sutty27 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 We are not related to bananas but share some of the same DNA which is to be expected. DNA is just an instruction set that tells how to build organic bits and pieces such as cell structures etc. For instance any animal that has bones will have similar instructions on how to build that bone coded into its DNA. It does not mean that all animals that have bones are related only that they share the same code. Its very likely that all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor so all life must be related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Just because we share some genetic makeup with banannas does not mean we are related to banannas, only that we share some of the same DNA instructions. Oh we are related to bananas. It's just you have to go back a VERY long way to find a common ancestor. ---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 09:23 ---------- It does not mean that all animals that have bones are related You might be surprised on that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 ...or life from minerals, it all depends on how you want to interpret it. ---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 01:13 ---------- Nope, dogs and northern wolves share a common, quite recent by evolutionary standards, relative. It is described as a wolf tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Evolution from one species to another is unadulterated BS. I was wondering if you'd pop up on this thread. I see your religious viewpoint is clouding your judgement, as it apparently does with vaccines as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The domestic dog evolved from wolves, but there are still wolves. Yes, so? And both wolves and domestic dogs will have a common ancestor that no longer exists as well. ---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 10:32 ---------- We are not related to bananas but share some of the same DNA which is to be expected. DNA is just an instruction set that tells how to build organic bits and pieces such as cell structures etc. For instance any animal that has bones will have similar instructions on how to build that bone coded into its DNA. It does not mean that all animals that have bones are related only that they share the same code. Go back far enough and all life on the planet is related. ---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 10:32 ---------- I was wondering if you'd pop up on this thread. I see your religious viewpoint is clouding your judgement, as it apparently does with vaccines as well.. Isn't it his conspiracy theory viewpoint that's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The domestic dog evolved from wolves, but there are still wolves. Unless I am very much mistaken, dogs and wolves are still the same species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Unless I am very much mistaken, dogs and wolves are still the same species. Species is rather a wooly term predating modern genetics. 2 animals are usually considered the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. Some breeds of dog don't meet that standard. There's also the problem that there are examples in nature of 3 similar animals A, B and C where A can reproduce with B and B with C, but not A with C. Same species or not? What can happen is that a species gets split. One groups ending up in a slightly different environment/habitat than the other. In each of the 2 groups different traits give an advantage and therefore the 2 groups diverge genetically. Wait long enough and they can no longer inter-breed and then they're considered distinct species. This idea that you can have "micro"-evolution but that evolution does not explain the origin of species is daft as hell. Any degree of evolution over long enough time obviously produces species which can no longer inter-breed and eventually are clearly distinguishable. Edited February 16, 2016 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Unless I am very much mistaken, dogs and wolves are still the same species. I believe you are mistaken. Some people even think that dogs are omnivores, but that would be another topic http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22904,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Isn't it his conspiracy theory viewpoint that's the problem? Very few conspiracy nuts dispute evolution in my experience. That particular delusion seems to be entirely a religious one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I'd still like to know what point is being made with wolves and dogs? It demonstrates evolution in action, human influences caused changes in a subset of a species until arguably it became a distinct species from the original. How is this related to a common ancestor for modern primates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now