Cats, Dogs and Bears.... I'm intrigued

A bit more info;

'[This information was originally produced by Beverly Skinner, wildlife biologist at Innoko National Wildlife Refuge ....]

'Bear and Dog Ancestors
'Scientists tell us that bears and dogs share a common ancestor. About 38 million years ago, the bear and dog lines separated into two distinct groups. The bear group began to walk on the soles of their feet while the dog group (called "canids" which includes modern day dogs, wolves and foxes) continued to walk on their toes. ...'

Full article here:
http://www.mapcruzin.com/arctic_refuge/beardra.html

So when did soccer hooligans start walking on their hind legs and stop their knuckles dragging on the ground .............

(sorry, tired and dry witted tonight, or is that DIM - witted?)

they stopped dragging their knuckles?

i think most people would agree that species like dogs and cats change very slowly until humans got hold of them and hey presto in a few thousan years we've got lots of idiotic breeds. not evolution.

if darwin is anywhere near right then all life shares a common ancestor.

Does anyone find it disturbing that technology in the 20th century accelerated to a point that inventions/developments outstripped the preceeding entire 1900+ years?

yep. the past 15 years especially has brought more change than the human race has ever seen hope we're up to the challenge.

challenge, or repercussions?

both, i guess. i quoteed this before:

'we're the monkeys with technology,
barely out of the caves and the trees'

'vanity' by new model army

Mark - I'm not quite sure what your question was My point was to find where we would agree on a common ground, so we could start the debate at the point where we diverge. It's a pretty common way to debate coherently.

There are a ton of fossil records that do very clearly demonstrate that there was "one dog like creature" back 20 million years ago - and that from that point forward, depending on where the creatures lived they developed into wolves or dogs or other creatures. I was just making sure we all agreed with that knowledge before I made my next case. Are you saying you don't agree with this?

Yes of course, if we go *before* the 20 million mark, you get to the point where cats and dogs were one mammal creature. We have a lot of fossil record for that as well. So yes, at one point there was a cat-dog mammal. If you look at cats and dogs you can see how incredibly similar they are. Over time the "cat family" and "dog family" diverged until you had one "cat group" and one "dog group". And then over time those diverged.

Since dogs (and cats) are so common and easy to see / study I figured I'd start with those as our discussion case.

I agree that nature's changes take a long time and that specific directed breeding by Man for specific aims can be done much more quickly. My question though is does anybody here disagree with the dog/cat evolution chain, or can we agree this happened and use it as a basis for our discussion?

My point is, and was i thought very clear. Was there only "one dog like creature" 20 million years ago, or is there only one typethat has turned up to date as a fossil. surely DNA reseach would be rather more precise than a ton of fossil records.

"Are you saying you don't agree with this?" No, I'm saying that I dont KNOW with 100% surety.

If there is a common point based on factual evidence from tons of records, then there is no need to debate. You have stated apparent facts, no debate.