not just assertion. Humans and chimpanzees (including bonobos) had a common ancestor, but that ancestor was, as suggested by all the available evidence) another ape. As further suggested by fossil Ida, at around 50 MYA the common ancestral species of all apes and monkeys was a lemur-like animal. The last common ancestor of canines and apes precedes this date by some considerable time and was not very much like a dog (or human being) at all.

The process is that the genes simply changed from one animal to humans because...well...they just did. Over time, of course.

No. Put simply, the pattern for evolution follows this simple algorithm: mutate, if successful repeat, otherwise discard. What evidence supports your apparent belief that genetic material does not mutate at all? What colour are your eyes?

Secondly, when you say it is "unlikely" that humans came from dogs (although you used "scientific" terms to make your post sound more authentic), that means that you don't know where humans came from or you wouldn't use the term "unlikely'. You would simply know where humans came from.

Well, let me put it more forcefully for you. Homo sapiens did not evolve from Canis lupus familiaris. Homo sapiens evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzess (and bonobos), the divergence occurring some 5-7 MYA, some 3.5-5.5 million years before the time of Turkana Boy. This ancestral species was, like you and me, Turkana Boy, and chimpanzees and bonobos a species of ape.

But you don't know because the story of evolution is as imaginary as each individual imagination. That's called science fiction, not science.

I may not know exactly; I may not yet be able to point to a fossil ape and say this animal was ancestral to both ourselves and the chimpanzees, but this does not mean that there is no evidence that supports the conclusion that such an animal existed. That you believe this evidence is imaginary attests only to your ignorance of the subject matter on which you pronounce so confidently and misinformedly.

 

[Heidi]

No. Put simply, the pattern for evolution follows this simple algorithm: mutate, if successful repeat, otherwise discard. What evidence supports your apparent belief that genetic material does not mutate at all? What colour are your eyes?

How do you know they mutated? Again, like I said in my OP, "Speciation happens" or "mutations happen". Since scientists claim that because they happen, then that means that apes turned into people, then by the same reasoning, dogs turned into people because "mutations happen" in the real world. That's no different than saying that since little people exist, namely dwarfs and midgets, then that makes "Lord of the Rings" true! You guys are way too funny.

By the way, regarding the color of eyes; there's no way to know what color eyes those creatures had, or what color hair they had or what they wore. So the drawings of those 'apemen" are again, scientists trying to brainwash the public into believing they were real creatures, when all they are are the figments of the imaginations of scientists. that's called science fiction, not science.

 

[lordkalvan]

How do you know they mutated?

What colour are your eyes? What blood type are you? What ethnic group are you a member of? What colour is your hair? Do you think any of these differences in your physical characteristics are the result of mutations in your genetic inheritance? If not, what is your explanation for these differences between you and your neighbours and what evidence supports your argument?

Again, like I said in my OP, "Speciation happens" or "mutations happen". Since scientists claim that because they happen, then that means that apes turned into people, then by the same reasoning, dogs turned into people because "mutations happen" in the real world.

I have already pointed out that this understanding is quite at odds with evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it. Repeating the same old canards again and again does not make them any less ill-informed and foolish.

That's no different than saying that since little people exist, namely dwarfs and midgets, then that makes "Lord of the Rings" true! You guys are way too funny.

The logic of your argument is unfathomable. Small people exist because of genetic mutations in their inheritance. The Wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism has some background information with which you should familiarize yourself before making such absurd statements.

By the way, regarding the color of eyes; there's no way to know what color eyes those creatures had, or what color hair they had or what they wore. So the drawings of those 'apemen" are again, scientists trying to brainwash the public into believing they were real creatures, when all they are are the figments of the imaginations of scientists. that's called science fiction, not science.

An argument wholly lacking in both substance and relevance. I asked what colour your eyes are. Mine are blue. What do you suppose controls the colour of my eyes and causes them to be blue?

 

[jasoncran]

according the modern biogolist eye colors are caused by mutations

 

[Heidi]

It depends at what time you begin your analysis of the process. There is undoubtedly an ancestral species that is common to both Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris, but that species was not and could not have been a dog.

So what species was that? please describe him. Was he like the homocanine I described in my OP? :toofunny Or are you simply making up more stories out of your imagination again?

I have already pointed out that this understanding is quite at odds with evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it. Repeating the same old canards again and again does not make them any less ill-informed and foolish.

What's foolish is looking at an ape and imagining that's where humans came from. That's what the story of evolution is, nothing more. ;)

The logic of your argument is unfathomable. Small people exist because of genetic mutations in their inheritance.

Do you know why? Because genetic variations always occur within each species. Do you know why that is as well? The simple birds and bees, each species reproduces itself, not another animal. it's only evolutionists who don't know that. :toofunny that's why the genes of humans don't mutate into goats, nor do the genes of lions, tigers, or bears mutate into elephants, chickens, zebras or humans either.

I'm sorry, but your ignorance of basic biology it simply too pronounced to continue. You've been brainwashed for too long to believe that one animal can breed another and worse, that humans and animals can breed each other as descendants, that you now have no understanding of the simple birds and bees. But that's what lies do; create much confusion which is what they're intended to do.

 

[lordkalvan]

It depends at what time you begin your analysis of the process. There is undoubtedly an ancestral species that is common to both Homo sapiens and Canis lupus familiaris, but that species was not and could not have been a dog.

So what species was that? please describe him.

Can you describe your great^10th grandmother? If you can't, do you suppose this implies that she did not and could not have existed.

Was he like the homocanine I described in my OP?

Absolutely not.

Or are you simply making up more stories out of your imagination again?

No, just offering opinions on where the evidence points.

What's foolish is looking at an ape and imagining that's where humans came from. That's what the story of evolution is, nothing more.

At the risk of repeating myself, humans are apes. It's not a question of imagination, it's a question of evidence, unless you have a reason to suppose that we share so much DNA and so many traits with chimpanzees (and a little bit lesss with gorillas, and a little bit less with orangutans, and so on)just because of a coincidence.

Do you know why? Because genetic variations always occur within each species.

What causes genetic variation?

Do you know why that is as well?

Well, I know why genetic variation occurs, yes. Do you?

The simple birds and bees, each species reproduces itself, not another animal.

Here we go again with the misunderstanding: populations evolve into new species, individual animals do not.

it's only evolutionists who don't know that.

Well, evolutionists consider the evidence and base their arguments on that; you are basing your arguments on an ancient creation myth.

that's why the genes of humans don't mutate into goats, nor do the genes of lions, tigers, or bears mutate into elephants, chickens, zebras or humans either.

Genes do not mutate into animals. You apparently believe in microevolution, or else you would not talk so freely about genetic variation. What mechanism prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? What is this mechanism and how do you identify it?

I'm sorry, but your ignorance of basic biology it simply too pronounced to continue.

Well, my knowledge of basic biology is not limited to the Bible and my own personal incredulity, so in that sense I would seem to be less ignorant than yourself.

You've been brainwashed for too long to believe that one animal can breed another and worse, that humans and animals can breed each other as descendants, that you now have no understanding of the simple birds and bees. But that's what lies do; create much confusion which is what they're intended to do.

[/quote]
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense when it is demonstrably not even a caricature of evolutionary theory, but simply a product of your own misunderstanding of what the theory proposes and the evidence that supports it?