Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

Arius said:

Is this the definition you're thinking of too?

Common Ancestor - noun. in genealogy, any person to whom two or more persons claim descent; also, the most recent ancestral form or species from which two different species evolved.

If yes, then may I ask you please: What was the species of that Common Ancestor Dawkins is pointing to (time 0:21) in this video?

.. from which two different species evolved?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

That's the one.

As for the common ancestor Dawkins is referring to, we don't know, it hasn't been discovered yet as far as I am aware. Fossils of apes and their ancestors are very rare.

Arius said:

I know this came from observing fragments of bones found in the dirt by "Evolutionists",

Click to expand...

The people who study fossils are called paleontologists, do you not know this?

Arius said:

because no scientist would make such a positive statement of things that may have, could have, might have happened millions and billions of years ago, unless there was some actual scientific observation of that time recorded by another scientist.

Click to expand...

What does this mean? I hope that you don't think that our understanding of human evolution is based solely on the fossil record?

It almost sounds like you're making the "no one was there to see it" argument, I hope that you haven't sunk that low.

Arius said:

They are going by looking at a bone fragment that they believe lived anywhere from million, to 10 million years ago, and that they believe this species was very similar to the common chimpanzee(if I understand it correctly?)

Click to expand...

Did you actually read the text that you posted from the wiki link? The fossil record supports the genetic evidence.

Arius said:

As I have shown you guys over and over again that Evolutionists thought Ota Benga was "similar to a chimpanzee" also.

Click to expand...

Just drop the Ota Benga thing, it's a red herring. If you wish to discuss it start a new thread or something.

Arius said:

May I also ask you guys: What do Evolutionist-scientist mean when they say "similar"? I mean that "Common Ancestor" had to be either, or?

Click to expand...

Either or what?

Arius said:

If it was a chimp, then it wasn't the Common Ancestor, because the common ancestor gave rise to chimps and humans (according to your beliefs), am I correct? If not, I am here to be corrected.

If it was 'human' (Homo), then so what, .. they just found some bone remains of a human!?

Click to expand...

How many times have you been told this, how many links have you been given? It was neither chimpanzee nor human.

Arius said:

Just because I simplify rhetoric doesn't mean I don't understand. But thank you, so may I ask you then, why did Dawkins put "modern' species in the family collage of that white woman in this video?

Click to expand...

Simplify rhetoric, my backside. Deliberately provocative language more like.

Why do you think he put "modern species"? Because Homo Sapiens is the most modern species perhaps? Or are you trying to imply racism on Dawkins part, because if you are you would be bearing false witness again.

Arius said:

we have gorillas, orangutans, humans, chimps, bonobos today, why didn't Dawkins use one of the thousands of Peleoartist drawings of the common ancestor in every "T" he calls "common ancestor" in that family collage?

Click to expand...

Because he's only used photos of the most recent, extant species, obviously.

Arius said:

Show me one "distinct species" of animal that can reproduce with two other "distinct species" like someone else claimed happens, .. where A can reproduce with B, and B can reproduce with A and C? I want to see three different species, not different "kind" of geese, or ducks or big cats.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about ring species now? If so why do your own reading, like everyone else, instead of demanding to be spoon fed?

Arius said:

Just because someone stopped mating with their same species anymore (trauma, disease, whatever) doesn't mean they are now a different species.

Click to expand...

So? Are you back to misrepresenting what people have told you again?

Arius said:

100,000 year old scientific observation records showing this would be science, what you have above is built on a belief, particularly the evolution Religious belief observing dried up skull and bones who have died from God knows what diseases, dug up from graves.

Click to expand...

No, it is built on genetic evidence.

Which fossils were dug up from graves exactly, is this just a continuation of your early rants about racism?

Arius said:

Wow, and they can get all this DNA info from millions and even billion year old skull and bones? So they can trace my lineage down to a 6 million year old lower jawbone with some teeth left on it!? No wonder Dawkins don't want to post that on his family-tree collage in his video, but simply calls it "Common Ancestor"!?

Click to expand...

Is this goading again or are you really ignorant enough to think that this is how science works?

Arius said:

1. from the Evolutionary standpoint, we all evolved from amoeba. That means that even the algae and the rock it is sticking on is our ancestor, and we evolved from a population of extinct skull & bones.

Click to expand...

Right, I should have known better than to think that you actually wanted an adult conversation. Is it any wonder people view creationists in such a bad light? Grow up.

Arius said:

2. As we have witnessed throughout human existence that man turns to dust, just as all the animals do. So we are all created from the dust of the earth. Same Creator, same plan, different purpose, and so far it fits exactly with that description, which is all described in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Believe what you like, who cares?

If you come on here misrepresenting science, mocking other people's views and slandering people (including your "fellow" christians) who actually study the topics we are discussing then you will be called out on it however.

Arius said:

Someone told me in a post, about the A, B, C species, where B can mate with both, but not A with B.

Click to expand...

They told you about ring species, which you twisted into a ridiculous parody of what they said. You must feel so proud of your behaviour.

Arius said:

Tell me what "species" our "common ancestor" was in the above video by Richard Dawkins (time 0:21)

Click to expand...

We don't know the exact species, fossils from that time and place are extremely rare. Luckily we don't need to identify the exact species to know it existed.

Arius said:

.. so we can settle this discussion once and for all!?
That's it, .. it will either prove, or disprove this Religious idea that there is No God, man is just another animal of the ape family, and we are spinning and twirling through the infinite cold dark vacuum called NASA-space(r) where pagan gods with names like Mars, Venus, Jupiter, .. are worshipped.

Click to expand...

Wow, this sentence indicates some really shallow thinking on your part. I actually feel a bit sorry for you that your whole world view hangs on a particular interpretation of an ancient text that evidence from the natural world show to be false.

Of course it wouldn't prove or disprove that there is a God. The two subjects are unrelated, all it would "disprove" is your interpretation of the bible, one which most christians reject anyway.

Keep tilting at the windmills though, you might learn something.

Arius said:

... if you would like to point out why that was 'silly', .. by all means please do so, .. I'm all ears?

Click to expand...

It was silly because it was feigning ignorance of the obvious; i.e. no-one is stupid enough to think that a shop sign is a reliable indicator of species relationships, or that saying, "No animals allowed!" really means that humans aren't animals (or that humans can't enter). Similarly, that the law treats some animals differently to others (and there are more legal distinctions than just between humans and other animals) doesn't mean some are not animals.

Arius said:

So am I, .. and I just got my first "Warning" because of it.
But it's nice to see that you understand coming from Dawkins.



I will try to abide by Forum Rules from now on, ..

I was warned about giving a "funny" remark about another's, .. supposedly serious comment, .. well, in my above comment, I am "Dead Serious", not being silly. I was pointing out paradoxes and ridiculous contradictions in Evolution. Now if you would like to point out why that was 'silly', .. by all means please do so, .. I'm all ears?

Click to expand...

How about instead of trying to "win" or repeating PRATTs you simply discuss the subject with us? Even the laymen like myself have gotten pretty good (or at least not bad) at discussing the evidence for evolution over the years we've been here.

Arius said:

Sorry, I didn't have time to, but I did now that you reminded me, thank you.

Click to expand...

All right.

Arius said:

This is something about: periods of hybridization between population groups and a process of alternating divergence and hybridization that lasted several million years.

Click to expand...

From your own link - Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor - Wikipedia:

Arius said:

The latter date and the argument for hybridization events are rejected by Wakeley (see current estimates regarding complex speciation).

Click to expand...

In other words, not all biologists accept that there was a long period of hybridization between the ancestors of chimpanzees or that the final separation of the two lineages was as recent as 4 million years ago. Also, whether or not there were long periods of hybridization between the two lineages, the fact remains that chimpanzees and humans share common ancestors, and that Orrorin and Sahelanthropus were probably closely related to these common ancestors. There is nothing in the passage you quoted that disputes the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.

Indeed, so far as I can see, the occurrence of hybridization between the two lineages would confirm their common ancestry; this hybridization would be impossible if the two lineages were not descended from a common ancestor.