Common ancestor between chimps and humans

[davedajobauk]

I don't understand these two 'camps' ~for and against evolution (having 'at-it')

Yes, God created everything in His time
Knowing already, their outcome ~from beginning to end
Yes, we share similar genes / chromosomes with plants and animals
(some, because of, our close proximity to them and them to us)

Question; for, the theists..... Does anyone have a photo of Adam and Eve 'together' ?
So, who is to say, that they, did NOT appear, as we perceive, the earliest hominids today ??
Question; for, the Evolutionists..... God's timing, is nothing short of PERFECT so, maybe
it IS, man's timing, that is awry ... from literal reading of early texts and transliteration of
early-language (and, still-forming cognitive-expression)

Give each other, 'room' ~to understand and to agree, if only, to-disagree
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's

 

[davedajobauk]

The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, We do not yet have its remains. Lol
-Smithsonian national museum

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

This may well be something [physical] yet, to be found
However, the similar-features, dimensions, vary, by only small degrees
(from one to the next 'youngest') with brain size, being one of those 'differences'

If you, put to one side, your six-thousand year limit, what else do you have to argue over (?)
To claim, that Modern Man started with Adam, you assert that man does not and, has not, changed
and EVERYTHING CHANGES (?)

Those questions are rhetorical.... Just something to marinate in

 

[davedajobauk]

duplicate posting....

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
So show us one thing that is necessary for macroevolution, that is contrary to the 2nd law.

New and improved DNA.

Sorry, that's wrong. Mutation and natural selection have been observed to do that. Want to try again?

 

[civilwarbuff]

What do you think that quote from the Smithsonian means? And what is the consequence of that statement?

Answering a question with a question.......typical

 

[civilwarbuff]

You must be this tall to talk to me about thermodynamics:

I can take pictures of books too.
So are they very thin books or do you just have a very big opinion of yourself?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Answering a question with a question.......typical

I was questioning the quote from the Smithsonian, which is a statement not a question.

 

[smaneck]

Something that never existed will never be found.

The reason it will be extremely difficult to locate the common ancestor of people and chimps is because it likely lived in the jungle. Jungles don't preserve remains very well.

 

[Simmeh]

I can take pictures of books too.
So are they very thin books or do you just have a very big opinion of yourself?

Neither. The point I'm trying to demonstrate is that thermodynamics is a massive and complex field, yet some people believe that their very limited (and very often quite wrong) understanding of it somehow means that they can overturn centuries of scientific study.

Look at the words used in the titles of some of those books: "introduction" and "elementary principles" and "fundamentals". These are are all beginner books in the field of chemical engineering, a discipline which is heavily focused on the application of thermodynamics to real-world problems. The smallest book there, Engineering Statistics, is about 2 cm thick and has almost 500 pages. The largest book, Organic Chemistry, is almost 6 cm thick and has just over 1500 pages. There is a huge amount of information there, and that's just to get a bachelor's. Cutting edge graduate level research would require more knowledge from more in-depth books.

I don't claim to be a thermodynamics expert. I'll admit that I've forgotten most of what I learned, mostly because my current job doesn't demand I use those skills. But I do have a much better appreciation of how deep this rabbit hole goes, and that is enough to know that a creationist claiming that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is simplistic at best, even without addressing actual thermodynamic problems.

 

[davedajobauk]

The reason it will be extremely difficult to locate the common ancestor of people and chimps is because it likely lived in the jungle. Jungles don't preserve remains very well.

Well said and is doubtless, the route by which trees have taken up our genes / chromosomes

This said, we are all made from the same building blocks...ergo, we are 'related' in a fashion

Earthlings from Space ~'nothingness'

 

[UCDavis]

The reason it will be extremely difficult to locate the common ancestor of people and chimps is because it likely lived in the jungle. Jungles don't preserve remains very well.

No arrrrgh! -tyrannosaurus rex fossil

 

[Shemjaza]

No arrrrgh! -tyrannosaurus rex fossil

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[Shemjaza]

what genetic evidence might that be?
for example:
Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes. In addition, the discovery of both recent and ancient HGT events in all major eukaryotic groups suggests that HGT has been a regular occurrence throughout the history of eukaryotic evolution.
-Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes The weak-link model.htm

do you even realize what the above is saying?

I'd like some reference for HGT in complex eukaryotes. What even is the mechanism you are promoting?

as of 1995, less than 4% of the hominid fossil tree has been found.
eldredge himself, in post 40, does a fair job at explaining the "evidence"

1995? I assume you are paraphrasing someone. Yet the existing fossils show a series of transitions from species with more basal ape traits to those with less. We certainly don't have 100% of the hominid family tree, but what we have forms a compelling image which is consistent with genetic evidence.

I wasn't able to properly use the zip file you attached. Can you at least describe the alternate explanation for the fossil and genetic evidence?

apparently it's something that you wasn't taught.

Certainly possible... yet you need to come up with something better then "something" if you want to hand wave away working theories.

 

[whois]

shemjaza,
the source was included with the post.
no need to assume i paraphrased anyone, check out post 31.
the zip file opens with windows zip utility and is a PDF document.

 

[Vaccine]

Shalom everybody,
I was reading on Smithsonian institutes page on human origins and I saw this picture. If you look to the lower right it says " the last common ancestor of humans and chimps. We do not yet have its remains."

Hello!
It would be nice if they were honest about a common ancestor being a matter of belief, not fact. Some do some don't. At least they are honest enough to call it a belief in peer-reviewed publications.
"Alignments of statistically similar but phylogenetically unrelated sequences successfully mimic the purported effect of common origin"
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdfDomains

In other words, shared DNA is a meaningless way to determine common ancestry.

 

[heatedmonk]

Shalom everybody,
I was reading on Smithsonian institutes page on human origins and I saw this picture. If you look to the lower right it says " the last common ancestor of humans and chimps. We do not yet have its remains."

The so called missing link?
I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins, now identifying as a secular Christian, he attempted to explain how we are not descended from apes but are descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes. A horrible failure as you'll see due to one missing link.

While there are some atheists that I've known that very often speak as if evolution is their faith based religion. This is quite interesting and very short as far as Dawkins opinion then. As I said, he now identifies as a secular Christian.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins, now identifying as a secular Christian,

As I said, he now identifies as a secular Christian.

Do you understand what he meant when he said this? Here let me help
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...nglican.now.hes.a.secular.christian/37673.htm

he attempted to explain how we are not descended from apes but are descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes. A horrible failure as you'll see due to one missing link.

Because we are descended from a common ancestor. This video is "explain it to me like i'm 5" styled and you still didn't understand it.

Not sure why you linked this video. It's not in your favor.

 

[DaisyDay]

Hello!
It would be nice if they were honest about a common ancestor being a matter of belief, not fact. Some do some don't. At least they are honest enough to call it a belief in peer-reviewed publications.
"Alignments of statistically similar but phylogenetically unrelated sequences successfully mimic the purported effect of common origin"
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdfDomains

In other words, shared DNA is a meaningless way to determine common ancestry.

Did you read the conclusion of your link?

Conclusion: A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is
unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by
comparative genomics is overwhelming.
​

 

[heatedmonk]

Do you understand what he meant when he said this? Here let me help
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...nglican.now.hes.a.secular.christian/37673.htm




Because we are descended from a common ancestor. This video is "explain it to me like i'm 5" styled and you still didn't understand it.

Funny, I realize you get off on talking down to people however, I never said I didn't get it.
However, what is very obvious is that you didn't get what I said nor implied with my . And yet you launched into a personal attack that you think caused me to doubt my own intellect.

Not sure why you linked this video. It's not in your favor.

I have no doubt you don't understand a thing I've written. If you scroll back rather than believe yourself to be on a roll with the flaming and flame baiting, the personal attacks and goading that you've committed to in your remarks to me, you'll see that I didn't say I liked this video.
And now I will say in conclusion I thank you. You remind me of why it is all important to pray for atheists who believe themselves to be an example of evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In other words, shared DNA is a meaningless way to determine common ancestry.

Then why do they do DNA paternity tests on the Maury Povich show. Answer me that!

 

[Shemjaza]

shemjaza,
the source was included with the post.
no need to assume i paraphrased anyone, check out post 31.
the zip file opens with windows zip utility and is a PDF document.

Okay, I've read it and I'm incredibly underwhelmed.

It's 35 year old newspaper article defending punctured equilibrium with some very unclear language about stasis of species and transitional forms. In many places it's simply incorrect, transitional species between groups have been found, even 35 years ago.

You were implying that your mystery article would explain the hominid fossils in a better way then evolution. You presented an old article supporting evolution, which doesn't even deal with hominids.