explaining common ancestry

Thank you. Someone is finally attempting to answer my questions. I've been told by some evolutionists that the common ancestor didn't have any human traits and by others that they did. So hopefully, I'll get some consistent answers. Thanks again.

Thank you.

So if this common ancestor didn't have human traits, then why is it called a common ancestor?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 08:27 PM

So when you say; "probably", then this is all in the imagination, is it not? And if this ancestor all had ancestors, then how did the first one just appear? There always has to be a beginning, my friend.Fossils don't lie, but people do. On the show "Ape to Man" on the History channel, a scientist found a piece of what looked like bone and from that, drew a sketch of a complete being covered with hair. Then after he put it through carbon dating, he couldn't prove it was even a bone fragment! So this kind of fossil determination is again from the imagination.Also, carbon dating is no longer thought to be reliable because any fossil found on the ground that was exposed to any kind of heat, alters the ability to date it. So previous dating is now no longer thought to be reliable. So again, humans can perceive a fossil to be anything they want and exclude the myriad of other variables involved in identifying it.And just recently, scientists have said that the DNA in humans shows that all humans are descendants of one man. But again, they neglect to look in Iraq where the bible says that man was first formed because they might prove the bible true. So they look in Africa and then declare that those were the earliest bones instead of saying those are the earliest bones they have found. So it is this kind of tunnel vision that provides the information that scientists give to the world, then leap to conclusions that exclude all other variables.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 08:39 PM

Man didn't invent gravity. Man DISCOVERED gravity that has always been here. All anyone has to to is observe the magnetic pull that exists in the earth's atmosphere and give it a name. Again, when scientists discover God's laws, they will always be right. But when they invent their own theories that contradict God's laws, they will always be wrong. The universe works on a cause-effect basis. Electrons attract protons which produces electricity. This has always been the case but man did not understand it until a few hundred years ago.But apes produce apes and humans produce humans. Trying to make a human come out of an ape contradicts the way animals and humans breed. There will always be problems when people try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Because this is impossible, then voluminous explanations have to be manufactured in order to try to make the impossible possible. And that is why evolutionists contradict each other so often and change their theories about how humans could come from primates. Every generation, they alter their theories because the have found the previous ones false. And that is why they've changed the "survival of the fittest" theory to say that man is not improving, but simply changing. Althoug some evolutionists contradict that also.Again, your answers are vague and contradictory. You say that scientists say we came from apes but they say we don't come from apes. In fact, I didn't see one clear-cut statement in your post that can't be taken back. So a more non-contradictory answer would be to say that scientists simply don't know how man evolved. That would explain the conflicting premises.And since there are too few fossils to map out human origins, then how can you say that the bible is wrong? Particularly when the reality that humans breed humans and apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals confirms the biblical account of creation perfectly. In addition, the way the bible descrives why the stars, moon, and sun were created also confirms reality perfectly.It says in Genesis that God created the sun to give light by day and the moon to give light by night. It also says that the stars, sun, and moon were created to mark time and spiritual events which is exactly how we determine days, months and years. And we've already been to the moon and it is nothing more than barren landscape that serves no purpose other than to give light at night. Now people can invent anything they want about the moon. They can say that millions or billions or thousands of years ago, whatever date they can think of, the moon used to be inhabited by green or red or blue men. But this again, is all from the human imagination which is endless in its ability to invent scenarios.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 08:55 PM

Gravity is a pull. You can call it magnetic or not magnetic but it is part of God's design, not human design. It has existed long before man came on the scene.But there is no evidence that shows that primates and humans can interbreed, only speculation that comes from the imagiations of men. Animals and humans don't interbreed today and there is no evidence that they have ever been able to. So man cannot "discover" something he invented from his imagination.Sorry, but God didn't mention anything about evolution in the bible. He never said that humans came out of the womb of a wild animal. He said that he created man out of dust. So evolution very definitely contradicts God's laws.No, I never claim that evolutionists say a human as we know it today came out of an ape. I realize they claim this was a gradual result of "mutation" over millions of years. But since human genes were never present in any ape or primate to begin with, then in order for them to breed offspring that turned into humans, those traits had to get there somehow. Normally, those traits get into a species through the mating between their parents. Are evolutionists claiming this isn't so? Or are they claiming that 2 primates produced a "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" and on and on for millions of years which would then result in millions of "random" mutations that just happened to occur in each offspring! Not only are the odds that so many mutations would result in ONE species that would make its offspring so different from its parents that it is given several new names, so astronomical as to be considered logical at all, but this again has never happened to one species since the beginning of recorded history! So again, this is all a "what if" which makes it hyothetical and not scientific because none of it can be proven, only theorized. And in fact, it contradicts the way animals and humans have bred since there have been witnesses.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 09:37 PMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 09:39 PMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 09:40 PM

No, your ancestors are those who bred your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. They are not common ancestors, they are simply ancestors. But the "Common ancestor" referred to in the thoery of evolution is a fictious animal that had traits common to both primates and humans and that's what the word; "common" means in that context.The problem we're having is that evolutionists consider humans and primates as the same species. Yet the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus defines a species as; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." And since animals and humans are not capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding, they are not the same species as animals. But within each species, traits will vary, but will be similar to all those in that species and remain in that species.The traits of one species can also resemble characteristics of another without those species being descendants of one another. Examples are; dogs and cats who both have characteristics in common such as; 4 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, whiskers and mammary glands. But they cannot breed with each other so they cannot be desendants of each other. So just because apes and humans have charcateristics in common doesn't at all mean that one descended from the other! That's simply a myth and an impossibility as well.God created many, many different species which look like other animals but are not of the same species. They each have a unique purpose in the world and each breed within their species.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 11:00 PM

If evolutionists claim that primates and humans aren't the same species, then how can we be descendants of another species? Since the dictionary has already defined a species as one who is capabale of exchanging genes with each other and interbreeding, then how can primates and humans exchange genes with each other if we can't interbreed? And if we can't do that, then again, how can we be descendants of primates? it's impossible because genes are passed along to their offspring through mating and breeding. So how do you explain humans descending from primates?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 11:22 PM

And we are all capable of interbreeding with our ancestors (regardless of whether or not we want to)...except a primate. OUR ANCESTORS ARE SIMPLY THOSE WHO CREATED US THROUGH MATING AND BREEDING. And since there is a natural sperm barrier that renders it impossible for primates and humans to interbreed, then again, we cannot possibly be the descendants of primates. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?There are many, many variable traits WITHIN EACH SPECIES. And since humans and primates are not the same species, then what is your point about you looking different or like your siblings?Again, you are capable of breeding with your mother (but hopefully you don't want to), so you are capable of exchanging genes with her. So again, what does this have to do with animals with which humans are not capable of exchanging genes?Again, cats and dogs have more traits in common than humans and primates but they still cannot breed with each other. So why do you claim humans and primates are intermingled but do not do so with cats and dogs?Chihuahuas and Great Danes are still dogs. They did not come from cats even though they share many characteristics in common.Again, any animal will breed with another animal WITH WHOM IT IS CAPABLE OF BREEDING. PRIMATES AND HUMANS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF INTERBREEDING.That again is elementary.

Are you saying that humans and primates can produce offspring together? Where is the proof for this? You are also suggesting bestiality, (which I said much earlier and was severly chastized for even insinuating it)but now you are.Actually it's you who badly wants humans to come from apes so you can contradict God's word. Otherwise, why do you contradict God's word when reality shows that humans breed humans and apes breed apes?

And how many billions more nuerons are there in the human brain compared to the brain of a chimp? Can chimps talk, walk on 2 legs, form complex analyses, build bridges, or contemplate God? yet chimps and cats have 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, hair all over their bodies, mammary glands and walk on 4 legs. Therefore, chimps and cats have much more in common than chimps and humans. But this is still a moot point because cats & apes or cats and humans or apes and humans still cannot interbreed, regardless of how many traits they have in common.

All this suggestion of humans and animals intermingling still doesn't explain how the first primate was created. So since it got here somehow, then why not say that the first human got here in the same way the first primate got here? By the miraculous creation of God. But no. Instead, the miracle of the human being is reduced to coming from the wombs of primates yet the primate was miraculously created. This shows gross disrespect for human beings and elevates the primate to a miraculous creation, even though humans can form complex analyses, build elaborate structures, contemplate the purpose of our lives, and God, and outsmart animals, evolutionists say the primate, not the human came from a miraculous source. Because the fact of the matter is that the first primate came from somewhere other than previous ancestors. So why this reversal of God's plan as stated in the bible? The degree that evolutionists want to contradict God;'s plan is enormous. It requires one to believe that new genes were passed along through millions of years of mutation that happened over and over and over and over and over again all BY ACCIDDENT (which is an oxymoron), it suggests that animals and humans can interbreed when there is no evidence that any of this is possible. So again, why do this?

Do evolutionists truly not see the ludicrousness of claiming that one species can turn into another without mating and breeding with that species? Or do they already know that and are lying about it when they claim that apes can turn into humans on their own? I'd like to know. Thank you.

Cats and dogs both have; 4 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, whiskers, mammary glands, hair all over their bodies, cannot talk, form complex analyses, contemplate spirituality, or build bridges.The only things in common between apes and humans is that they both have 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth,2 ears, mammary glands and thumbs. Apes cannot walk on 2 legs for very long, think, talk, build bridges, etc. But the most important factor about apes and humans is that they cannot breed with each other. And that is what separates one species from another.So again, until you can answer my question above about whether or not evolutionists actually know that one species cannot turn into another species without breeding with that species, then conversing about cats and dogs will be a waste of time because it does not prove that one species can turn into another on its own with breeding with that species.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-22-2005 10:22 AM

Then how did the ape species turn into human beings without mating with humans or changing on their own? There is no other way, my friend. And again, according to the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurs American Edition, a species is; "A classification of living orgnaisms consisting of individuals with similar genes capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." Therefore, apes and humans are not the same species because we cannot interbreed.So again, how did apes change into another species without breeding with that species or changing on their own? You have just proved the theory of evolution impossible because you are claiming that apes did not breed with humans nor did they change into humans on their own. So thank you for saying that apes did not turn into human beings. You have finally made a truthful statement.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-22-2005 10:33 AM