The Common Ancestor?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

How do you know there was no Hanuman?

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.

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.

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.