If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Kenny'sID]

You and your distant cousins and monkeys came from a common ancestor.

Did monkeys come before me, somewhere in between me and that "common ancestor"?

I mean, after all the defense from the offended offense, did all that argument actually add up to "We did come from monkeys"?

Ya' know, I *thought* I'd heard something like that before.

What a hoot. Pays to give them just enough rope..

 

[Speedwell]

Dictionary
cous·in
ˈkəz(ə)n/
noun
noun: cousin; plural noun: cousins; noun: first cousin; plural noun: first cousins

1. a child of one's uncle or aunt.
   • a person belonging to the same extended family.
   • a thing related or analogous to another.
     "the new motorbikes are not proving as popular as their four-wheeled cousins"
   • a person of a kindred culture, race, or nation.
     "the Russians and their Slavic cousins"
   • historical
     a title formerly used by a sovereign in addressing another sovereign or a noble of their own country.

Pretty broad term, but I already knew that...define it however it helps you feel right.

Hope that helps.

For the purpose of the explanation I was trying to give you, I will opt for number one. According to the dictionary you cited, it is the most common usage in any case.

 

[Phred]

Did monkeys come before me, somewhere in between me and that "common ancestor"?

I mean, after all the defense from the offended offense, did all that argument actually add up to "We did come from monkeys"?

Ya' know, I *thought* I'd heard something like that before.

What a hoot. Pays to give them just enough rope..

We did NOT come from monkeys.

I know you're entrenched in your belief. POOF! Everything was just there. Only there's no evidence that happened. None. Not one bit. So I don't accept that. I also don't accept that you can't follow a simple thought through to it's completion.

Monkeys evolved alongside us and we had an ancestor in common a long time ago. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[Speedwell]

Did monkeys come before me, somewhere in between me and that "common ancestor"?

I mean, after all the defense from the offended offense, did all that argument actually add up to "We did come from monkeys"?

Ya' know, I *thought* I'd heard something like that before.

What a hoot. Pays to give them just enough rope..

Let us again return to definition number one in your dictionary for cousin. I don't, of course, know your family situation, but let us suppose that your grandfather had a brother, and that brother had a son, let's call the son "George." Now, if George has a son, that person would be your cousin--your second cousin, in customary usage. To interject a little humor, we will call your second cousin "Monkey," just for fun.

Note that you and Monkey have a common ancestor. That common ancestor is the father of your grandpa and his brother; your great-grandfather, so called.

So did your second cousin Monkey come before you, somewhere between you and that common ancestor?

 

[Phred]

Sure there is. You are a Human kind. I know this because only Humans (descendants of Adam) have inherited his superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22 ONLY Humans post because only Humans have the necessary level of intelligence to post.

It doesn't work that way. Just because you say it has a meaning doesn't mean it does. We don't work on "it looks like that." There is no such thing as a "kind" and no matter how much you post about it and wave your arms and quote the Bible it doesn't make it so.

Example. You think that you can run around putting all the animals into little groups called kinds. You have human kinds. Cat kinds. Dog kinds. Duck kinds. So what kind of creature is this:

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let us again return to definition number one in your dictionary for cousin. I don't, of course, know your family situation, but let us suppose that your grandfather had a brother, and that brother had a son, let's call the son "George." Now, if George has a son, that person would be your cousin--your second cousin, in customary usage. To interject a little humor, we will call your second cousin "Monkey," just for fun.

Note that you and Monkey have a common ancestor. That common ancestor is the father of your grandpa and his brother; your great-grandfather, so called.

So did your second cousin Monkey come before you, somewhere between you and that common ancestor?

Now now, if you really wanted to inject some humor you would call *your* niece/nephew the monkey.

I got the common ancestor thing, nothing new, how bout answering the questions direct, like neither you or Phred did.

That is unless some clown wants to try to prove we didn't descend from the monkey that may have descended somewhere in between the CA and ourselves, like it used to be, at least until they changed it. Yes, I remember, do you?

Tell you what I think happened, y'all claimed we came from the monkey, couldn't handle the fallout/jokes, then eased us alongside the monkey, figuring they could come up with a reason for that claim just as easily as any other they have dreamed up to date, while in reality it's something you have no more reason to belief happened than the first belief.

Yeah, that's what I think.

Please folks, never take the fact that I am humoring them as any indication I buy what they are peddling.

 

[Phred]

I got the common ancestor thing, nothing new, how bout answering the questions direct, like neither you or Phred did.

You don't get to specify what answers we can give you when you don't like what answers you get. I'll say it again, we did not evolve from monkeys. A monkey is a specific creature that is alive today. We share an ancestor with monkeys and that is a long time ago. There are two groups of monkeys, New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. We are related to both.

That is unless some clown wants to try to prove we didn't descend from the monkey that may have descended somewhere in between the CA and ourselves, like it used to be until; they changed it. Yes, I remember, do you?

You don't get what a common ancestor is. There isn't just one. There's a common ancestor, for example, between Chimps and Humans. There's a common ancestor between Chimps, Humans and Gorillas. At one time there were no humans, no chimps, no gorillas. There was just one species. It evolved into all three eventually. Stop trying to turn your ignorance into a failing of science.

Tell you what I think happened, y'all claimed we came from the monkey, couldn't handle the fallout/jokes, then eased us alongside the monkey, figuring they could come up with a reason for that claim just as easily as any other they have dreamed up to date, while in reality it's something you have no more reason to belief happened than the first belief.

Yeah, that's what I think.

Please folks, never take the fact that I am humoring them as any indication I buy what they are peddling.

You know what I think? I think what we have here is another creationist playing games in order to try and befuddle or otherwise screw with people because his underlying case can't stand scrutiny. Simply standing up and saying that the Bible is true and that's that. Well, that's not very scientific now is it? And even if I stood up and said what you "think" I said would that change science? No. It wouldn't. It would just mean I was wrong. So stop being intellectually dishonest. You know what you're doing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To borrow a thought from G.G. Simpson, if we could actually meet some of the common ancestors that we share with monkeys, what would we call them? Would we call them monkeys, apes, prosimians, or something else?

Of course, I know that we are not descended from any extant species of monkey. However, if I saw this animal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegpyptopithecus - in a zoo I should call it a monkey.

View attachment 219335

yes, I agree. I think sometimes it just confuses people when we say we are not descended from monkeys. We are not descended from modern monkeys, true. But we are descended from animals that, if alive today, would probably be classed as monkeys.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You don't get to specify what answers we can give you when you don't like what answers you get. I'll say it again, we did not evolve from monkeys. A monkey is a specific creature that is alive today. We share an ancestor with monkeys and that is a long time ago. There are two groups of monkeys, New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. We are related to both.

I get to do as I wish within the rules of the board, and it is your prerogative not to answer...if you cannot.

So no proof of any of that?

You don't get what a common ancestor is. There isn't just one. There's a common ancestor, for example, between Chimps and Humans. There's a common ancestor between Chimps, Humans and Gorillas. At one time there were no humans, no chimps, no gorillas. There was just one species. It evolved into all three eventually. Stop trying to turn your ignorance into a failing of science.

Who said there was just one?

What was the first common ancestor?

And more importantly, what was our common ancestor?

Oh my don't blame any of this on a "failing science", science is perfect, it's those that read it, whether into or out of it that are far from perfect.

My ignorance? You mean because you say "along side" or for that matter, that any of that is fact at all, without providing proof, I am ignorant for not believing it? Get a dictionary.

That's not ignorance, it's good sense.

You know what I think? I think what we have here is another creationist playing games in order to try and befuddle or otherwise screw with people because his underlying case can't stand scrutiny. Simply standing up and saying that the Bible is true and that's that. Well, that's not very scientific now is it? And even if I stood up and said what you "think" I said would that change science? No. It wouldn't. It would just mean I was wrong. So stop being intellectually dishonest. You know what you're doing.

I think I've for the most part left the bible out of this.

And MY case can't stand the scrutiny? Now that's my friend is a real riot, coming from someone who offers no proof for their own case. You can't even present proof TO scrutinize, just talk.

It's logical, and if that isn't used in science, you are doing something wrong, so sure, it's as scientific as some of your conclusions...easily. Much more so that the alternative of nothing/we don't know. We have seen "create", we have never seen "just happen". FYI, "science" is "not very scientific" either, not until often incompetent agenda driven man get their hands on it, and it cannot be science without that, so your comment "not very scientific" really means nothing. IOW, science is answers WE provide from the natural, OPINIONS of what the natural means. WE choose to draw whatever wrong opinion of it WE choose to. What it is not, is something telling us something concrete without our our input....and often people with a wild imagination

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

dogs and cats belong to a different family.





actually if we assume the difference between a cat and a dog is about 10^6 bases, all we need is about 10^6 mutations or about 10^4 generations to change a cat into a dog. so even according to evolution a cat can evolve into a dog basically .

It wouldn't happen naturally.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God defines kinds as temporary or His kinds and eternal kinds created to live forever (Their kinds) in Heaven. The invisible Spirit (Trinity) speaks and Lord God/Jesus does the actual forming or shaping physically what Science refers to as common ancestors. The best example is Adam, made by Lord God on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 and Adam's "creation in God's Image" by God (Trinity) on the present 6th Day/Age. Gen 5:1-2

Your theology is weird even by creationist standards. Most creationists assert Adam wasn't created until day 6.

 

[xianghua]

It wouldn't happen naturally.

why? a mutation isnt a natural process?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What exactly was trollish about that?

I think I would look into what a troll actually is if I were you. Someone who states an obvious fact does not equate to that.

"But I descended from my distant cousins" is an obvious fact, ey?

Fact is you didn't refute because there was none.

The fact is that your mistakes have been explained time and again and you just continue to repeat them all as if nobody ever corrected you. That combined with the condescending and arrogant undertone of just about every post of yours, and all I can conclude is that you are only here to be provocative and "stir the pot".

That makes it trollish.

I no longer believe you to be sincere either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually if we assume the difference between a cat and a dog is about 10^6 bases, all we need is about 10^6 mutations or about 10^4 generations to change a cat into a dog

It doesn't matter. Dogs and cats are on different branches of the evolutionary tree.
In evolution, species never jump branches.

. so even according to evolution a cat can evolve into a dog basically .

No.

No wonder you have so much trouble comprehending the most basic things, if you actually think that evolution allows for cats to produce dogs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now now, if you really wanted to inject some humor you would call *your* niece/nephew the monkey.

I got the common ancestor thing, nothing new, how bout answering the questions direct, like neither you or Phred did.

That is unless some clown wants to try to prove we didn't descend from the monkey that may have descended somewhere in between the CA and ourselves, like it used to be, at least until they changed it. Yes, I remember, do you?

Tell you what I think happened, y'all claimed we came from the monkey, couldn't handle the fallout/jokes, then eased us alongside the monkey, figuring they could come up with a reason for that claim just as easily as any other they have dreamed up to date, while in reality it's something you have no more reason to belief happened than the first belief.

Yeah, that's what I think.

You think a lot of things. Most of them seem to be really wrong.
This one isn't any different.

 

[Jimmy D]

And MY case can't stand the scrutiny? Now that's my friend is a real riot, coming from someone who offers no proof for their own case. You can't even present proof TO scrutinize, just talk.

Fair enough, but EVIDENCE has been offered, evidence that confirms the validity of the TOE.

It seems like you don't accept the evidence presented (and it has been) for evolution so why not present your case? What is your take on the history and diversity of life on Earth?

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter. Dogs and cats are on different branches of the evolutionary tree.
In evolution, species never jump branches.



No.

No wonder you have so much trouble comprehending the most basic things, if you actually think that evolution allows for cats to produce dogs.

again: if we will change about million bases at once we will get a dog genome out from a cat genome. right?

 

[Aman777]

It doesn't work that way. Just because you say it has a meaning doesn't mean it does. We don't work on "it looks like that." There is no such thing as a "kind" and no matter how much you post about it and wave your arms and quote the Bible it doesn't make it so.

Example. You think that you can run around putting all the animals into little groups called kinds. You have human kinds. Cat kinds. Dog kinds. Duck kinds. So what kind of creature is this:

Sorry, but you are misinformed as to what "kinds" are. There are only two kinds and one is temporary and the other is eternal. His kinds are subject to death and Their kinds are not. The creature you supplied the image for is one of His kinds since it is subject to death. When we get to Heaven, we will find out if it is one of Their kinds or not.

 

[Aman777]

You don't get what a common ancestor is. There isn't just one. There's a common ancestor, for example, between Chimps and Humans. There's a common ancestor between Chimps, Humans and Gorillas. At one time there were no humans, no chimps, no gorillas. There was just one species. It evolved into all three eventually. Stop trying to turn your ignorance into a failing of science.

Common ancestors are those creatures who were first made by Lord God/Jesus. They descend with modifications within His and Their kinds in a population over time. Today's Science is "willingly ignorant" of this because they have chosen to be Godless.

 

[Aman777]

Your theology is weird even by creationist standards. Most creationists assert Adam wasn't created until day 6.

Read the following and see what you think:

Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Lord God is YHWH/Jesus in the Old Testament. The above verse is speaking of the 3rd Day/Age when Jesus made Adam's Earth AND other HeavenS (plural)

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Plants, herbs and Trees GREW on the 3rd Day in the Creation. Gen 1:12 The above verse confirms that Scripture is speaking of the 3rd Day when Adam's Earth was made according to Gen 1:10.

Gen 2:7 ¶ And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Jesus formed or shaped man (Hebrew-Adam) on the 3rd Day, before the plants herbs and trees. If you don't believe me, read the next two verses to see that TREES were made AFTER Adam was made. You probably have confused Adam's creation by God the Trinity Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 with his formation physically, as ancient men mistakenly thought. This is one of the errors in the traditional religious view which does NOT agree with what is actually written.