I'm not sure if this is the correct section to post this in, so forgive me, however I believe that people might find this interesting - please excuse any poor grammar or bad writing, it was typed up as a response to an atheist's claim on a YouTube comment, and so it isn't well written or formatted for forum/blog/discussion posts, but I hope that at least a few of you glean some interesting information from this post:
Does the evidence supporting the idea of common ancestry really prove evolution to be true?
All evidence related to the subject of common ancestry refutes evolution, 85% of the population's blood (types that are RH+) contains a protein similar to that of a Rhesus Macaque, our DNA is FAR CLOSER related to the gorilla than the ape [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lla-shows-far-similar-scientists-thought.html ] and the Neanderthal is totally unrelated to either.
Evidence + records (call them myths, religions, legends, but they were just as real to the writers on EVERY CONTINENT back then as our modern records are today) show that, and this is 100% consistent with all DNA and archaeological evidence (but dismissed on grounds of "reason" and "rationale" which isn't science, but scientism, the religion based on scientific knowledge), that Neanderthal was the original man, and a species descended from the sky (in the hebrew records, angels, in the sumerian/chinese/babylonian/mayan/egyptian etc etc records, "gods", and in other records, "aliens") and cross-bred with man, and passed on the knowledge of how to genetically engineer living creatures as scientists are learning to do today, and cro magnon was a slave race created by crossing small reptiles and rodents with man to create pygmies, the tarsier, etc, small primate species, which were then cross-bred with man again, along with the descendants of the ones who fell from the sky, to create the various forms of ape, monkey, chimp, etc etc etc, and then bred with man once more to create various forms of slave, ones who were good at construction, ones who were good at agriculture, ones who had enhanced brains (their skulls have a far larger cranial capacity than ours, they have a totally different structure regarding the parietal plates, and the eye sockets are often are larger, and the DNA doesn't test as completely human - many of them have a similar shape to what we might describe as "greys" or aliens), among these were the creatures we call cro magnon, denisovan and others.
Science and all of the ancient records agree that there was a time where a small number, 6-8, of these humanoids were forced to interbreed and that the entire human population that exists today (modern man, homosapiens) is the resulting hybrid species of neanderthal and cro magnon.
Now, if there were to be a pure neanderthal man whose blood type was A- and a hybrid woman whose blood genotype was OB- (phenotype either B- or O-), it would be perfectly feasible for them to produce three sons of varying purity, with the blood types A-, B- and O- (for various reasons related to haematology that I won't explain here, the males would have to be the RH- and the females RH+) and if they were to take cro magnon wives, and it is accepted that many cro magnon were O+ (while neanderthals are accepted to have been mainly A-, B- and AB-) then the resulting offspring would most likely resemble modern homosapiens, and would likely populate the Earth with the same demographics of blood types that we observe today, all known wars, diseases and every other known historical factor taken into consideration. Welcome to Noah's ark - interestingly, of you assume Shem was A-, Japheth was B- and Ham was O-, and you read which nations they founded and where they spread to, and look at the blood type demographics, we see a near-perfect match, we observe what we expect to see of it were true, and furthermore, Oxford university accepted the Genesis 10 tables of nations as absolute fact until the 19th century when secular humanism became a viable religion and the "out of Africa" fallacy spread (every modern nation was demonstrably spread from Turkey, originally founding cities in UR, Babylon, Mesopotamia etc, the middle eastern countries known today as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and such).
So, scientifically, archaeologically and historically (since all of these ancient records verify eachother, despite being spread far and wide all over the globe, in many different language, recorded by people with very different cultures) speaking, the notion of common ancestry SUPPORTS creationism a lot more than it supports the theory (or scientific hypothesis) of evolution.
Since there is not a single shred of evidence against this explanation, and every piece of evidence and every record can be used to support it, and it is ONLY rejected on grounds of "reasoning" and "rationale" (ie due to not fitting a philosophy, ideology or religious understand rather than anything pertaining to the scientific method), it is far more scientific than the Victorian theory (in layman terms, or hypothesis in scientific terms) of evolution which was written long before we knew how complex a single cell is, how dna is, how mutations really work,just what the fossil record ACTUALLY does and doesn't tell us, the implication of what is missing from the fossil record etc, and unlike the creationist theories which cannot be refuted on any actual scientific basis, there is overwhelming evidence against the flawed theory of evolution, so it doesn't matter if any evidence supports common ancestry, the common mistake is to assume that common ancestry supports evolution, since it absolutely does not.
Does the evidence supporting the idea of common ancestry really prove evolution to be true?
All evidence related to the subject of common ancestry refutes evolution, 85% of the population's blood (types that are RH+) contains a protein similar to that of a Rhesus Macaque, our DNA is FAR CLOSER related to the gorilla than the ape [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lla-shows-far-similar-scientists-thought.html ] and the Neanderthal is totally unrelated to either.
Evidence + records (call them myths, religions, legends, but they were just as real to the writers on EVERY CONTINENT back then as our modern records are today) show that, and this is 100% consistent with all DNA and archaeological evidence (but dismissed on grounds of "reason" and "rationale" which isn't science, but scientism, the religion based on scientific knowledge), that Neanderthal was the original man, and a species descended from the sky (in the hebrew records, angels, in the sumerian/chinese/babylonian/mayan/egyptian etc etc records, "gods", and in other records, "aliens") and cross-bred with man, and passed on the knowledge of how to genetically engineer living creatures as scientists are learning to do today, and cro magnon was a slave race created by crossing small reptiles and rodents with man to create pygmies, the tarsier, etc, small primate species, which were then cross-bred with man again, along with the descendants of the ones who fell from the sky, to create the various forms of ape, monkey, chimp, etc etc etc, and then bred with man once more to create various forms of slave, ones who were good at construction, ones who were good at agriculture, ones who had enhanced brains (their skulls have a far larger cranial capacity than ours, they have a totally different structure regarding the parietal plates, and the eye sockets are often are larger, and the DNA doesn't test as completely human - many of them have a similar shape to what we might describe as "greys" or aliens), among these were the creatures we call cro magnon, denisovan and others.
Science and all of the ancient records agree that there was a time where a small number, 6-8, of these humanoids were forced to interbreed and that the entire human population that exists today (modern man, homosapiens) is the resulting hybrid species of neanderthal and cro magnon.
Now, if there were to be a pure neanderthal man whose blood type was A- and a hybrid woman whose blood genotype was OB- (phenotype either B- or O-), it would be perfectly feasible for them to produce three sons of varying purity, with the blood types A-, B- and O- (for various reasons related to haematology that I won't explain here, the males would have to be the RH- and the females RH+) and if they were to take cro magnon wives, and it is accepted that many cro magnon were O+ (while neanderthals are accepted to have been mainly A-, B- and AB-) then the resulting offspring would most likely resemble modern homosapiens, and would likely populate the Earth with the same demographics of blood types that we observe today, all known wars, diseases and every other known historical factor taken into consideration. Welcome to Noah's ark - interestingly, of you assume Shem was A-, Japheth was B- and Ham was O-, and you read which nations they founded and where they spread to, and look at the blood type demographics, we see a near-perfect match, we observe what we expect to see of it were true, and furthermore, Oxford university accepted the Genesis 10 tables of nations as absolute fact until the 19th century when secular humanism became a viable religion and the "out of Africa" fallacy spread (every modern nation was demonstrably spread from Turkey, originally founding cities in UR, Babylon, Mesopotamia etc, the middle eastern countries known today as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and such).
So, scientifically, archaeologically and historically (since all of these ancient records verify eachother, despite being spread far and wide all over the globe, in many different language, recorded by people with very different cultures) speaking, the notion of common ancestry SUPPORTS creationism a lot more than it supports the theory (or scientific hypothesis) of evolution.
Since there is not a single shred of evidence against this explanation, and every piece of evidence and every record can be used to support it, and it is ONLY rejected on grounds of "reasoning" and "rationale" (ie due to not fitting a philosophy, ideology or religious understand rather than anything pertaining to the scientific method), it is far more scientific than the Victorian theory (in layman terms, or hypothesis in scientific terms) of evolution which was written long before we knew how complex a single cell is, how dna is, how mutations really work,just what the fossil record ACTUALLY does and doesn't tell us, the implication of what is missing from the fossil record etc, and unlike the creationist theories which cannot be refuted on any actual scientific basis, there is overwhelming evidence against the flawed theory of evolution, so it doesn't matter if any evidence supports common ancestry, the common mistake is to assume that common ancestry supports evolution, since it absolutely does not.
