Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 306 of 341 (693815)
03-20-2013 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Coyote
03-19-2013 8:40 PM


Re: Straying from the facts
There are not 22 species between Chad and modern humans.
There ARE acording the paleontologists who authored the LATEST book enumerating the now acceptable 22 extinct HUMANS that went before us.
Yoru pet theory that this thread shows the bible is wrong and evolution destroys its content ends with science supporting the genealogy of Genesis.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2013 8:40 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Coragyps, posted 03-20-2013 10:06 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 308 of 341 (693818)
03-20-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Just being real
03-20-2013 12:07 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 03-20-2013 12:07 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 9:42 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 309 of 341 (693819)
03-20-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by GrimSqueaker
03-20-2013 9:09 AM


...good question...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-20-2013 9:09 AM GrimSqueaker has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 310 of 341 (693820)
03-20-2013 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by NoNukes
03-20-2013 2:31 AM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
Forever:
How do you know there was no adam?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 2:31 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 9:47 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 312 of 341 (693822)
03-20-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by onifre
03-20-2013 12:43 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by onifre, posted 03-20-2013 12:43 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 315 of 341 (693826)
03-20-2013 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Admin
03-20-2013 9:29 AM


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.
There is no PROOF here.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 9:29 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 10:06 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 316 of 341 (693827)
03-20-2013 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Admin
03-20-2013 9:42 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
is off-topic.
Again, I've given you a thread for your favorite topic, please take your discussion of this topic there: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread
OK.
I will not post here, and consider myself censored by you on this subject concerning whether man ascended through 22 links to other species and how that opposes Genesis.
But that is NOT my singular one favorite topic.
I contend also that:
.... the seven "days" refer to the seven Geological Eras.
... Pangea was the moment when "all the waters were collected into one place."
.... that "the first man and women" were what was called Adam, a species.
...the Big Bang was "In the beginning."
...that Noah coincided with the massive extinction of Neanderthal.
... that Noah's Ark refers to the skull of Modern man carrying all visions of the world Out-of-Africa into this Age.
etc etc ect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 9:42 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 10:14 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 322 of 341 (694901)
03-30-2013 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Admin
03-20-2013 10:14 AM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
?
I responded in threads 193 and 277 directly to the thread opening question.
"
08-17-2010 2:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found?
If not, doesn't that call into question the existence of common ancestors?"
Those who have responded to the content of my posts open up questions that I then answered.
What is it specificlly that you claim is not a permissable response to this:
08-17-2010 2:42 PM
-- OPENING THREAD: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a common ancestor to both humans and apes, has it been found?
If not, doesn't that call into question the existence of common ancestors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 03-20-2013 10:14 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Admin, posted 03-30-2013 10:58 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 323 of 341 (694902)
03-30-2013 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by NoNukes
03-20-2013 9:47 AM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
KOFH:
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.
Nonukes
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 there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?
4. Grrr!
How can I answer you when Percy won't let me??????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 9:47 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 9:43 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024