What if humans came from dogs?

It's not hard to make up a hypothetical premise so I'll make one up; "What if humans came from dogs? How could that happen?" As always with a hypothetical premise, one has to imagine how he can make his premise logical and form a conclusion. So the next step is to figure out how a dog or populations of dogs can turn into humans so that I can "prove" my premise.

Once upon a time millions of years ago, a male and female dog appeared on earth. They mated and had puppies. But a few hundred thousand years later, the puppies began to change. The nose of one of them appeared shorter than the noses of its siblings.

Then that puppy grew into a dog and mated with another dog and they had puppies that looked a little different than they did. To make a long story short, over time, the front legs of their descendants became a little shorter and two of the puppies began to stand only on two legs. But something else was happening. The older dogs were just dying out. So things weren't the same any more.

The other puppies were jealous, but kept it to themselves. Then a little way down the road, more and more of their descendants could walk on two legs by themselves as well. But there wasn't as much jealousy then because some of them were developing vocal chords and some of the others had dropped their tails.

Then hundreds of thousands of years later, huge populations of dogs were actually sitting up and talking to each other around campfires!

Now all I have to do is find skulls and bones that look like dogs and others that look like humans, piece them together, dress them up in costumes and my story has been proven.

There. I've proven my premise that humans came from dogs because...well...mutations happen. The End.

It's not hard to make up a hypothetical premise so I'll make one up; "What if humans came from dogs? How could that happen?" As always with a hypothetical premise, one has to imagine how he can make his premise logical and form a conclusion. So the next step is to figure out how a dog or populations of dogs can turn into humans so that I can "prove" my premise.

Once upon a time millions of years ago, a male and female dog appeared on earth. They mated and had puppies. But a few hundred thousand years later, the puppies began to change. The nose of one of them appeared shorter than the noses of its siblings.

Then that puppy grew into a dog and mated with another dog and they had puppies that looked a little different than they did. To make a long story short, over time, the front legs of their descendants became a little shorter and two of the puppies began to stand only on two legs. But something else was happening. The older dogs were just dying out. So things weren't the same any more.

The other puppies were jealous, but kept it to themselves. Then a little way down the road, more and more of their descendants could walk on two legs by themselves as well. But there wasn't as much jealousy then because some of them were developing vocal chords and some of the others had dropped their tails.

Then hundreds of thousands of years later, huge populations of dogs were actually sitting up and talking to each other around campfires!

Now all I have to do is find skulls and bones that look like dogs and others that look like humans, piece them together, dress them up in costumes and my story has been proven.

There. I've proven my premise that humans came from dogs because...well...mutations happen. The End.

Fair enough - Carico is perhaps a son of a ***. The rest of us evolved in the usual way!

Couple questions since you seem to like to muck up my sci/tech section...

First: Why are you going backwards up the tree? Canines aren't in the same phyla or family as Homo Sapiens. Not only that, but canines have 39 base pairs compared to our 23 which means they are incompatible from a genetic standpoint.

Secondly: Why are you attempting to make an example using modern species? Modern canines were bred (read: evolved) by humans. Ever wondered why there are so many breeds, even those which are genetically compatible yet physically incompatible? Think of a Saint Bernard female and a Chihuahua male... they can produce viable offspring, but that Chihuahua better learn to climb and hold on tight. Anyway, back to the lesson at hand... using modern species to make an example doesn't work. They are the product, not the components. Moreso, what environmental pressure would bring about the changes you claim?

I don't even have to go into the fact that dogs CAN walk on two legs rather well and that dogs DO have vocal chords. Now, you've got to be wondering "Well if dogs can do the two leg strut, why don't they all the time?"

That's easy:



Ever tried to outrun a dog in the short sprint? Doesn't happen. You'd be dog food before you can say "Jesus, help me!" You can't even outrun a domestic housecat.

So again, what environmental pressure would cause a species to trend away from such a powerful advantage?

At least you get another cigar. You have the basic idea correct, but that's it. Again, given your scientific knowledge (which apparently doesn't exceed a middle school level), such things warrant celebration.

I don't know about you, but my ancestors were humans. Who knows what your ancestors were since Darwin didn't even know. :rollinglaugh: So they could have been dogs. :rollinglaugh: So you could be a "dirty dog." :rollinglaugh:

No - dogs are quite a different branch of the family, so you must have been adopted. Don't you realise, you silly man, that the hypothesis of evolution is not just some idea someone had in the bath or something: it is a well-worked out theory that appears to fit all the known facts, and it is accepted by all educated people for that reason. Since it is a hypothesis, it has been open to challenge throughout, and it seems to stand up very well so far, though, being a scientific theory, it will be changed if it needs to be. It is not, like your fantasies, a willed nonsense. It explains things, you ass.

All fiction stories are extremely well worked out, (except the story of evolution since Darwin couldn't even describe his main characters). :rollinglaugh:

One example is "Lord of the Rings." So because Tolken dotted every i, crossed every t, made up his own characters, his own setting (which is more than Darwin did) and made sure that everything was consistent within his hypothetical premise, by your reasoning then that makes "Lord of the Rings" true. :what:

Don't be so utterly silly! Tolkein was, like you, creating a fiction. Darwin was putting forward a well-backed theory for others to overturn, if they could. As it turned out, they couldn't, so the theory is accepted - it covers all the known facts. You don't even know what facts need to be covered: you are totally ignorant of the matter. On what grounds, then, do you presume to prate in this ridiculous way?

:rollinglaugh: Do you know what a theory is? An imaginary scenario concocted form the minds of men. And since the Darwin Delusion wasn't even very well concocted, that's why no scientist still knows the origin of man. So the story of evolution not only has not been proven, it hasn't even been completed! :rollinglaugh:

:rollinglaugh: Do you know what a theory is? An imaginary scenario concocted form the minds of men. And since the Darwin Delusion wasn't even very well concocted, that's why no scientist still knows the origin of man. So the story of evolution not only has not been proven, it hasn't even been completed! :rollinglaugh:

You were happy to give the term for Animal in the Dictionary.

Try looking up the version for Theory.


Amazing isn't it?

Considering that it agrees with what I said, it isn't amazing at all.

"A supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained." "A speculative."

Speculation is not evidence. Speculation, suppositions and ideas originate from the minds of men. So looking at a dog and speculating it came from a dog common to dogs and humans doesn't prove that's what happened. :rollinglaugh:

Shall we look at the rest (creos LOVE to quotemine)?

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Seriously, did you drop out of school? Even high school sophomores don't get that one wrong.

Do you disagree with atomic theory? The theory of relativity? Why not?

Considering that it agrees with what I said, it isn't amazing at all.

"A supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained." "A speculative."

Speculation is not evidence. Speculation, suppositions and ideas originate from the minds of men. So looking at a dog and speculating it came from a dog common to dogs and humans doesn't prove that's what happened. :rollinglaugh:

No, all sophomores do (as you have done) is memorize what they read in science books regardless of how foolish the claims in science books are. So sorry, but being brainwashed isn't as easy for some one like me as it is for you.

Do you know what a technical dictionary is?

It's a dictionary that give definitions in relation to a specific study. You gave a general definition of theory. But the technical definition as it relates to science is very different.


This is what the science dictionary says...



Theory
n.
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

Sorry, but the explanations by scientists are nothing more than looking at an object or living thing and imagining what they used to be. Any child can do that.