A good summary of so called human evolution.

Not quite all. I, personally, have four living ancestors. None of them are shared with you though (unless of course you happen to be the spawn of granddad's youthful indiscretion).

The rain in spain falls mainly on the plain ... I think he's got it ...

Nope, he missed it. Again. Let's try again on the guitar ... with feeling ...

Tree shrews are Scandentians.

Scandentians evolved from an early (older) population of Sandatherians/Paraprimates, so all Scandentians are Sandatherians/Paraprimates (once a dog, always a dog).

But not all Sandatherians/Paraprimates are Scandentians ... some are Dermopterans.

Dermopterans also evolved from an early (older) population of Sandatherians/Paraprimates, so all Dermopterans are also Sandatherians/Paraprimates (once a dog, always a dog).

Scandentians and Dermopterans are related, like cousins, but neither one is ancestral to the other.

Humans evolved from an early (older) population of apes, so all humans are also apes (once a dog, always a dog).

But not all apes are humans ... some are chimps, some are gorillas, etc.

Apes evolved from an early (older) population of primates, so all apes are also primates (once a dog, always a dog).

But not all primates are apes.

Humans are related to other apes and other primates. Again, related like cousins because apes share a common ancestor with humans and primates share a common ancestor with apes.

Sandatherians/Paraprimates evolved from a common ancestor population of Euarchontans, so they are also Euarchontans - as are Dermopterans - (once a dog, always a dog).

But not all Euarchontans are Sandatherians/Paraprimates ... some are Primates.

Primates also evolved from an early (older) population of Euarchontans , so all Primates are also Euarchontans (once a dog, always a dog).

Sandatherians/Paraprimates and Primates are related, like cousins, but neither one is ancestral to the other.

Yep, that's what the fossil and genetic evidence shows. It would be stupid and dumb to ignore the evidence that plainly exists in favor of a fantasy that doesn't exist.

Yep, because fossil and genetic evidence shows early Primates and early Scandentians evolved from an earlier (common ancestor) population of Euarcontans. And Evolutionists (science educated people) will continue to say what the evidence shows.

Says the Black Knight as King Arthur trots away ...

Enjoy

What is our ancestor ?

What species mutated into us, before we supposedly became primates ?

************************

Evolutionists hide behind classiofications and semantic names that sound scientific but contain no facts, no actual animals or species.

Its all a con folks, and READERS.

evolution is a hige lie forced on our students and on the dumb and ignorant unscientific ones.

Spamming multiple threads with the same question is not debating in good faith.

See Evolution is a racist doctrine, Message 328

Your time would be better spent on Evolution is a racist doctrine to actually explain why you think evolution is racist -- a request made by several people but you have failed to answer them.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : link

Thats not called spamming, thats called evasive debating> I get penalized all the time for not answering the multitude of evolutionists insecere questions and sincere questions.. But evolutionists refuse to answer this one ?

Complainabout answering this one, and when it seems they answer it with grapghs and approximities I get penalized for it. So answer the question.

Its on topic, it concerns human evolution.

Who were our ancestors.

Give us a flow chart from the beginning ?

Our debate earlier was who was the ancestor of primates... just answer the question with a species or kind or extinct creature, even if hypothetical or imaginary or just an artists conception from a few bones.

Stand up and be proud of your ancestors without complaining and screaming Spam Spam... when I asked a sincere question. You have had decades to figure it out, just post your answer... in two words or less.... or whatever.

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Agreed it would be better on this thread, but I had already answered it on Evolution is a racist doctrine, Message 328 ... as noted in Message 124 ... before posting Message 124.

You asked the same question on two threads, I answered it on the other one.

Enjoy

( http://www.evcforum.net/Messages.php?control=replynew&m=8... Message 328 )

Humans came from Homininae, which came from Hominidae which evolved from Hominoidae which evolved from Hominoidea....

I win, evolutionist is such a lie and so bogus, to be almsot laughable if it wasnt taken so seriously by the evolutionists.

Its just semantics brethren and non brethren, just word manipulation and spelling...

Read it again and marvel, that evolutionists actually believe our ancestors followed this spelling lineage......

Humans ancestor was Homininae, which came from Hominidae which evolved from Hominoidae which evolved from Hominoidea....

More concisely put in a flow chart for clarity

Human-Homininae-Hominidae-Hominoidae-Hominoidea....

There it is BREAKING NEWS, we humans evolved from Hominoidea's 20 million years ago..... our ancestors are hominoidea's..

I say our ancestors were humans, the same as us.

Evolutionists say different, you choose your ancestor, and see if spelling is the defining factor or whether truth and science and common sense prevails.

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Which thread do you want the answer on:

This one (A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 127)
or
The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans Message 8
or
Evolution is a racist doctrine Message 347
or
Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' Message 228

or do you want me to pick?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

This one is picked. See Message 131

Edited by RAZD, : updated

It was such monumental NEWS that your graph supposedly revealed, that it actually related to all those threads, and is spot on, and worth more discussion on those threads according to the title of those threads.

Then again, you could start a new TOPIC concerning your MISSING LINK for PRIMATES......

My topics dont get approved, but yours surely would. Just try it, dont be ashamed.

Looks like I have a week to work on it, but I don't expect it to take anywhere near that long.

Enjoy

That's Evolution is a racist doctrine, Message 328 for reference.

Close, but not quite right.

My answer on Message 328 was actually:

quote:

---

Where did humans come from Raz ?

The earliest Homo sapiens fossils found to date are from Ethiopia from about 200,000 years ago.

Technically "Humans" (genus Homo) evolved from Australopithicines, an extinct type of ape very similar to the first species of the Homo clade (ergaster and habilis).

quote:

---

Human Evolution

Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term "hominid" refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla.

The chart ... shows the evolutionary chronology inputed to these biological branches. Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to paranthropines, australopithecines and humans, went extinct about 4 million years ago.

---

---

What the cladogram shows in words is:

• Hominini is a clade that includes:
  
  • Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
    
  • archaic Homo sapiens,
    
  • paranthropines,
    
  • australopithecines,
    
  • Ardipithecus
    
  • and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
    ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominini clade, but not all Hominini are Homo sapiens sapiens.

• Homininae is a clade that includes:
  
  • Hominini:
    
    • Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
      
    • archaic Homo sapiens,
      
    • paranthropines,
      
    • australopithecines,
      
    • Ardipithecus
      
    • and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
    
    
  • Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
    
  • and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
    ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Homininae clade, but not all Homininae are Homo sapiens sapiens.

• Hominidae is a clade that includes:
  
  • Homininae:
    
    • Hominini:
      
      • Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
        
      • archaic Homo sapiens,
        
      • paranthropines,
        
      • australopithecines,
        
      • Ardipithecus
        
      • and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
      
      
    • Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
      
    • and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
    
    
  • Gorillinae (Gorilla)
    
  • and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
    ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominidae clade, but not all Hominidae are Homo sapiens sapiens.

• Hominoidae is a clade that includes
  
  • Hominidae:
    
    • Homininae:
      
      • Hominini
        
        • Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
          
        • archaic Homo sapiens,
          
        • paranthropines,
          
        • australopithecines,
          
        • Ardipithecus
          
        • and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
        
        
      • Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
        
      • and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
      
      
    • Gorillinae (Gorilla)
      
    • and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
    
    
  • Pongidae (Orangutan)
    
  • and it includes the orignal Hominoidae parent population that all other Hominoidae descended from.
    ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominoidae clade, but not all Hominoidae are Homo sapiens sapiens.

• Hominoidea is a clade that includes:
  
  • Hominoidae:
    
    • Hominidae:
      
      • Homininae:
        
        • Hominini
          
          • Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
            
          • archaic Homo sapiens,
            
          • paranthropines,
            
          • australopithecines,
            
          • Ardipithecus
            
          • and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
          
          
        • Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
          
        • and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
        
        
      • Gorillinae (Gorillas)
        
      • and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
      
      
    • Pongidae (Orangutans)
      
    • and it includes the orignal Hominoidae parent population that all other Hominoidae descended from.
    
    
  • Hylobatoidae (Gibbons)
    ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominidae clade, but not all Hominidae are Homo sapiens sapiens.

• Catarrhini is a clade that includes:
  
  • Hominoidea:
    
    • Hominoidae:
      
      • Hominidae:
        
        • Homininae:
          
          • Hominini
            
            • Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
              
            • archaic Homo sapiens,
              
            • paranthropines,
              
            • australopithecines,
              
            • Ardipithecus
              
            • and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
            
            
          • Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
            
          • and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
          
          
        • Gorillinae (Gorillas)
          
        • and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
        
        
      • Pongidae (Orangutans)
        
      • and it includes the orignal Hominoidae parent population that all other Hominoidae descended from.
      
      
    • Hylobatoidae (Gibbons)
      
    • and it includes the orignal Catarrhini parent population that all other Catarrhini descended from
    
    
  • Cercopithecoidae (Baboons)
    ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Catarrhini clade, but not all Catarrhini are Homo sapiens sapiens.

This pattern is known as a "nested hierarchy" where clades are nested within clades. This nested hierarchy is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution, so when we see confirmation of this prediction in the genetic data that makes these cladograms, then we see that the theory has passed another validation test.

Everything reproduces after it's own kind:

• all humans have human children,
  
• all Hominini have Hominini children,
  
• all Homininae have Homininae children,
  
• all Hominidae have Hominidae children,
  
• all Hominoidae have Hominoidae children,
  
• all Hominoidea have Hominoidea children,
  
• all Catarrhini have Catarrhini children, ...

It doesn't get more biblical than that, right? It always amuses me when creationists reject the evidence for their own claims ...

You win a prize for being willfully ignorant and under informed, belligerent and full of undeserved pride.

You can lead a creationist to the fountain of truth, but you can't make them drink.

and Hominini and Homininae and Hominidae and Hominoidae and Catarrhini ...

And your objective empirical evidence is ... ? Your explanation for the fossil and genetic data is ... ?

Bluster and bombast is not evidence.

Failure to understand is not the fault of reality, but of the person who denies it. How the classifications are spelled is immaterial. Mocking the names shows cognitive dissonance in action. Sad.

But Davidjay cannot say his question was not answered.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : kinds

Dont say chimp or ape, as we were talking about primates... what animal or species did primates evolve from.

Just make a flow chart back to one celled animals, at least try to make an attempt in figuring out your charts.

WE await your revelation or revelations in concise form. Thanks

It is what the objective empirical evidence shows. New information may cause slight revisions, but this represents the evidence as it is currently known.

See Message 131.

Cladograms are flow charts.

See Overview of cladistics by Wikipedia for more information on cladistics.

Failure, inability or refusal to understand the information already provided is not my problem.

Enjoy

But you evolutionists did come up with a novelle way of covering up your ignorance with names that differ by only one letter or so.

Its just nomenclature, grouping into man made - evolutionists name classifications.

IE..its called semantics, and more proof that you, evolutionists are expert linguists. You really should have gotten a B.A. rather than a B.Sc.

Dont your students ever tell you these things, but then again you wouldnt allow them to tell you these things or allow you to ask about such things.

But seeing you say we evolved from a common ancestor, we should be now evolving as you speak and write, and branching into new species as we speak..... we should have our people or homonoids evolving into new breeds or kinds which are substantially different than their ancestors.

This meaning at present we all are not exactly the same homonoids, or whatever linquistic term you used.... if not the same then we are by your definitions and so called logic, be DIFFERENT. Hence you are back to proving your theory is racist at heart and soul and by your very foundation.

Evolutionists just keep disproving their theories one after another....

We are. We evolve resistance to new diseases among other things. Those are, not surprisingly, beneficial mutations, and they get selected.

Not necessary, certainly not what the theory of evolution says. Adaptation to an ecology does not mean speciation is necessary for evolution to occur.

Only in the confused mind of someone who does not (whether by intent or ability) fully grasp what evolution actually says.

Enjoy