Is Ape/Human Common Ancestory Enough?

This is a question for creationists who believe in the special creation of species. Does the issue of creation vs evolution come down to the origins of man? That is, are the issues of the possible evolution of dogs, cats, fish, and other organisms a secondary issue that all relates back to the possible evolution of man?What I am getting at is that if common ancestory is established through genetics and paleoarchaeology, doesn't the question of the evolution of whales and birds seem like a moot point? I am not saying that ape and human common ancestory is to be accepted as fact, as far as this thread is concerned, but I am curious if human/ape common ancestory has the ability to falsify the creationist position.And also, what evidence would you (ie, creationist) accept for common ancestory between apes and humans? Barring time travel, what type of discoveries need to be made to reduce the tentativity of common ancestory in your view?I am hoping that this thread be limited to discussing the creationist position as a testable hypothesis, and the impact of future discoveries as it applies to both theories, evolution and creationism. In this way, both sides of the debate can discuss how to interpret data, and how predictions born out of each theory can help us determine the weight of future discoveries. This is a chance for creationists to show how they correctly interpret data, and how they claim actual science should be conducted. Hopefully, by keeping the focus on human/ape common ancestory it may be easier to come up with precise descriptions of the type of evidence each side expects to find within the natural world. The most important predictions will be those that will support one side while falsifying the other. For example, if we were investigating a crime scene and hypothesize that John Doe committed the crime, then we would predict that John Doe's fingerprints or DNA should be on the murder weapon. If someone elses fingerprints or DNA is on the murder weapon (other than the victim), then the hypothesis is falsified (example used for analogy, not for further argument).For those who didn't feel like reading through the main text:
(these questions are aimed at creationists, but feel free to respond regardless of viewpoint)1. Is human/ape common ancestory enough to support evolution and falsify special creation?2. What type of evidence would satisfy the theory of human/ape common ancestory?3. What should we see in future discoveries?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think this is a great question and will be interested to see what responses you get.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1. Is human/ape common ancestory enough to support evolution and falsify special creation?Yes.2. What type of evidence would satisfy the theory of human/ape common ancestory?An undisputed missing link. So far all thats been found have beeen frauds, bone fragments, apes & homosapiens.3. What should we see in future discoveries?The missing link should of never been a mystery if evolution really happened. There would have no doubt have found it by now. The fossil evidence does not compel belief in the existence of ape men, nor that man is the product of evolution. Fossils of so called hominids are often just fragments of bones which combined with a dose of imagination are transformed into apemen.

You need to rethink this. By definition, you can't find a missing link, because once you find it, it's not missing any more.If you're going to expect the missing link, why don't you think for a minute about what qualities that link would have if it were found? Then look at the links we do know about and see if any of them have those qualities.But asking for things that, by definition, can't exist isn't sensical - it's just one more bullshit creationist dodge.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-06-2004 02:16 AM

impossible for three reasons:
1. creationists will dispute anything not fitting their worldview. (speaking of which, is archaeopteryx a bird, a dinosaur, or just a coincidence that happens to have roughly half the features of both? see what i mean?)2. once we find it, it's no longer missing.3. there's no missing link. we know the entire path of hominid evolution, including the dead end offshoots. we have hominids that are basically apes with different hips and legs, up to the modern human. it's really all there.

Isn't this a bit of a strong statement?The main structure of the bush is marked out pretty well now with the fossils we do have. But "entire" suggests that there aren't any holes in it. I think there is more to be found.

well, there's always more to be found. holes and missing links are not HUGE ones, just minute details missing from a pretty solid understanding of our ancestry.

What solid understanding have you found exactly?. From my research i have yet to find any evidence. I wrote about the fossils in another thread yet no one really refuted me except when i said some evolutionists agree with this. But anyway, please refute away.

quote:

---

CHIMPANZEES - There is no connection of chimpazees and humans. The similar DNA?. The amount of information even between 3-4%. This is an impossible barrier for randon changes across. A high similar degree of DNA sequences does not mean or prove anything.

​

AUSTRALOPITHECUS - Lucys bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewomen, with a apelike face, head, but women like body, hands and feet. However the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones. Several other specimens of 'Afarensis' do have the long curved fingers & toes of tree-dwellers as well as the restricted wrist anotomy of knuckle- walking chimpanzees & gorillas. Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionist Matt Cartmill (Duke university), David Pilbeam (Harvard university) & the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard university): "The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of perculiarly specialized apes..."

​

HOMOHABILIS - The most well known is called KNMER. Comprising a fossil skull and leg bones found by Richard Leakey in Kenya. Spoors CAT scans of the inner ear of a homo habilis skull known as Stw 53 show that it walkedmore like a baboon than a human. Today most researchers including Spoor, regard homo habilis as a "wastebin of various species, including bits andpieces from Australopithecues and homo erectus, and not as a valid category. In other words it never existed as such, and so cannot be used to support supposed link between australopithecine apes and true man.

​

HOMO ERECTUS - Excavations of many of these fossils show evidence of the use of tools, control of fire, burying the dead, and using red ochre as decoration. Spoors CAT scans of the inner ear architecture show that their posture was just like ours. Their brain size was also within human range. Research on Flores has shown evidence of seafaring skill Even evolutionists concede that they should be put in the same species as Homo-sapien.

​

HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS - This group lived in Europe & the Mediterranean lands. The first recontructed fossil suffered from diseases such as rickets, vitamin d deficiency which can result in the bowing of ther skeleton. Despite many attempts made on the basis of mitochondrial DNA fragments in one set of Neandertal bones to try to assign them to a different specie, even some evolutionist authorities claim that they should be regarded as homo-sapiens.

---

so, if lucy was an ape, why did her hips look almost human? she walked upright. and this invalidates anything how exactly? they're debating where exactly the classify her, whether it's under apes or early humans. this does not indicate that such a progression never happened. and, like i said, if she was an ape, how come her hips, feet, and legs are similar to humans? and by "similar" i mean "close to" not "the same" the ironic thing is that there is no connection between chimpanzees and modern humans -- directly. several million years ago, we shared a common ancestor. however, your figures are wrong. chimpanzees and humans share roughly 98% the same dna. neanderthals were about 3-4%, but i've even seen creationists claim that as WELL within the boundaries of "microevolution" since neanderthal absolutely have to be human.in other words, chimpanzees are more human than neanderthals, according to genetics. first off, that's a collection number. knm-er is apparently assigned to EARLY species in the homo genus. after a quick google search, the biggest number i see without any real look is 3800 something. do you realize that means we have FOUR THOUSAND SPECIMENS of the genus homo? you're refering to 1470, and the fact that it was determined to be a slightly different species, h. rudolensis. so. uh. it was anotjer species, aside from all of the h. habilis specimens we have. the inner ear does not show posture. the only indication might be the cochlea with the three balance loops, but that doesn't fossilize.but it's an unimportant point. the name homo erectus literally means "stands like us"but, let's compare skulls, just for fun: h. erectus on the left, h. sapiens on the right: compare the brain size with the jaw size and shape (protruding chin). you creationists can detect design, but not that thing look different? funny. like who, exactly? and, as i said before, if that 4% difference is human... so's the chimp, at 2%.here a cromagnon (h. sapiens) of the left, neanderthal (h. neanderthalensis) on the right. notice the relationship between the facial size and the brain size? the placement of the cheekbones? the shape of the head? that's one heck of a case of rickets! especially for, you know, all of them to look like that. you want a mountain of evidence, here: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.htmland that site JUST has the skulls.editted to add:it should also be mentioned that there are more that 3 species of hominids listed (not counting the chimp who's not a hominid at all). we have 7 species in the genus homo alone, not to mention other hominid genera.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-07-2004 01:18 AMThis message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-07-2004 01:19 AM

the ironic thing is that there is no connection between chimpanzees and modern humans -- directly. several million years ago, we shared a common ancestor. however, your figures are wrong. chimpanzees and humans share roughly 98% the same dna. neanderthals were about 3-4%, but i've even seen creationists claim that as WELL within the boundaries of "microevolution" since neanderthal absolutely have to be human.

​

in other words, chimpanzees are more human than neanderthals, according to genetics.
more specifically...we share 98% of chimpanzee dna. 1.6% of that is known to be junk... filler dna that is not responsible for any of the differences between us and them. so .4% difference. there are 20,000 species of a small fish (cichlids... common aquarium fishes) that live in lake victoria. they differ in .4% from each other. so, reasonably, we should be listed as co-genus creatures with chimpanzees. captive chimps have been shown to master language, art, and many other 'human' specialties. what really makes us so different? probably drug use and general malevolence.

phsyiology and anatomy. refer to the diagram above. chimps are built differently.

Really? Do you have any good links or sources for this? I would love to read up on that.

No, it is not enough to support evolution; yes, it is enough to falsify special creation.Trouble is, that is largely irrelevant: Evolution has already been supported beyond reasonable doubt, and biblical creation falsified beyong reasonable doubt. It's the unreasonable doubts that linger on.

This isn't so. Posture can be deduced from the configuration of the inner ear, and the configuration can be deduced from fossils. I can dig out a link to some papers on it if you like?