When one is familiar with the behaviors of both species, the relationship is fairly obvious.  The split happened between 12 & 15 million years ago.
210356
NONE.  All things were created!  Things adapt to changing environments, but they never turn into something entirely new.
322021
I'm not especially well informed on that subject, but I believe archaeological evidence support it.  Bones, DNA, etc. Pottery shards, all that sort of thing.  It's my understanding they crossed a land bridge that used to exist across the Bering Strait,  then the land bridge was gradually eroded away.
548823
Evolution is not directional, you can't predict what stuff will look like in a million years. And domestic animals are operating in a different environment, where people are protecting them from predators and sometimes choosing who they mate with.
157641
There is no proven connection at this time, hence it being a "theory." There are definite similarities, like we share 93% of the same genetic similarities with orangutans.
210246
Well, the GABI (Great American Biotic Interchange) went both ways, and several families of mammals from North America came to South America, and viceversa. However, only few native South Americans remain today in North America (NA), whereas many originally Holarctic families are thriving in South America (SA) at present. \n\nThe above answerer has outlined the three major "strata" defined by GG Simpson for the mammals of SA. The "original" South American mammals before the GABI included marsupials (shared with Australia, but forming a distinct cohort with different families) but also the exclusively South American xenarthrans (although there is a possible fossil anteater from Europe), and the Caviomorph rodents (closely related to the hystricognathous African rodents). In addition, there were some carnivores that had made it from NA. \n\nAfter the Panama land bridge appeared, the GABI was intense. North and South American faunas mixed and they appear to have coexisted for a long time. \nThe subsequent Pleistocene extinctions involved groups of both origins, but the South American natives were more intensely affected. Among the hypotheses to explain this,  interspecific competition has been mentioned, but also climatic changes. \nFirst of all, direct competition is _very_ difficult to prove, and more so with respect to fossil remains from strata that may not be exactly coeval. A more recent and preferred explanation involves a little paleoclimatology. \n** During the glaciations (and other stressful periods), South American conditions were more benign, because the continent is closer to the Equator, whereas environments in NA were much harsher, facilitating the extinction of the South American immigrants, along with many native North American giant forms. \n**In addition, the Central American corridor, which had been at first a savanna-like environment that permitted passage, later in the Pleistocene became more like a tropical forest. Then many cursorial (running) animals that inhabited open areas were unable to "cross the bridge". The giant ground sloths and glyptodonts were trapped in NA, and when climate and vegetation kept changing toward colder and drier conditions, became extinct.\n\nAnimals left from this: \nAmong the original South American natives, only the xenarthrans (sloths, armadillos, and anteaters) and marsupials (opossums)[early inhabitants], and the caviomorph rodents (originally derived from their African relatives) [second stratum colonizers] are alive today. The immensely diverse native ungulates went extinct, along with the representatives of the megafauna (giant sloths, glyptodonts, etc). At least one species of armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is expanding its range in NA today, and the opossums (I remember Didelphis virginiana, not sure if there are others) are well established there. Caviomorph rodents also occur in NA (porcupines, genus Erethizon), but are mostly confined to Central America. \nThese are the South American contributions to North American fauna. In contrast, about 50% of the South American mammal genera have North American origin.\n\nWith respect to birds, at least the Passeriformes Suboscines are South American in origin, but I have no idea _when_ they colonized NA. They include the Tyrannidae (tyrant flycatchers). Other birds with Neotropical origin are the hummingbirds (Trochiliformes or Apodiformes).\n\n---------------------\nUpdate:\nMmm... I’m not sure what you call “non-speed strategies”. Predators? Running forms such as ungulates? There were many native ungulates in South America and they went extinct; also many marsupial predators such as the marsupial sabertooth “cat”  that also disappeared. Many caviomorph rodents are cursorial (capybaras, agoutis, etc).\nI would relate it more to size. Size _is_ a constraint because large animals have different energetic balance and need large amounts of food and room. And those went extinct in both co
379259
from a moron ar the bottom of the food chain that's pretty funny.  they do three things and they do them better than anybody else.  they eat, and make baby sharks, the third is a by product of the eating thing.  BTW they've been around-unchanged-for somewhere around 70 million years.  not bad for a retard, huh.
313657
what a troubling Q: but i agree with that 6k yrs of this planet... the carbon dating is nothing but a paleontological gibberish... the world is not a million or so yrs old... mybe they just need a lil more tyme checking the computations... one million yr wud mean a day or a week in the christian "dating" watdayathink?? (,"}
667729
A symbiotic relationship in which both species benefit.
146267
This will knock your socks off.  Whales and dolphins share a common ancestry with ... hippos!  (This is not a joke answer.)  Even Richard Dawkins was surprised by this ... "What is shocking is that, according to the molecular evidence, whales [and dolphins] are deeply embedded *within* the even-toed ungulates. Hippos are closer cousins to whales than hippos are to anything else including other even-toed ungulates such as pigs."\n\nIf nothing else, keep in mind that whales and dolphins are mammals, and thus evolved from land animals.  Based on genetic evidence, it seems that pigs and ruminants split about 60 million years ago (mya), and hippos split off from the ruminants about 55 mya.  The whales split off very soon afterwards at about 54 mya, with the semi-aquatic 'Pakicetus' appearing about 50 mya.  Toothed whales (including dolphins) and baleen whales split from each other about 34 mya.
184019
It's been going on for as long as humans have been dividing themselves into groups.
449899
I am not so sure about this one, LOL! I believe it goes back to victorian times, and new settlement. People have always related anatomy to animal aspects, and the slang terms and reference to the male genetalia as that of a "wood" substance, being consumed by the only known mamal, that being the "beaver".. Any other really challenging questions! LOL!
217145
If you are talking "in between", what are you comparing it to?  'between' what and what?\n\nEvery living organism is 'in between' what its ancestors were like and what its descendants will become.\n\nIf you look through the fossil record, there are many many thousands of transitional fossils that show gradual changes in physical characters, often 'in between' one form and another.\n\nIn terms of human evolution, starting with a chimpanzee-like ancestor and ending with modern Homo sapiens sapiens, there is Australopithecus afarensis that shows adaptations for a bipedal stance - downward directed acetabula in the pelvis, broadened attachment for enlarged gluteal muscles, and greater ossification of the patella.  There is also some reduction of prognathism in the face which is related to balance issues as A. afarensis began standing upright.  All of these features are 'in between' those of chimps and the descendants, such as Australopithecus africanus which develops many of the adaptations of A. afarensis slightly farther, including even more bipedal stance, and the beginning of expansion of the brain cavity.\n\nOnce you get into the genus Homo, such as Homo habilis, there are further 'in between' forms.  The trend in general is towards enlarged braincase, and smaller face.  Homo erectus is 'in between' H. habilis and early Homo sapiens.  Early Homo sapiens is in between H. erectus and modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) etc.\n\nFrom the earliest chordate, Pikaia, through the earliest jawless fish, through the development of jawed fish, to the evolution of bony fish, to the development of muscular lobed fins in the Sarcopterygii, to the development of lungs in the Rhipidistians, to the modification of limbs into legs in the amphibians, to the development of shelled eggs and terrestrial life in the early reptiles, to the changes in skull fenestration and jaw anatomy in the Synapsids, to the modification of keratinous scales into keratinous hair, to the development of a single boned jaw and sensitive, three-boned inner ear in the early mammals, through Morganucodon and the earliest Monotremes, and the adaptation of a diphyodont, heterodont specialized dentition, and modification of sebacious glands to provide fat-rich nourishment to young mammals, to the adaptation of bearing live young, and the nourishment of developing young through a placenta, and slow, gradual expansion of the brain case throughout the primate lineage, the increase in manual dexterity and the loss of a tail in the ape lineage, there are transitional forms for every single one of these steps, and many many many more.\n\nOr can you actually come up with any kind of SCIENTIFIC reason to reject this evidence?
676579
There are many theories on that one.  It might be that Adam and Eve were created along with the dinosaurs, and they could have lived in the Garden of Eden for millions if not billions of years before they took the fruit, with animals evolving around them.  Or, the entire process of creation took billions of years, and the 7 days is just a symbol of time, and not an actual space of time, in which case it took the earth several billion years to be created, along with everyone and everything on it.
590302
Nature tells us that homosexuality exists.  Are humans animals?  Are there homosexual humans?  Ergo...?\n\nThe fact that you have not quoted sources is of no consequence to me -- I am willing to take at face value that perhaps the cattle and lizards were setting domination patterns. I am curious as to how the motives of the lizards were determined to be "to humilate"?\n\nty kinney, of course, makes terrfic sense about the differences beetween humans and other animals and would worth be re-reading.  \n\nOf course, without any applicable citation, which would seem to be fairly easy to find, your insistence on the behavior of cattle weakens the argument, particularly when you assert such detail as "the male/male behavior documented never culminates it penetration! therefore it is not sexual in nature."  From your reaction to other posts, I assume you're after some sort of penetration?\n\nI must point out that an insistence on male/male penetration omits other non-dominance behaviors practiced by other animal species, such as courtship. \n\nTREE SWALLOWS:  Full cloacal contact has been observed by Wilson and Bull in  male Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), complete with  the “ticking” vocalizations which are apparently reserved for  heterosexual copulations in Tree Swallows.  They also note that dominance behaior among Tree Swallows is very different.\n\nLIZARD: A. carolinensis engage in both homosexual courtship and copulation -- with one male exhibiting the male behavior in courting being the mounter and the male exhibiting the female courtship behavior being mounted. Previous studies (Noble and Bradley in 1937) dismissed this as hierarchical behavior, but more recent observations (Cooper, 1977, and Sigmund, 1987) show a more thorough understanding of A. carolinensis society, including polygamy and consistent homosexual behavior in the absence of dominant males.\n\nBISON: Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls is common among American bison. My Lakota brothers and sisters call them pte winkte —pte =bison and winkte is the word for two-spirit, their description of the transgendered  in their Nation.\n\nFEMALE CATTLE:  Mounting of female cattle in heat by other cows is common among domesticated cattle.  (Obviously, since no marital aids have been documented, no actual penetration occured.)  The same has not been observed among wild cattle in a study by Queensland College in Australia.  Although stress was cited by the observers, they also admitted the possibility of domestication as a factor -- so perhaps civilization figures into it.\n\nBONOBOS: Barbara Fruth and Gottfried Hohmann observed same-sex genital contacts in wild female bonobos.  They have already been mentioned here, I just thought I would give the citation, even though no penetration happened.\n\nZOO ANIMALS: The penguins, koalas, rabbits and others that have been documented as exhibiting homosexual behaviors have most often come from zoos or domesticated situations.  This does not necessarily indicate a corrupted or aberrant social system, but (Occam's Razor) they can be more easily observed.\n\nHYENAS: Actually, Ploss and Bartels have seen hyenas licking each other's genitals.  Hyenas are of particular interest in this discussion because, according the Bestiary of Barnabus, hyenas were believed to have predominantly homosexual sex, and were associated with homosexuals.  This view was strongly held in the time of Augustine, who was a zealot advocate of conversion.
53295
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
507994
Definitely vocal cords evolved first.  They may have been primitive ones that allowed for people to only be named things like Ugh, but definitely the ability to produce specific, repeated sounds came before those sounds meant anything.
590890
That's why evolution is so bull. Chinese history has been 6000-4000 years and NOTHING HAS CHANGED! We didn't grow a tail or an extra finger, nor lose any body parts. It's all Western propaganda trying to brainwash the rest of the world.