Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2017 9:23 PM
403 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Happy Birthday: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,976 Year: 13,582/21,208 Month: 3,064/3,605 Week: 406/933 Day: 51/97 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
20212223Next
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 271 of 341 (693655)
03-19-2013 7:33 AM


Topic Reminder
I think the discussion about the origin of the soul is fascinating and I hope someone proposes a thread for it over at Proposed New Topics, but it is not the topic of this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 272 of 341 (693660)
03-19-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Just being real
03-17-2013 12:47 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
The atheist comes along and says there is no god and therefore we have to come up with our own Genesis account.

Atheist don't determine what is and isn't considered evidence in science. Science is science, it has no religious or theological basisi.

Neither account can in anyway be proven.

Common decent has not only been proven, and you can enjoy the history at any good museum, it is the only explanation for the diversity found in nature that has evidence to support it. It is the premise for all of biology, throughout the entire world, not just a single source.

Depending on which of the two "premises" you ascribe to, it will determine how you interpret the exact same evidence.

That is ridiculous, as there are many scientist who are religious. A pretty famous one is Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Project) who has also written a book about his faith and science.

So don't try to force a problem when none has presented itself.

Since both ideologies expect similarity among the various life forms, for me this means the debate can not be won with a similarity argument.

There is no debate, common decent is the only thing taught is biology throughout the world. You're just some dude on the internet saying you don't want to accept it because of atheists - which doesn't make any sense. Well, frankly, who cares? Don't accept it. Just know that the fine people in the medical field have accepted it, are using it to develop medicine that may one day help you, and that you're welcome.

I never disregard anything sent my direction so long as it is done tastefully and with respect. But also I'm not afraid to scrutinize it and ask the tough questions either.

Yeah but I imagine you took biology in grade school and high school. If those years didn't teach you anything about science and biology, and you still think magic and an invisible man played a role in the emergence of living organisms on Earth, then I'm sure nothing I post here will help you.

There are plenty of biology lectures on YouTube. Maybe you can start there and learn a little bit of science?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Just being real, posted 03-17-2013 12:47 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 03-20-2013 12:07 AM onifre has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1346 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 273 of 341 (693661)
03-19-2013 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Admin
03-18-2013 9:24 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
RE--Your description reflects a good sense of topic, but you have argued in other posts for special creation. This thread is simply seeking the evidence supporting common ancestry.--

I appreciate your position on the matter and am very glad to see that this forum has a medium in place to keep discussions from running down all sorts of "bunny trails." Perhaps though I was misinformed on the bigger picture here. I was operating under the impression that special creation versus evolution, was the over all intended back drop to all discussions? If that is incorrect I will immediately adjust, and I have already resisted the temptation to respond to baited comments in this thread that I can see lead off topic. However I did think that the topic of creation would come up from time to time in all the discussion threads.

RE--Maybe you'd like to propose a thread seeking the evidence for special creation. Or comparing the evidence for common ancestry with that for special creation.--

Is it possible to create a topic broad enough to explore all avenues and aspects of creation versus evolution... in the EvC forums?

Hope you have a great day
JBR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Admin, posted 03-18-2013 9:24 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Admin, posted 03-19-2013 10:46 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 290 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 7:27 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 274 of 341 (693666)
03-19-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Just being real
03-19-2013 10:16 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Just being real writes:

However I did think that the topic of creation would come up from time to time in all the discussion threads.

Creationist and intelligent design views are a central focus of EvC Forum, but they're not necessarily relevant in every thread. Digressions are both common and necessary, but we try to keep them from going on too long so that discussion can stay focused on the main topic.

This thread is throwing a skeptical eye on the concept of common ancestry. It is exploring the degree to which the evidence supports the idea. Whether one ascribes to other concepts and how much evidence lies behind those other concepts isn't terribly relevant in this thread.

But it can be as relevant as you like in your own thread, just propose one over at Proposed New Topics.

Is it possible to create a topic broad enough to explore all avenues and aspects of creation versus evolution... in the EvC forums?

Look at the list of Forums. There are 11 science forums and 5 religious forums, ranging from the Big Bang to Geology to the Origin of Life to the Bible and so on. A thread open to all these topic areas would be chaotic and would lack focus, so we try to avoid that here.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Just being real, posted 03-19-2013 10:16 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Just being real, posted 03-19-2013 11:56 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1346 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 275 of 341 (693676)
03-19-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Admin
03-19-2013 10:46 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
RE--Look at the list of Forums. There are 11 science forums and 5 religious forums, ranging from the Big Bang to Geology to the Origin of Life to the Bible and so on. A thread open to all these topic areas would be chaotic and would lack focus, so we try to avoid that here.--

I see. Thanks
JBR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Admin, posted 03-19-2013 10:46 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:44 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 276 of 341 (693686)
03-19-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Just being real
03-19-2013 11:56 AM


11 science subforums on Evol Vs Creationism

There are 11 science forums and 5 religious forums,

On the 5 Religion Forums, the science atheists people have a field day attacking the bible, while they retreat to their censorship into the much read more than double supposed Science discussions that really are subtle attacks on various subjects wherein they have eliminated any defense against the obvious claims that attack Genesis.

They are cowards who censor any comment where the facts they present as science is clearly in opposition to the church point of view.
It is like they have twice as many doors for visitors to enter and hear them bash God, the Bible, the Christians, the traditional teachings of the churches, etc.

They illogically have set aside double the space for JUST SCIENCE, no Evolution Verses Creationism.
Obviously, this IS NOT a EvC Site, but and attack group which is heavily weighted to Science Only, and how to undermine Genesis.

An excellent example was when Percy rejected my thread based on his demand that I produce evidence that Adam could be understood as equivalent to Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

Hence, the first man, Adam, in Genesis corresponds directly with what Science now suggests was Sahelanthropus tchadensis who lived seven million years ago.
That is ALSO the approximated date when by an Act-of-God, a surrogate mother Ape with 24 chromosomes experienced the chemical fusion of two chromosomes, hence evolving the new creature in God's world with only 23 chromosomes, i.e.the first man, again.

Percy would not acknowledge that as sufficient concrete scientific evidence for my point.

go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Just being real, posted 03-19-2013 11:56 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2013 1:27 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 03-19-2013 6:19 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1230 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 277 of 341 (693690)
03-19-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law
08-17-2010 2:42 PM


If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found?

YES...
A common ancestor to modern man HAS been found, one which is supported in two ways by our scientists:

1) Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

Hence, the first man, Adam, in Genesis corresponds directly with what Science now suggests was Sahelanthropus tchadensis who lived seven million years ago.

2) "Seven millon years ago" is ALSO the approximated date when, by an Act-of-God, a surrogate mother Ape with 24 chromosomes experienced the chemical fusion of two chromosomes inside her womb, hence, evolving the new creature in God's world with only 23 chromosomes, i.e.the first man, again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tram law, posted 08-17-2010 2:42 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2013 1:25 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 280 by Eli, posted 03-19-2013 3:40 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9541
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 278 of 341 (693697)
03-19-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 12:52 PM


1) Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

No, this is wrong. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the oldest known ape in our line of ascent. Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a human of any persuasion.

Seven millon years ago" is ALSO the approximated date when, by an Act-of-God, a surrogate mother Ape with 24 chromosomes experienced the chemical fusion of two chromosomes inside her womb, hence, evolving the new creature in God's world with only 23 chromosomes, i.e.the first man, again.

And this is way past stupid and completely fabricated. You have absolutely no clue as to how many chromosomes the direct descendants of Sahelanthropus tchadensis had, but we do know that no human being was birthed or sired directly by Sahelanthropus tchadensis. The estimated time of fusion I've seen are about a factor of 10 less than you are claiming here.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes. Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:52 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 6:50 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5783
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 279 of 341 (693698)
03-19-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 12:44 PM


Re: 11 science subforums on Evol Vs Creationism
There are 11 science forums and 5 religious forums,

Science has a lot of evidence to present, while religion doesn't.

An excellent example was when Percy rejected my thread based on his demand that I produce evidence that Adam could be understood as equivalent to Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

Hence, the first man, Adam, in Genesis corresponds directly with what Science now suggests was Sahelanthropus tchadensis who lived seven million years ago.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not of the genus Homo, although it may have been an ancestor, and as such you have no justification for calling it the first "man." Chad had ancestors, you know. You could just as easily go back to any of the other Miocene primates ancestral to Chad and call them the first "man." I suspect Chad is just the oldest specimen treated in that one book you have.

Genus Homo actually began some millions of years after Chad.

From Wiki:

quote:
Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old, possibly having evolved from australopithecine ancestors, with the appearance of Homo habilis...

The most salient physiological development between the earlier Australopith species and Homo is the increase in cranial capacity, from about 450 cm3 (27 cu in) in A. garhi to 600 cm3 (37 cu in) in H. habilis.


So there are several things in which you are incorrect in your statement above. It would be best if you actually read that book you flash around so much, or read any of a number of other recent books on human evolution.

How can you think you can convince people of the truth of your statements when they are so filled with easily debunked claims? Being wrong won't impress many people at all.

That is ALSO the approximated date when by an Act-of-God, a surrogate mother Ape with 24 chromosomes experienced the chemical fusion of two chromosomes, hence evolving the new creature in God's world with only 23 chromosomes, i.e.the first man, again.

It has been pointed out by several posters how incorrect this is, but you keep repeating it. You seem to be preaching, more than debating, as you refuse to accept any evidence that shows you are wrong. (Again, see signature block.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:44 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 7:03 PM Coyote has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 280 of 341 (693706)
03-19-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 12:52 PM



YES...
A common ancestor to modern man HAS been found, one which is supported in two ways by our scientists:

1) Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

On page 32 of "The Last Man: A Guide to 22 Species of Extinct Humans" it claims that determining whether Chad represents an animal that existed before apes and humans split or whether it was post-split is purely speculative at this point.

So to claim that Chad had 23 chromosomes (your limited scope of what contitutes "human") and therefore represents what you call having been fostered by a "surrogate Ape mother" is unsubstantiated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:52 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 281 of 341 (693716)
03-19-2013 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Tangle
03-19-2013 4:40 AM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
I'm afraid that if something is a myth, then it is just a story and is untrue. There was no flood, there was no Adam, there was no snake, there was no 7 day creation and so on.

How do you know there was no adam? Just because there wasn't a talking snake doesn't mean there wasn't something there speaking to adam. There was no literal 7 day creation but this again is a literary device that is trying to make a point. There was a creation and the writer of Genesis divided it up into 7 periods. You may like to believe that a created world is a myth but your belief is just as good as mine. Before you state that you have evidence on your side, I will let you know that evolution and the arrival of our planets and sun etc through natural means does not rule out creation. As for the flood, there was a flood near the black sea during the time that noah may have lived that fits what Genesis says if you were looking at it through the eyes of noah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2013 4:40 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Eli, posted 03-19-2013 5:26 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 283 by 1.61803, posted 03-19-2013 6:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2013 6:23 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 288 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 7:12 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 2:31 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 901 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 282 of 341 (693717)
03-19-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by foreveryoung
03-19-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
How do you know there was no Hanuman?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 5:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2678
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 283 of 341 (693722)
03-19-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by foreveryoung
03-19-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
Hi.

Myths and legends loosely based on historical accounts are common place.
Robin Hood
King Arthur and the knights of the Round table

So too could be bible stories, to include Genesis.

If one picks and chooses which stories they believe to be factual based on their religious beliefs rather than evidence, then are they not operating in a confirmation bias?

If someone also picks and chooses which elements of a particular story is fiction and which is not, based on whether it is easily defensible, then again confirmation bias is the result.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 5:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6439
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 284 of 341 (693729)
03-19-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 12:44 PM


Re: 11 science subforums on Evol Vs Creationism
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

That seems quite arbitrary. Why not our common ancestor with all mammals, or all vetebrates?

Hence, the first man, Adam, in Genesis corresponds directly with what Science now suggests was Sahelanthropus tchadensis who lived seven million years ago.
That is ALSO the approximated date when by an Act-of-God, a surrogate mother Ape with 24 chromosomes experienced the chemical fusion of two chromosomes, hence evolving the new creature in God's world with only 23 chromosomes, i.e.the first man, again.

The fixation on chromosome counts is also just as arbitrary. Chromosome number does not define a species. There are mouse species with many different chromosome counts, and there are in fact living humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes that are fit and hale.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:44 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4637
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 285 of 341 (693733)
03-19-2013 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by foreveryoung
03-19-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
foreveryoung writes:

How do you know there was no adam?

Apart from there being absolutely no evidence for Adam except in the stories that you now call myths you mean?

Well, we know that H. Sapiens evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from ape-like ancestors. Homo was not formed out of clay in an act of creation, so there was obviously no Adam.

The global flood you now also accept as bunkum but you're still trying to reconcile your new knowledge with the old. You'll soon work out that none of it works and that the only rational conclusion is agnostic. Most people at that point seem to remain vaguely deistic, some of us throw the whole thing out.

Good luck on your journey.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 5:21 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 7:16 PM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
20212223Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017