Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
RE--Common decent has not only been proven, and you can enjoy the history at any good museum, it is the only explanation for the diversity found in nature that has evidence to support it. It is the premise for all of biology, throughout the entire world, not just a single source. --
Hmmm, that's odd. And this comment comes immediately after the "topic reminder" post. Yet no one is complaining that you are off topic. Okay, so I'll bite... how exactly would a walk through a museum "prove" common decent exactly? Is it cuz "This old bone on this guy kinda looks like that old bone on that guy... and so that means they're distant cusins?" Or are you telling me that someone finally put out a finely graduated chain of fossils (with no large leaps) from one MAJOR kind to another? Because that's all that would ever "prove" it from the fossil record.
RE--There is no debate, common decent is the only thing taught is biology throughout the world. --
Okay so now we've established that you don't get out much, but contrary to your comment, thousands of biology classes around the world don't teach common decent. But what was the point of making me go there? We're off topic. In this thread we are looking for evidence linking apes to man. And despite all your squiming, if you don't have something other than a similarity argument... you got notta.
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
First I'll address this:
We're off topic.
No I am not. The OP asks if there is a common ancestor between humans and apes and has it been found. The answer is yes there are many, end of story.
Which leads us then to people like yourself asking for the "proof". Well, it's in science textbooks, it's in science classes, it's in museums.
What else is there to address in this topic? That YOU don't feel the evidence sways YOU? Again, who cares? There is evidence of decent, so much so that it's the only scientific consensus on the matter. What else is there to address? That YOU don't want accept it? Who cares.
Or are you telling me that someone finally put out a finely graduated chain of fossils (with no large leaps) from one MAJOR kind to another? Because that's all that would ever "prove" it from the fossil record.
Yes, that's what I'm saying has been done. I was just there at the Museum of Natural History here in New York. The people working in the many fields of science have done their work to showcase the many transitional fossils.
Let me guess, YOU don't feel it shows decent, right?
Here's a short video from the Smithsonian Musuem of Natural History on human origins:
Let me guess, YOU don't feel it shows decent, right?
So what's the point of showing you anything at all if a scientist working in the Smithsonian, in the department directly related to human origins, is explaining to you the evolution and showing you transitional fossils and you are not willing to accept it?
Who then would you recognize as an authority in human origins? Who's explanation would you accept? The answer is no ones. You're only goal here is to knock down ANY evidence shown to you and ignore experts like the one in the video.
And despite all your squiming, if you don't have something other than a similarity argument... you got notta.
The funny thing is, transitional fossils obviously share a similarity, otherwise what's the point?
If by notta you mean we got all of biology on one side of the argument -vs- a couple of crazies on the internet complaining, then yeah we got notta.
What does it mean to you to be Adam? Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man', and of course there was a first man. Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
1) Opinions are still divided: 2) Once again, you are taking liberties with the data. 3) paleoanthropologists place Chad in a different genus entirely
1) No kidding, DicK Tracy? So when I state the opinions that support my view, why discard them and insist they MUST be the wrong ones??
2) LOL That IS my point... taking the liberty to show the correspondence between what science says and Genesis.
Of course I am "taking the liberty" to show the correspondence between the 22 species enumerated in the latest book of the subject of the ascent of man Out-of-Africa WITH the 22 links to Noah's sons as found in the genealogy of Genesis.
3) Scientists place more than half the 22 now extinct species in other genus also, but they insist these are most probably the line of our evolution. My CHART has consistently shown the names of these different genus for each of the SUSPECTED members in our ascent, and YOU know that.
My observationis that you are unwilling to acceot the truth in what i say and even distrort the facts.
You are correct, that the fused chromosome occurred after the human-chimpanzee split. However, Wiki seems to place the Chad specimen 1 to 6 million years earlier...
WRONG...
The fused chromosomes daate back to EXACTLY THE SAME 6 million year old Chad and DOVE TAIL with my assumption that this was "Adam:"
"The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera--Sahelanthropus , Orrorin , and Ardipithecus . Sahelanthropus was the earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago. Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago, while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago."
I might be wrong on this but isn't looking for a "first" in a successive line of constant change and development seem a bit silly? There are a tribe of very very very monkey like humans in our lineage (and very very human like monkeys in a chimps lineage slightly before that)
Just an observation - quite possibly not correct but I kinda wanna sub this topic So I figured I'd throw my 2 cent in
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
In this thread we are looking for evidence linking apes to man.
TRUE.
But why? How is this related to EcV???
Why would I come here and not to a science forum that has zero interest in theology and this Evolution Verses Creationism????
What Percy is trying to avoid is the meaning of this discussion and hoiw it relates to Genesis.
The list that scientists provide, which compares to the genealogy in Genesis, in the end shows that whether these arguments are strong for the Science or strong for Creationism, Genesis is unaffected either way.
A reader can accept Genesis as correct if he favors the Science, or remain as doubtful of evolution as do you, and still accept Genesis.
I might be wrong on this but isn't looking for a "first" in a successive line of constant change and development seem a bit silly? There are a tribe of very very very monkey like humans in our lineage (and very very human like monkeys in a chimps lineage slightly before that)
As I pointed out, Genetic has recently discovered that man resulted from a Mutation that fused together two Ape chromosomes forever after occurring about 6-7 million years ago.
That first "Adam" started a line of Ascent that has lead to Modern homo sapiens.
That moment, when by an Act-of-God, we creatures with only 23 chromosome branched off from all other species.
Nuke: What does it mean to you to be Adam? Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man', and of course there was a first man. Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?
The euphemism of "Adam" has been used in the News, in the titled research of scientists, and generally by the public to mean the first man to appear in the chain of evolution through 22 ngradually more modern looking hominins.
This "Adam" clearly fits the bill as the first "man" when the genetics dates the fusing of the two fused chromosomes back 6-7 million years ago, when Sahelanthropus tchadensis appeared in the fossil record.
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
Just being real writes:
RE--Common decent has not only been proven, and you can enjoy the history at any good museum, it is the only explanation for the diversity found in nature that has evidence to support it. It is the premise for all of biology, throughout the entire world, not just a single source. -- Hmmm, that's odd. And this comment comes immediately after the "topic reminder" post. Yet no one is complaining that you are off topic.
Onifre has already addressed this, but just for clarity I'll also answer.
First, about topic, common descent as a concept underlies conclusions of common ancestry based upon evidence. I'm not sure why there's any question here.
Second, had Onifre been off-topic and you were wondering why no moderator had yet stepped in, moderators are not omnipresent and they can't read everything anyway. That's why there's a thread for reporting violations of the Forum Guidelines: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
We're off topic.
What else is there to address in this topic?
EXACTLY.
What is left to discuss on Evoluion Vs Creationism is whether this discussion has ANY bearing on the SUBJECT which this Site was created to discuss.
What is left is to either conclude that Genesis is wrong in the face of the Scientific Evidence presented here or whether Genesis is NOT wrong.
But we need also discuss whether the censorc-ship will NEVER allow the Scientific Evidence to SUPPORT Genesis or whether the site is a fair place for such discussions as E vs C.
But second, moderation is only requesting that you make one change to the way you're participating: please stay on topic. If we didn't feel it important to dedicate each thread to a single topic (usually outlined in the first message) then we could just have one forum and one big thread, but we don't do that for obvious reasons. Your favorite topic does not happen to be the topic of this thread, or of almost all other threads. So please stop introducing your favorite topic into threads where it is off-topic.
This "Adam" clearly fits the bill as the first "man" when the genetics dates the fusing of the two fused chromosomes back 6-7 million years ago, when Sahelanthropus tchadensis appeared in the fossil record.
1. Genetics dates the fusion to be more recent than this period. estimates are between 0.7 and 3 Mya.
2.Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a man.
3. My question clearly asked about anything foreveryoung needed for Adam other than being first. Thanks for playing though.
NoNukes writes:
Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?
4. Grrr!
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
Justbeingreal writes: RE--Common decent has not only been proven,
Percy: Onifre has already addressed this, but just for clarity I'll also answer.
As a moderator involved in this discussion, you seem to over step the bounds of both Science, here, above (in that science "proves nothing"), AND over step fairness-in-general, by adding your weight and authority to this discussion.
TO WIT:Justbeingreal is absolutely correct. You did NOT prove it to him!
Justbeingreal is absolutely correct that Science did NOT "prove," that the science CONTENTION for Common Descent is absolute and final.
Science merely presents the fossils that back up that assumption (of a theory that they "look" like a progressive development).
That is an assumption that assumes that such development came through gradual changes from the earlier fossils into what was the next fossil.
What Science DOES do is make a "case for the jury" which in this "case", Common Ascent, is STILL out,... de facto the paleontologists do not even agree on the fossils which ought be included and those that ought not.
The LATEST profession cponclusion is that ONLY 22 fossils of what are now extinct humans in their opinion exists. And, that these 22 pieces and bits of those "humans" can be used to conclude a common descent, for those willing to accept the idea.
™ Version 4.2
(1)