Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8784 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2017 1:00 AM
362 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (3 members, 359 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: FFA
Post Volume:
Total: 816,876 Year: 21,482/21,208 Month: 1,915/2,326 Week: 370/881 Day: 0/88 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
181920
21
2223Next
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1437 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 301 of 341 (693788)
03-20-2013 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by onifre
03-19-2013 9:05 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
RE--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. --

Hmmm, that's odd. And this comment comes immediately after the "topic reminder" post. Yet no one is complaining that you are off topic. Okay, so I'll bite... how exactly would a walk through a museum "prove" common decent exactly? Is it cuz "This old bone on this guy kinda looks like that old bone on that guy... and so that means they're distant cusins?" Or are you telling me that someone finally put out a finely graduated chain of fossils (with no large leaps) from one MAJOR kind to another? Because that's all that would ever "prove" it from the fossil record.

RE--There is no debate, common decent is the only thing taught is biology throughout the world. --

Okay so now we've established that you don't get out much, but contrary to your comment, thousands of biology classes around the world don't teach common decent. But what was the point of making me go there? We're off topic. In this thread we are looking for evidence linking apes to man. And despite all your squiming, if you don't have something other than a similarity argument... you got notta.

Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 03-19-2013 9:05 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by onifre, posted 03-20-2013 12:43 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 308 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:16 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 311 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 9:29 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 452 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 302 of 341 (693789)
03-20-2013 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Just being real
03-20-2013 12:07 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
First I'll address this:

We're off topic.

No I am not. The OP asks if there is a common ancestor between humans and apes and has it been found. The answer is yes there are many, end of story.

Which leads us then to people like yourself asking for the "proof". Well, it's in science textbooks, it's in science classes, it's in museums.

What else is there to address in this topic? That YOU don't feel the evidence sways YOU? Again, who cares? There is evidence of decent, so much so that it's the only scientific consensus on the matter. What else is there to address? That YOU don't want accept it? Who cares.

Or are you telling me that someone finally put out a finely graduated chain of fossils (with no large leaps) from one MAJOR kind to another? Because that's all that would ever "prove" it from the fossil record.

Yes, that's what I'm saying has been done. I was just there at the Museum of Natural History here in New York. The people working in the many fields of science have done their work to showcase the many transitional fossils.

Let me guess, YOU don't feel it shows decent, right?

Here's a short video from the Smithsonian Musuem of Natural History on human origins:

Let me guess, YOU don't feel it shows decent, right?

So what's the point of showing you anything at all if a scientist working in the Smithsonian, in the department directly related to human origins, is explaining to you the evolution and showing you transitional fossils and you are not willing to accept it?

Who then would you recognize as an authority in human origins? Who's explanation would you accept? The answer is no ones. You're only goal here is to knock down ANY evidence shown to you and ignore experts like the one in the video.

And despite all your squiming, if you don't have something other than a similarity argument... you got notta.

The funny thing is, transitional fossils obviously share a similarity, otherwise what's the point?

If by notta you mean we got all of biology on one side of the argument -vs- a couple of crazies on the internet complaining, then yeah we got notta.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 03-20-2013 12:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:31 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9816
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 303 of 341 (693790)
03-20-2013 2:31 AM
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 adam?

What does it mean to you to be Adam? Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man', and of course there was a first man. Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?


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 281 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 5:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:27 AM NoNukes has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 304 of 341 (693813)
03-20-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Coyote
03-19-2013 8:28 PM


Re: Wrong again?

1) Opinions are still divided:
2) Once again, you are taking liberties with the data.
3) paleoanthropologists place Chad in a different genus entirely

1) No kidding, DicK Tracy?
So when I state the opinions that support my view, why discard them and insist they MUST be the wrong ones??

2) LOL
That IS my point... taking the liberty to show the correspondence between what science says and Genesis.

Of course I am "taking the liberty" to show the correspondence between the 22 species enumerated in the latest book of the subject of the ascent of man Out-of-Africa WITH the 22 links to Noah's sons as found in the genealogy of Genesis.

3) Scientists place more than half the 22 now extinct species in other genus also, but they insist these are most probably the line of our evolution.
My CHART has consistently shown the names of these different genus for each of the SUSPECTED members in our ascent, and YOU know that.

My observationis that you are unwilling to acceot the truth in what i say and even distrort the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2013 8:28 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 305 of 341 (693814)
03-20-2013 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Coyote
03-19-2013 8:28 PM


Re: Wrong again?

1)Your dates do not match those cited on Wiki.

You are correct, that the fused chromosome occurred after the human-chimpanzee split. However, Wiki seems to place the Chad specimen 1 to 6 million years earlier...

WRONG...

The fused chromosomes daate back to EXACTLY THE SAME 6 million year old Chad and DOVE TAIL with my assumption that this was "Adam:"

"The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera--Sahelanthropus , Orrorin , and Ardipithecus . Sahelanthropus was the earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago. Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago, while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2013 8:28 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 306 of 341 (693815)
03-20-2013 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Coyote
03-19-2013 8:40 PM


Re: Straying from the facts

There are not 22 species between Chad and modern humans.

There ARE acording the paleontologists who authored the LATEST book enumerating the now acceptable 22 extinct HUMANS that went before us.

Yoru pet theory that this thread shows the bible is wrong and evolution destroys its content ends with science supporting the genealogy of Genesis.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2013 8:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Coragyps, posted 03-20-2013 10:06 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
GrimSqueaker
Member (Idle past 1189 days)
Posts: 137
From: Ireland
Joined: 03-15-2013


Message 307 of 341 (693816)
03-20-2013 9:09 AM


I might be wrong on this but isn't looking for a "first" in a successive line of constant change and development seem a bit silly? There are a tribe of very very very monkey like humans in our lineage (and very very human like monkeys in a chimps lineage slightly before that)

Just an observation - quite possibly not correct but I kinda wanna sub this topic
So I figured I'd throw my 2 cent in


Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:20 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 308 of 341 (693818)
03-20-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Just being real
03-20-2013 12:07 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE

In this thread we are looking for evidence linking apes to man.

TRUE.

But why?
How is this related to EcV???

Why would I come here and not to a science forum that has zero interest in theology and this Evolution Verses Creationism????

What Percy is trying to avoid is the meaning of this discussion and hoiw it relates to Genesis.

The list that scientists provide, which compares to the genealogy in Genesis, in the end shows that whether these arguments are strong for the Science or strong for Creationism, Genesis is unaffected either way.

A reader can accept Genesis as correct if he favors the Science, or remain as doubtful of evolution as do you, and still accept Genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 03-20-2013 12:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 9:42 AM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 309 of 341 (693819)
03-20-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by GrimSqueaker
03-20-2013 9:09 AM


...good question...

I might be wrong on this but isn't looking for a "first" in a successive line of constant change and development seem a bit silly? There are a tribe of very very very monkey like humans in our lineage (and very very human like monkeys in a chimps lineage slightly before that)

As I pointed out, Genetic has recently discovered that man resulted from a Mutation that fused together two Ape chromosomes forever after occurring about 6-7 million years ago.

That first "Adam" started a line of Ascent that has lead to Modern homo sapiens.

That moment, when by an Act-of-God, we creatures with only 23 chromosome branched off from all other species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-20-2013 9:09 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 310 of 341 (693820)
03-20-2013 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by NoNukes
03-20-2013 2:31 AM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor

Forever:
How do you know there was no adam?

Nuke:
What does it mean to you to be Adam? Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man', and of course there was a first man. Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?

The euphemism of "Adam" has been used in the News, in the titled research of scientists, and generally by the public to mean the first man to appear in the chain of evolution through 22 ngradually more modern looking hominins.

This "Adam" clearly fits the bill as the first "man" when the genetics dates the fusing of the two fused chromosomes back 6-7 million years ago, when Sahelanthropus tchadensis appeared in the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 2:31 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 9:47 AM kofh2u has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 311 of 341 (693821)
03-20-2013 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Just being real
03-20-2013 12:07 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
Just being real writes:

RE--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. --
Hmmm, that's odd. And this comment comes immediately after the "topic reminder" post. Yet no one is complaining that you are off topic.

Onifre has already addressed this, but just for clarity I'll also answer.

First, about topic, common descent as a concept underlies conclusions of common ancestry based upon evidence. I'm not sure why there's any question here.

Second, had Onifre been off-topic and you were wondering why no moderator had yet stepped in, moderators are not omnipresent and they can't read everything anyway. That's why there's a thread for reporting violations of the Forum Guidelines: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 03-20-2013 12:07 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:53 AM Admin has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 312 of 341 (693822)
03-20-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by onifre
03-20-2013 12:43 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE

We're off topic.

What else is there to address in this topic?

EXACTLY.

What is left to discuss on Evoluion Vs Creationism is whether this discussion has ANY bearing on the SUBJECT which this Site was created to discuss.

What is left is to either conclude that Genesis is wrong in the face of the Scientific Evidence presented here or whether Genesis is NOT wrong.

But we need also discuss whether the censorc-ship will NEVER allow the Scientific Evidence to SUPPORT Genesis or whether the site is a fair place for such discussions as E vs C.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by onifre, posted 03-20-2013 12:43 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 313 of 341 (693824)
03-20-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by kofh2u
03-20-2013 9:16 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
kofh2u writes:

What Percy is trying to avoid is the meaning of this discussion and hoiw it relates to Genesis.

The actual goal is simply to keep threads on-topic. I put your thread proposal in Free For All, please take discussion of this topic there: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread

Regarding your complaints about moderation, first, the proper place for such complaints is Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.

But second, moderation is only requesting that you make one change to the way you're participating: please stay on topic. If we didn't feel it important to dedicate each thread to a single topic (usually outlined in the first message) then we could just have one forum and one big thread, but we don't do that for obvious reasons. Your favorite topic does not happen to be the topic of this thread, or of almost all other threads. So please stop introducing your favorite topic into threads where it is off-topic.

Again, I've given you a thread for your favorite topic, please take your discussion of this topic there: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:16 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 10:05 AM Admin has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9816
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 314 of 341 (693825)
03-20-2013 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by kofh2u
03-20-2013 9:27 AM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
This "Adam" clearly fits the bill as the first "man" when the genetics dates the fusing of the two fused chromosomes back 6-7 million years ago, when Sahelanthropus tchadensis appeared in the fossil record.

1. Genetics dates the fusion to be more recent than this period. estimates are between 0.7 and 3 Mya.

2.Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a man.

3. My question clearly asked about anything foreveryoung needed for Adam other than being first. Thanks for playing though.

NoNukes writes:

Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?

4. Grrr!


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 310 by kofh2u, posted 03-20-2013 9:27 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by kofh2u, posted 03-30-2013 2:19 PM NoNukes has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 315 of 341 (693826)
03-20-2013 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Admin
03-20-2013 9:29 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE

Justbeingreal writes:
RE--Common decent has not only been proven,

Percy:
Onifre has already addressed this, but just for clarity I'll also answer.

As a moderator involved in this discussion, you seem to over step the bounds of both Science, here, above (in that science "proves nothing"), AND over step fairness-in-general, by adding your weight and authority to this discussion.

TO WIT:Justbeingreal is absolutely correct.
You did NOT prove it to him!

Justbeingreal is absolutely correct that Science did NOT "prove," that the science CONTENTION for Common Descent is absolute and final.

Science merely presents the fossils that back up that assumption (of a theory that they "look" like a progressive development).

That is an assumption that assumes that such development came through gradual changes from the earlier fossils into what was the next fossil.

What Science DOES do is make a "case for the jury" which in this "case", Common Ascent, is STILL out,... de facto the paleontologists do not even agree on the fossils which ought be included and those that ought not.

The LATEST profession cponclusion is that ONLY 22 fossils of what are now extinct humans in their opinion exists.
And, that these 22 pieces and bits of those "humans" can be used to conclude a common descent, for those willing to accept the idea.

There is no PROOF here.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 9:29 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 10:06 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
181920
21
2223Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017