The Common Ancestor?

Crazynutsx writes: you cant prove a fossil had any kids, so you can not prove evolution

Even setting aside the fact that it is the record of change in
species over time evidenced by fossils that "proves" evolution, you are wrong.

Not only do we have fossilized dinosaur eggs containing embryos at different stages, we also have fossilized dinosaurs containing eggs that were about to be laid.

You should look before you leap.

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

Real things always push back.
-William James

Crazynutsx writes: you cant prove a fossil had any kids, so you can not prove evolution

I just spent a lot of (unexamined) credibility trying to educate some of the greatest intellects here the difference between proof and beyond the valley of massive evidence.

With this simplistic comment, I see such debates with you are, how should I put it, necessarily should be a learning experience.

Do you know the difference between proof and evidence? As already pointed out, volcanic eruptions happen along with landslides and they can bury both eggs and parent with eggs.

The evidence is there. What so-called proof do you have that previous life forms were or were not subject to similar environmental conditions as exist in the present.

Please remember, evidence is not your parents, relatives, or preacher.

In my experience, they usually don't save lives by using science.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

So this snip from Wiki, research cited in article, strongly suggests that the most recent common ancestor, TMRCA, was around 2000-5000yo

"The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human MRCAs are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point

Let's not forget that these estimates are based on models that make presumptions, ie ancestry and old earth, in attaining these figures. Yet, although biased, they still put the MRCA to humans as recent and many dates align with biblical creation and/or the flood scenario.

Creationists researchers are also able to provide evidence of creation, a deceent back to 2 individuals, and no common ancestor with any ape. It does not matter that this evidence is refuted by evo researchers as they refute each other all the time yet still manage to agree 'it all evolved'.

MtEve is 6,000yo
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5657/369/

As well as evidence that Darwinian evolution did not and could not occur as theorised.
http://www.icr.org/mutation-buildup/
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5722/369/

John C Sanford has done work on genetic entropy that also discredits current models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5657/369/

The fact that evolutionists have not found any common ancestors, or have found some that have been reclassified as sister species, only adds weight to creationists assertations.

Looking back, your researchers may have found the equivalent of a mouse, cat and dog fossils and alledge this demonstrates how a mouse species evolved into a dog. This is all your researchers have done. They have found any old creature, and suggested it is a transition. eg pakecetus and ambulocetus are two different kinds, a variety of deer and an aquatic creature whose skeleton resembles a crocodile whose limbs have been misaligned in reconstruction to fraudulently wish grab at ancestry to a deer.

The original poster has rightfully identified that no common ancestors have been found and this lends weight to a creation scenario.

Evo research and postulated evidence for same is no more than a fleeting wish list, unfortunately for evolutionists. It must be very frustrating for evos to have to defend their evidence with great vigour and then have to recant with embarassment, so often. Yet you say this is normal and expected. This proves TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive power and just responds to the evolutionary environment. Toe is the only thing macroevolving around here.

Even Ardi, who is meant to be very similar to the human/chimp common ancestor, is hovering over the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past along with LUCA, knucklewalking ancestry and so much more trashed evidence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=was-ar...

Of course creationists already knew that Ardi is just a variety of ape and has nothing to do with mankinds ancestry. It appears it is going to take evolutionists a little while longer to work this out for themselves.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Surely you realize you are referencing wrong MRCA, yes? Your first bit is "refuting" the MRCA of HOMO-SAPIENS. The MRCA the rest of us are talking about is the MRCA between us and "monkeys".

The rest of your post is garbage. Creo websites lie. Bring some actual evidence next time.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Mazzy writes: Creationists researchers are also able to provide evidence of creation, a deceent back to 2 individuals, and no common ancestor with any ape. It does not matter that this evidence is refuted by evo researchers as they refute each other all the time yet still manage to agree 'it all evolved'. MtEve is 6,000yo http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5657/369/

This doesn't have anything to do with the MRCA between humans and other apes like chimps and gorillas, but I believe you mentioned this as part of an argument that scientists are all over the place regarding human ancestry and really know very little concrete. While I was able to find that there are disagreements about how fast the molecular clock "ticks", I wasn't able to find anything indicating that conclusive evidence for any particular figure, such as your claimed 6000 years, had been uncovered.

I think many scientists would agree that there's insufficient basis for claiming any particular date for mitochrondrial Eve or Y-chromosome Adam. Certainly the Wikipedia article on Human mitochondrial molecular clock supports that view.

It would be fascinating if 6000 years ago as the time of the MRCA were nailed down as the correct figure, but realize that MRCA stands for the Most Recent Common Ancestor and not for When the Species First Appeared. In other words, no matter how long ago the MRCAs, they weren't the first humans.

--Percy

It should be noted that neither mitochondrial Eve nor Y-chromosome Adam are considered candidates for the actual MRCA of modern humans. They are the most recent common matrilineal and patrilineal ancestors respectively, the actual MRCA of modern living humans will be considerably more recent.

One problem with the actual MRCA of living humans is that it may well not be something that can be readily studied genetically. We can identify ranges of dates for the MRCA of a particular gene or set of genes. However it is a simple product of human reproduction and our knowledge of historical population sizes and structures that we can use to model common ancestry irrespective of genetics, and it is such models that are used to produce estimates of when the actual MRCA of living humans existed.

Whatever the date the MRCA would have simply been one member of a larger population. A biblical originator such as Adam and Eve or Noah's family after the flood would be too small to contain the MRCA and to reach the modern populations we have from such a small initial pool would mean that the MRCA was considerably more recent than that initial pool.

Many of these topics were discussed in the All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam thread, including the identical ancestors point that Mazzy mentions.

TTFN,

WK

The Scientific American article you listed writes: Wood and Harrison do not dismiss Ardipithecus as a possible human ancestor, but they note that, "it remains to be seen how many of these alleged hominin synaphomorphies will withstand close scrutiny." They encourage other paleoanthropologists to "acknowledge the potential shortcomings of their data when it comes to generating hypotheses about relationships," and accept that with current fossil evidence and analysis, we might not be able to know for sure whether or not Ardi was a hominin.

It doesn't say that ardi isn't a hominid, just that there is not enough evidence to say yes or no, which is the norm in scientific investigation. It is just asking that no point be made that such is where the such is is not verified.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

bluescat48 writes: It doesn't say that ardi isn't a hominid, just that there is not enough evidence to say yes or no...

I think you meant to say, "It doesn't say that Ardi isn't a possible human ancestor..." Ardi is most definitely a hominid.

--Percy

I think part of the problem is how people use the term MRCA. Depending on the definition (type of MRCA), it can also be used interchangeably with Last Common Ancestor. I am not sure I like the term myself, as it confuses people who mistake one usage for another and people confuse it with: "the time when a species appears."

Or alternatively hominin as it is in the quote.

TTFN,

WK

My typo! It should have been hominin (tribe) homini rather than hominid (Family) Hominidae. Yes ardi is a hominid.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

All living beings on earth have a common ancestor:
The biosphere of the Precambrian Protoplanet can
have been something like a huge global living being.

There is an interesting new hypothesis about the formation
of the earth, that can explain the origin of terrestrial water
and early life based upon a new theory of planet formation
including a new geological explanation for the origin of the
moon, the early continents, oceans and paleoclimate.
The importance of silizium and water in early formation
processes is part of this work. It shows that the evolution
of life began much earlier than previously thought. There
was an early stage of the planet called Adam Kadmon in
hebrew language. Adam = earth, Kadmon = primordial.

You can find the article as free PDF with Google:

"Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home"

or here: http://spam.innovative-planetary-science.page.tl/Home.htm

Some anti-virus software products give general warning
when a file from the upload-area is opened. But there is
definitely no virus on these files. You can open the page,
click on the link to the PDF in the upload-area and read
the article. I guarantee this is safe because the uploads
come from my own PC. Everything is clean here.

You will find most interesting new ideas and discoveries.

Edited by Admin, : Disable the link.

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

Chimpanzees and Humans have extremely similar DNA to humans.
But Chimpanzees have one more chromosome than Humans do, (24 pairs), and if Humans and Chimpanzees are genetically related (sharing a common ancestor), this extra chromosome had to go somewhere.
Evolutionary Biologists might predict that two chromosomes fused into one.
But they would need hard evidence to use that hypothesis as more argument for evolution in general, and for a good enough reason to make such a claim.
As it turns out Chromosome number 2 in Humans was once two different chromosomes that were fused together.
Additionally, the evidence is that an extra large Telomere appears in the middle of the #2 chromosome, as well as an extra Centromere, as depicted in the illustration above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).

References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.

It should be noted that neither mitochondrial Eve nor Y-chromosome Adam are considered candidates for the actual MRCA of modern humans. They are the most recent common matrilineal and patrilineal ancestors respectively, the actual MRCA of modern living humans will be considerably more recent.

The sceince supports what Genesis has long taught but the scientists misnomered their findings.

What they call "mitochondrial Eve" ought correspond with the mother of the three racial stocks called Ham, Shem, and Japeth in Gen 5:31, which says these three "sons" evolved 100 (thousand?) years before Noah went in to the ark.

Y-chromosome "Adam" corresponds better to Noah, who would have been dated at the time of the mass extinction of Neanderthals around forty (40) thousand years ago.

The first humanoid to appear was back around 7 milliion years ago, and was possibly sahelanthrpus...

What they call "mitochondrial Eve" ought correspond with the mother of the three racial stocks called Ham, Shem, and Japeth in Gen 5:31, which says these three "sons" evolved 100 (thousand?) years before Noah went in to the ark.

That isn't science. There is no genetic hypothesis of races, let alone one that suggests 3 races evolved from mitochondrial eve.

Stop claiming that your fan-fiction is science.

Y-chromosome "Adam" corresponds better to Noah, who would have been dated at the time of the mass extinction of Neanderthals around forty (40) thousand years ago.

1) Y chromosome Adam is dated to 140,000 years ago, not 40,000 years ago

2) There was no mass extinction of Neanderthal. Neanderthals existed with dwindling populations until about 25,000 years ago.

Neither of these have anything to do with 40,000 years ago so there is no correspondence. And just because things happen in the same timeframe doesn't mean they are intrinsically connected.

I got a promotion in the same year that a new pope was elected. I guess, according to your bad logic, there is some sort of correspondence between myself and the new pope because our circumstances are relevant to the same timeframe.

You are quite wrong. Stop making up things like "neanderthals underwent a mass extinction" or "Y chromosome Adam is dated to 40,000 years ago."

We can easily prove that your fact pattern is wrong because your data is wrong. You can't make a valid argument by using counterfeit data.