explaining common ancestry

I suppose if you post enough you might manage to get a small fact right.So far you are establishing a record for mouthing off and knowing nothing about the topics you tackle.In another post you mention "magnetic" with respect to gravity. It is astonishing (but we've been shown this over and over from your ilk) that someone so utterly ignorant thinks he can make the kind of pronouncements you do.In your post 14 here you:1) Ask the same stupid question about beginnings yet again and have yet to demonstrate that you have attempted to read any of the answers given you. (Though they are not all easy to read I will admit but you aren't reading them anyway.)2)You know jack squat about the hominid (and predicessor) fossil record and you will learn litte more by watching TV. You also know zero about how inferences are made from limited material.3) Carbon dating has been shown to be very accurate for a large number of different circumstances and over a time frame of up to 50,000 years. Your knowledge of how we know that is also zero. If you want to ague with dating then head over to the dates and dating threads.4) They do NOT neglect to look in Iraq. The middle east has been the source of a number of human, near human and pre human fossils. In fact, asia was where we thought humans orginated from at one time until this was changed on the basis of evidence (a concept you seem to have, at best, a tenuous grasp of). The evidence that has been found to date (and it is pretty compelling now) is that we evolved in africa. If you would care to list off the evidence (after all you spent 30 years learning about this sort of thing) and show what you think if wrong with it and why Iraq is a better place to look for the earliest human and pre-human forms then please do so. We would be excited to see it.You manage to commit 3 utterly rediculous errors of fact in the one post not to mention the logical clinker you start off with. Too bad there isn't a good record kept of this sort of thing. You might be on top of the heap as far as errors per post goes with your 96 posts so far.Keep up the good work. Just stay on topic while you do so.

Have you not yet grasped that NO ONE has said that animals and humans ever interbred?In addtion, the above paragraph seems to be in contradiction to this paragraph: Which is, like most of what you post, in contradiction with the facts.Every single human born is a mutant! All of us, all 6 billion; you, me and he. We have each of us from a handful to a hundred mutations. So yes, we are claiming that each of those primates produced a mutant.There are 6 billion human mutants on this planet now with something like 100 + billion mutations in them. Some aren't so good, almost all we don't notice and a few are pretty good. The evolutionary model DOES NOT say that an offspring will necessarily be so different from it's parents that it would be a new species. In fact, the explanation stresses the contrary. I could have sworn you said you knew a lot about evolution. Is it possible that you are mistaken or even misleading when you say that?There are, however, rare cases where a species does arise in one generation. So it has not only happened in recorded history it has happened in the last century. Once again you have your facts wrong. (Won't be the last time I'm sure. )

Show us where an "evolutionist" thinks that humans and primates are the same species. This is something you (or a dishonest or stupid (or both) source you have used) has made up. It is false. Wrong. Bad, bad, naughty to repeat. Not Christian to lie. So stop it.I don't think you have managed a single post (almost not even a single paragraph) that doesn't have at least one huge clanger of an error. We really should be keeping count. I'm almost afraid that you might actualy read one of these posts and get something right and spoil the fun. (Nah, never. )

Did you or did you not say you had studied evolution for 30 years?I may misremember and you didn't say such a thing; if you did you badly misunderstand the concept of studying something or you are a liar. This is made clear by your posts.Care to tell me which it is? Anyone with 10 hours of actual study of the evolutionary explanation would not even ask this question.You have had it answered a couple of dozen times. It appears that you're not going to get it.

This is called "moving the goalposts". We are not, as yet discussing the first primate. We are discussing the evolution of humans from earlier primates. (btw, since I think you won't know humans are, in fact, primates). When we have finished with that topic then we move onto other things. This is how one discusses complex issues in an organized fashion. What many Christians believe (even the majority) is that you blaspheme . You suggest that you can tell God how He will choose to form the life on this planet. You claim to understand God's plan when He has left clear evidence as to how he performed his miricles and gave humans the power to reason to read His evidence. The God you believe in is a little god; a parlour magician not the grand architect of the universe that other believe in. Another paragraph loaded with falsehoods. You have already been told mutations DO happen "over and over" again.What someone who understands a smidggen about the evolutionary explanation knows is that the passing along is NOT by accident at all.You have also been told several times that NO ONE SAID ANIMALS AND HUMANS CAN INTERBREED OR EVER COULD. You seem to be able to type grammatically correct English. You seem to have trouble reading it.Is there anyway we can help you? Use words of less than 3 syllables?

Why does your source not give the dates of the mitochondrial eve and y adam?How does the evidence for these go "contrary to the evolution theorists beliefs"? It doesn't you know.

Your source discussed evidence for a mitochonrial eve and y adam but they left out the dates obtained. Why? What are the dates? You have a reference for this "known scientifically"?The rest appears to be gibberish. Perhaps you can explain more slowly. This hasn't explained anything either. Could you expand on this? Like what it is the theorists believe, why you think they do and what the opposite is?

I presume you mean the Parsons paper. This, it seems, only applies to a part of the mitochondial DNA (about 7 %) not the rest. The mEve dating has been done with the rest of it. The date is near 200,000 years.see : Mitochondrial EveThe end of you site seems to also suggest that Eve didn't exist at all.What do you have support for?

I have no reason to agree as you have offered no support for this idea.This however, has gotten way, way off topic.I have started a new thread to cover it. When it is approved you can pick this up there. Not here.