explaining common ancestry

yes. they are quite capable of sign language. there was a chimpanzee named oliver in the 1970's, popularized as a hybrid between chimps and humans, that walked on two legs. ask the ones that use sign language. chimps regularly use tools in the wild. does the average human? again, ask the chimps that use sign language. uh, no. let's be clear about this one: cats have four feet, chimps have two. chimps walk on two legs, and two ARMS. they're built different, skeletally. how often do you see a cat take the weight off its front limbs to grasp something with its arms? they'll paw, maybe, but they're not stable. chimps can and do stand on their legs.and they have thumbs.

---

אָרַח

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

Please focus on the topic and not the person.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Actually, the first primate evolved from something even further removed. A common ancestor. No, the first primate was not miraculously created. Like any other critter, it was the result of random mutations filtered through natural selection. Again, several errors. First, man is a primate so some of the primates are capable of all of the things you describe. Second, no evolutionist says the primates or any other critter came from a miraculous source.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please follow the Forum Guidelines. Showing Carico how and where he is wrong is sufficient.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Carico,I think a lot of the problem is that you think evolutionary theory says many things it doesn't actually say. One of the key facets of evolutionary theory is that in most cases species change is very gradual. Speciation is not like the border between countries with hard and fast boundaries, where one second you're in Belgium and the next your in France.Species change is more like the boundaries between inland and shore. Just as traveling toward the shore will see gradual reductions in dense forests, increases in sandy soil and changes in both flora and fauna, species change over time is also gradual. There was never a first primate, nor was there ever a first human. Rather, gradual change over time caused a species population to take on more and more of the qualities associated with primates, and later, gradual change over time caused an ape species population to take on more and more of the qualities associated with humans.Some of things that you're arguing against, such as that new animal species can be created suddenly, or that evolution occurs through the intermingling of existing species, appear just as ridiculous to evolutionists as they do to you, because evolutionary theory doesn't, for the most part, include these possibilities. While you *can* breed horses with zebras and tigers with lions, this is only because these species are already very closely related, and it has very little to do with the mainstream evolutionary process of gradual change over time through mutation and natural selection. (I was careful to deal with animal species because I didn't want to confuse the issue with plant hybridization and polyploidy.)--Percy

Not careful enough mein freund, there are a number of animal species whose origins are posited to be rooted in hybridisation and ploidy. Members of the family Pipidae, especially many species of , being a prime example.TTFN,WK

It does appear the fossil evidences support both Adam and Eve is the common ancestor going back to Africa. I'm in agreement with Percy that the evolution theory says there is no evidence of a first human "meaning" an (Adam an Eve). The creationists theory disagrees with what the evolutionary theory actually says based on scientific evidences. The scientific evidence of Mitochondrial Eve or Chromosomal Adam goes contrary to the evolution theorists beliefs.The Iraq dispersion of the human race occurring after the flood, is in agreement with the African origin of the human race (Adam and Eve).-----------------------------------------------------------------Locating "Adam" and "Eve"The rate at which polymorphisms develop though generations is known. Scientists can determine the number of polymorphisms in a certain population, as well as how many polymorphisms exist between different populations. In 1987, Mark Stoneking and Allan Wilson at the University of California, Berkeley, announced they had tracked down mitochondrial "Eve". By examining polymorphisms contained in the mitochondria, they were able to construct a global family tree. At its top branch was a woman who lived in Africa many years ago.The next place to start looking for patterns of heredity was on the Y chromosome. Y chromosomal "Adam," the ancestor of all men, was determined in 1997. Two different research groups, led by Peter Underhill at Stanford University and Mike Hammer at the University of Arizona, each announced that Y chromosomal "Adam" had also lived in Africa many years ago. This is the most recent common male ancestor to all men in the world.http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGdna.htm

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.

Ned, Theological evidences about the unclean and clean is kind of moving off topic. It would be interesting how the Jewish diet by not consuming unclean creatures thats known scientifically to affect mutations rates compare with the African Adam chromosomal and Eve's michondrial evidences.If the mutations rates are higher because of Michondrial DNA not shared thus not self corrected through natual selection. Its not satisfying theologically the Jewish 10 generation rule for mutated genetic information being purged out of a protected genetic gene pool.I agree that accelerated mutations would scientifically suggests just the opposite of what the evolutionist theorist believe.

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?

Ned, At the end of the thread was a map giving the evolutionists belief in years. If accelerated mutations occurring in respect to michondrial Eve and not self correcting how does that support evolutionists theorists beliefs?The Jews were a protected gene pool, the 10 generation rule applied, but only applies in respect to natural selection.Heres another link of science supporting the theological in respect to purging genetic mutations out of a protected gene pool. Its a short article about the science of the breeding of Samoyeds.RbE - removed exceedingly long and nonworking link... please try again - The QueenThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-13-2005 09:22 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-13-2005 08:25 PM

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?

Ned, It does appear that creationists believe in accelerated mutations brings Michondrial Eve to around 6,500 years. It all goes back to the theological evidence of the Jew their kosher diet.The kosher diet would affect Michondrial Eve mutation rates but not affect purging mutations out of Michondrial Eve. Do you agree?Thank you for showing the creationists too agree that the mutations for Michondrial Eve were accelerated.P.S. I agree other factors like male sperm michondrial at times slip through but its the totality of the evidence that supports Eve was our common ancestor.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-13-2005 10:05 PM

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.