The Common Ancestor?

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

OK.

I will not post here, and consider myself censored by you on this subject concerning whether man ascended through 22 links to other species and how that opposes Genesis.

But that is NOT my singular one favorite topic.

I contend also that:

.... the seven "days" refer to the seven Geological Eras.

... Pangea was the moment when "all the waters were collected into one place."

.... that "the first man and women" were what was called Adam, a species.

...the Big Bang was "In the beginning."

...that Noah coincided with the massive extinction of Neanderthal.

... that Noah's Ark refers to the skull of Modern man carrying all visions of the world Out-of-Africa into this Age.

etc etc ect

the LATEST book enumerating the now acceptable 22 extinct HUMANS that went before us.

Kofh - what happens to your house of cards when the NEXT book, or actually the next paper in Nature, appears and adds number 23 to the "acceptable" list?

Will you even reflect for a moment on that possibility?

Hi Kofh2u,

First, I am not involved in the discussion beyond serving in my moderator role.

Second, this quote from you is a simple and straightforward distortion. It makes it seem like I was commenting on whether common descent has been proven:

Justbeingreal writes: RE--Common decent has not only been proven, Percy: Onifre has already addressed this, but just for clarity I'll also answer.

In reality you removed the portion of Just Being Real's quote where he goes on to say that he believes that common descent is off topic, and it is the issue of whether common descent is off-topic that I was addressing.

Third, and for the last time unless you'd like a short suspension, the proper place for complaints such as those you've been making is Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.

Fourth, in case you missed it, your 22 species in Genesis thread is here: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread

kofh2u writes: I will not post here,...

You have not been asked to not post here. You've been asked to stay on-topic.

...and consider myself censored by you on this subject concerning whether man ascended through 22 links to other species and how that opposes Genesis.

You're not being censored. You're being asked to discuss that topic in a thread where it is actually the topic, rather than in a thread like this one where it is not the topic.

Complaints should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

The Neanderthal ended up in Northern Israel circa 700,000 years ago. Human beings made by Lucifer to be genetically compatible
with the modern humans HaShem would make, to have His son,
and prophet borne, possessing His psyche.

There is a hierarchy at work on the Earth!
HaShem LOGOS, His son amano, Lucifer, daemon.

Lucifer wanted to be like the Almighty. He achieved his goal by having his own Prophet, Nation, and Islam, as a religion.

"Am I not All Mighty?"

Omnipotent verses Omniscient....

Will the real Creator please stand up?

You just made up a bunch of nonsense and posted it.

?

I responded in threads 193 and 277 directly to the thread opening question.

"
08-17-2010 2:42 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found?
If not, doesn't that call into question the existence of common ancestors?"

Those who have responded to the content of my posts open up questions that I then answered.

What is it specificlly that you claim is not a permissable response to this:

08-17-2010 2:42 PM

-- OPENING THREAD: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found?
If not, doesn't that call into question the existence of common ancestors?

KOFH: 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. Nonukes 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 there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first? 4. Grrr!

How can I answer you when Percy won't let me??????

How can I answer you when Percy won't let me??????

If you have anything meaningful to say, surely it's on topic in your own thread.

Hi Kofh2u,

You have a thread for your 22 species topic: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread. Please do not discuss that topic anywhere but in that thread.

You can discuss any topic you like here at EvC Forum, but you have to discuss the topic of the thread you're in. Your topic has a thread, and it isn't this thread.

When a moderator requests that no replies be posted to a message, then it's probably a good surmise that there might be penalties for posting replies to that message. And when you post off-topic repeatedly after being asked repeatedly to stay on-topic, then again it is probably a good surmise that there might be penalties.

So we'll see you in a couple days. Upon your return you will be on a very short leash. Any off-topic posts or failure to follow moderator requests will draw an immediate suspension with no warning.

Being able to tell the difference between different topics is something that is very simple for most people, so if there's any mitigating circumstances I should know about, such as that English isn't your native language or you're only 8 years old or things like that, please send me a PM. You can send PM's even while suspended.

AbE: Apparently I disabled the ability to send PM's while suspended.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.

Wow! Dr Adequate really did blow my mind. His logical proof that there must have been an individual who was an ancestor to modern chimps/bonobos and humans AND had (at least) two children, one ancestral to only humans and the other ancestral to only chimps/bonobos is watertight. If we don't throw away common rules of logic, it must be true.

After reading the old discussions how the concept of the common ancestor is vague and hard to define, I thought how this relates to Neanderthals and Modern Humans. Am I correct in assuming that the answer to the question "when did Neanderthals and Modern Humans split?," the correct answer is about 70,000 years ago (which is roughly the time they did interbreed, there is genetic proof in the genomes of modern people) or one could argue that it never happened (they were the same species when Neanderthals went extinct, because they had recently interbreeded and modern humans are part-neanderthals)? BUT... in the hypothetical situation that that interbreeding never occurred, they would have split at least 500,000 years ago?

The more closely related are two species the more likely it is that they'll be able to interbreed. When two populations of the same species become isolated from one another (which is one way the Neanderthal species could have come about) then they will evolve independently and, of course, differently. The human ancestral population that migrated north from Africa evolved to become better adapted to more northern climates and to whatever else was unique in that environment, and the same was true of the human ancestral population in Africa. The more northern population evolved into the Neanderthals, the African population evolved into Homo sapiens.

The two populations never evolved far enough apart to become genetically isolated (unable to interbreed), so there would have been interbreeding wherever they came into contact with one another. This is true no matter when the split occurred, but the Wikipedia article on Neanderthals puts the split around 350,000-400,000 years ago.

--Percy

Okay, maybe "split" is not the correct way to describe what I'm after. Clearly they had split when the Wikipedia estimate says (they were two distinct sets with different qualities and had not been in contact with each other for hundreds of thousands of years.)

But if we use "being able to interbreed (gametes are able to do so) and also interbreeding" as a definition of a species, this would make Neanderthals and us the same species when speciation is concerned. In that sense there was no split, yes?

Species doesn't have one unambiguous definition. By the definition "can't interbreed" Neanderthals and humans are the same species. By the definition "can interbreed but not usually", Neanderthals and humans are different species, in the same way that tigers and lions are different species, as well as zebras and horses.

The label isn't important. Humans and Neanderthals could and did interbreed, but not a lot. Whether you want to call them the same species or not is just terminology.

--Percy

Dunno whether this helps but here's something I wrote a while ago to try to explain the chimp/human diversion

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=15949