explaining common ancestry

The evidence now known shows that some notable hominid features developed before the savannah environment (upright walking, possibly hairthinness), and that when that environment did make inroads to the jungle that the early hominids stuck to islands of jungle as a prefered habitat.
http://www.agu.org/...ings/fm04/fm04-sessions/fm04_U14A.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/...briefs/20050829/chimpfossil.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2001/07/010712080455.htmfrom the last: "All older hominids have been found in forested environments."The evidence against the "aquatic" ape hypothesis is more direct and I consider it falsified by it. Not least of which is similar glands as our sweat glands with gorillas, while the aquatic ape posits it's evolution after leaving the pool.Such is the life of scientific theories.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis would have Homo characteristics, upright walking, hair thiness, speech, etc.What features the common ancestor has depends on what level of common ancestry you are talking about.The common ancestor to me and my siblings are my parentsThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents and my cousins are my grandparentsThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents and african bushmen likely lived more than 10 thousand years ago but less than 200 thousand years agoThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents, african bushmen and chimpanzees likely lived more than 6 million years agoThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents, african bushmen, chimpanzees and reptiles likely lived more than 200 million years agoThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents, african bushmen, chimpanzees, reptiles and bacteria likely lived ~3 billion years ago.It's just a matter of scale. How 'human' the features are depend on how close to 'human' the common ancestor was.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*12*2005 10:50 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

False. This is what the concept of "common ancestor" means - that it is an ancestor that is common to two (or more) lineages.That makes my parents common ancestors to me and my siblings.This is how simple the concept is.There is no ONE "common ancestor" because the context of "common" changes when you talk about different descendant lineages. Also false. They are in the same family, possibly the same genus but not the same species. See:
http://www.msu.edu/%7Enixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html
For proper terminology. Of course all divisions are created by humans for human communication, and all originally came about through the same process of dividing organisms up as occurred between me and my siblings.I didn't bother with the rest, as you started with a couple of blatant and patently false statements so anything based on them would be logically invalid.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

what does that have to do with the concept of common ancestor?

unless carico just goes to another thread, repeats his claims along with the assertion that evos fail to deal with his issues ...as appears to be the case.but I can also guess what his response will be.

This is not what evolution claims. This is a charicature of evolution or an example of extreme ignorance of what evolution claims.Evolution claims that small changes occur in populations, that these changes accumulate over time, that with enough time the changes are such that a different species develops, whether in a linear progression from a previous one or as a side branch to it or both (two species develop from a single common ancestor species). We are apes. It is that simple. There is no lie involved.Your problem is an idee fix that is wrong -- your preconcieved of what is involved is not correct, and is based on ignorance. This is profound ignorance in operation. Species don't interbreed to cause new species, this is NOT the mechanism by whichy evolution occurs. This is a false image based on ignorance. Not by a single mutation, but by an accumulation of mutations. This is what a speciation "event" entails, it is a process spread in time where a population of organisms undergoes slow change and reaches a point where they are no longer the same as the original species. Each individual is able to breed with its extant population, however that population is also undergoing the same changes in the gene pool cause by the accumulated mutations that are passed on to each successive generation. Absolutely false. Evolution is NOT a pin the gene on the cutout doll game. Genes change by mutation. They do not become the genes of other orgainism, but changes from the current ones. Thus you can have new genes that develop new species -- with no need for a single other species to be involved in any way. You need to lose this concept of chimera gene mixing, as it is just plain wrong and ignores what evolution teaches. What I see is that you have been corrected on this false and ignorant position several times but have yet to show any impression of learning the truth of the matter. As such I expect this response and any other to be a waste of time until you learn something of the truth.Try reading a book based on the real science of evolution, and when you get to the part where one species breeds with another to create a new species you can stop. Then you can quote that section here.Take your time. Until you learn the facts, this is a waste of your time.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

First off I know that logical people really understand evolution and the process by which speciation occurs. This even includes several creationists.But just for grins let's put your "logic" to a logic test:Your precept is: "If {species A} are apes, then they should be able to breed with {species B} apes"Now to the test:Current apes include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and humans.Chimps are apes.
They do not breed with orangutans.
They do not breed with Gorillas.
They do not breed with humans.
They fail the test.Gorillas are apes.
They do not breed with orangutans.
They do not breed with Chimps.
They do not breed with humans.
They fail the test.Orangutans are apes.
They do not breed with chimps.
They do not breed with Gorillas.
They do not breed with humans.
They fail the test.Humans are apes.
They do not breed with chimps.
They do not breed with Gorillas.
They do not breed with orangutans.
They fail the test.According to your "logic" chimps cannot be apes because they do not breed with other apes (orangutans, gorillas and humans).According to your "logic" gorillas cannot be apes because they do not breed with other apes (orangutans, chimps and humans).According to your "logic" orangutans cannot be apes because they do not breed with other apes (chimps, gorillas and humans).According to your "logic" humans cannot be apes because they do not breed with other apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans).According to your "logic" there are thus no apes at all.All these species are apes.Therefore your logic is invalid. You are wrong. Your precept is invalid. Your conclusion is false. You are wrong.It is more than you are just a little wrong here - you cannot possibly be right. Think about that for a minute: you cannot possibly be right. You cannot be right because the result of your "logic" is an unavoidable contradiction: there are apes and there are no apes.It doesn't matter whether you include humans in the mix or not, you are wrong.Denial won't make any difference either. You are wrong. Your logic is false. Your precept is invalid. You are wrong.Let me make this clear: if there is one thing you take away from here it needs to be that ... you ... are ... wrong.One final question: do you understand that you are wrong?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Bingo. In a nutshell. Change happens. Each individual is an accumulation of changes - you are not identical to any of your ancestors - and when those changes have accumulated to a point where there is no breeding between subpopulations of a species then speciation is occurring, they are diverging into two distinct populations that do not interbreed. As time passes they will accumulate different changes and become distinct from each other. This whole argument of yours is just pure incredulity coupled with a lack of even an attempt to visualize how this could be: the failing is at your end of the stick. That specieation has never been observed is another false assertion on your part. It has been observed many times, and you have been given several examples of same occurring under observation.Nor does it need to be directly observed to know that it has happened. Take the foraminifera for example: we have an almost complete fossil history of these little creatures from over 65,000 years ago to the present, and their shells have undergone continuous change in that time - hundreds of speciation events are observed in these changes, with almost complete lineages.From A Classic Tale of Transition (click)
And as a side note, even AiG accepts that speciation events occur and have been observed. From Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (click)
(bold mine for emPHAsis. Again you are making false statements. Evolution claims that change happens.When a change is beneficial it gets selected by increased survival or reproductive ability, when a change is deleterious it gets de-selected by decreased survival or reproductive ability, when a change is neutral there is no selection pressure, but the change still propogates through the population in the offspring.Again, you are wrong, your argument is based on false premises and your conclusions are false.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You are contradicted by your own premises. You are wrong.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

They aren't. Again, you are just plain wrong. There have been substantial changes in all animals, just not that noticeable on the surface due to the SHORT time span of recorded history. But there certainly have been more changes in dogs and cats than in most other species (due to active breeding by humans as an additional selection process). Look up breeds and see when some were established -- these are new varieties.We now are immune to many disease strains that didn't even exist at the turn of the century. Unfortunately the bugs have also evolved so we still get sick, but it is from a changed form of the bugs (if not a different species). If you doubt this then use last years drugs.You can take a well documented person from 200 years ago, recover DNA from them and compare it to the whole population alive today and you will not find a single person on earth that matches that benchmark.You don't have to have great changes over time if a species is well adapted to their environment, and humans are about as adapted as you can get (for a mammal) -- they cover the globe, living in a wide variety of environments that other animals are not able to bridge.I suggest you stick to the great debate forum with Nuggin until you reach a stopping point there. That way you won't keep making the same mistakes on other threads.http://EvC Forum: Nuggin & Carico - Evolution ExplainedThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12*24*2005 05:42 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.