No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

[DogmaHunter]

I think you put words into people’s mouths because you can’t really understand what they’re saying

I didn't put anything in your mouth. I just quoted the words YOU wrote down.

I do not believe that we descended from nor do I believe we share a common ancestor with apes

Sure. But that belief is in direct contradiction with your statement about "intermingling". As I have shown. You said that the genetic similarities are THE RESULT of this "intermingling". That implies that these genetics traits were past down to us from those hybrid ancestors.

You can't have it both ways.
Either there was intermingling which resulted in those genetics being past down to us
OR
There is no relation whatsoever.

To uphold BOTH statements, is contradictory.

It's just the way it is.

(keep in mind though, that both statements are actually incorrect.... because the fact is that humans are apes and share ancestors with the other apes as well as all other species).

I said by GOD’s GRACE no more viable offspring bearing those physical defective charactetistics remained.....viable

You also said that genetic similarities are THE RESULT of intermingling.
Once more: you can't have it both ways.

Yet the similar genetic material remains

LOL!
See? This is what I mean.... you can't have it both ways.
If this "genetic material remains", then by definition we descend from those supposed hybrids.

Ape was ape
And man was man.

Man didn’t become man through the ape​

Human ARE apes, just like humans are mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...
Even if evolution turns out incorrect, that won't change. It is a fact. Humans are primates.

As in: it is impossible to come up with a definition of "primate" which includes all primates but excludes humans, without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not humans" to that definition. And the same goes for the biological definitions of "mammal", "vertebrate", "animal", "eukaryote",...

 

[UCDavis]

Your conclusion is based on not finding a specific fossil, which is by definition like finding a needle in a haystack.

Your conclusion completely ignores the genetic evidence. Which is much, much, MUCH stronger then any fossil that could ever be found.

The genetic evidence hasn't produced anything. Evolution never happened and the Smithsonian Institutes information is fact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I’m so glad that my ancestors don’t look anything like that!

They didn't.
We didn't evolve from chimps, gorilla's, etc.
We evolved from a shared ancestor with chimps, gorilla's, etc.

That ancestor was not a homo sapiens, nore was it a chimp, gorilla, etc.

But why do I even bother, right? It's not like anyone never told you this. You didn't listen then, you're likely not going to listen now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science rules out the supernatural, and only accepts the natural.

False.
Instead, science only accepts the well-evidenced

The supernatural isn't included in science, not because it is "supernatural", but because it isn't well-evidenced. It's not even poorly-evidenced. It's simply not in evidence at all. Not even by a long shot.

You can't really blame science for refusing to include things with no supporting evidence, with no detectable manifestation whatsoever.

The day that you can demonstrate that
1. the supernatural actually exists,
and
2. that the supernatural actually is a factor in any given phenomenon,
is the day that science will happily include it.

Until then, why would science even entertain the idea?

If science would allow the inclusion of things without evidence, then suddenly all these things would become part of science:
- scientology
- hinduism
- alchemy
- astrology
- crystal healings
- ....

And progress in general would come to a full stop.
In fact, it might even go backwards... we'ld become dumber instead of smarter.

But everything is supernatural -- it is the natural that does not really exist.

Then the term is meaningless.
And then you also shouldn't complain, because if "the natural" is really "the supernatural", then all of science is currently supernatural.

Off course, it would be kind of silly to just interchange words like that.

I can call a table a "chair", but the nature of the table wouldn't change - no matter what I call it. The only thing such an interchange would accomplish, would be a lot of confusion in every day conversation.

 

[miknik5]

I didn't put anything in your mouth. I just quoted the words YOU wrote down.



Sure. But that belief is in direct contradiction with your statement about "intermingling". As I have shown. You said that the genetic similarities are THE RESULT of this "intermingling". That implies that these genetics traits were past down to us from those hybrid ancestors.

You can't have it both ways.
Either there was intermingling which resulted in those genetics being past down to us
OR
There is no relation whatsoever.

To uphold BOTH statements, is contradictory.

It's just the way it is.

(keep in mind though, that both statements are actually incorrect.... because the fact is that humans are apes and share ancestors with the other apes as well as all other species).



You also said that genetic similarities are THE RESULT of intermingling.
Once more: you can't have it both ways.



LOL!
See? This is what I mean.... you can't have it both ways.
If this "genetic material remains", then by definition we descend from those supposed hybrids.



Human ARE apes, just like humans are mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...
Even if evolution turns out incorrect, that won't change. It is a fact. Humans are primates.

As in: it is impossible to come up with a definition of "primate" which includes all primates but excludes humans, without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not humans" to that definition. And the same goes for the biological definitions of "mammal", "vertebrate", "animal", "eukaryote",...

we went through this already
So are rats
So are cats

But we don’t share a common ancestor with them either

 

[miknik5]

Yes, he was. Read the posts. It's painfully obvious.



Ow, you're on thin ice there... Smells like implying that christians that disagree with you "aren't real christians".



That's not surprising.

Here you are once again putting words in my mouth based on your incorrect understanding

 

[miknik5]

Science would agree with you there.

That's one of those lies. Science does not rule out the supernatural, it ignores it.

False.
Instead, science only accepts the well-evidenced

The supernatural isn't included in science, not because it is "supernatural", but because it isn't well-evidenced. It's not even poorly-evidenced. It's simply not in evidence at all. Not even by a long shot.

You can't really blame science for refusing to include things with no supporting evidence, with no detectable manifestation whatsoever.

The day that you can demonstrate that
1. the supernatural actually exists,
and
2. that the supernatural actually is a factor in any given phenomenon,
is the day that science will happily include it.

Until then, why would science even entertain the idea?

If science would allow the inclusion of things without evidence, then suddenly all these things would become part of science:
- scientology
- hinduism
- alchemy
- astrology
- crystal healings
- ....

And progress in general would come to a full stop.
In fact, it might even go backwards... we'ld become dumber instead of smarter.



Then the term is meaningless.
And then you also shouldn't complain, because if "the natural" is really "the supernatural", then all of science is currently supernatural.

Off course, it would be kind of silly to just interchange words like that.

I can call a table a "chair", but the nature of the table wouldn't change - no matter what I call it. The only thing such an interchange would accomplish, would be a lot of confusion in every day conversation.

Yes

We discussed this also on that Christians only thread as well

And this is the reason we will never be in agreement

You lack the one invariable factor which is what keeps you searching for....things instead of what is really needed

And the reason you don’t factor in this important invariable or seek it out is because you remain in a state of unbelief

GOD would have to do for you what you can not do for yourself

This is the problem between us and why we will NEVER agree

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes

We discussed this also on that Christians only thread as well
And this is the reason we will never be in agreement

"we" as in, you on the one hand and science on the other?
Why? Because science cares about evidence, while you only care about upholding your beliefs?

You lack the one invariable factor which is what keeps you searching for....things instead of what is really needed

What "factor"?

And the reason you don’t factor in this important invariable or seek it out is because you remain in a state of unbelief

lol.................

In reality, I am in a state of unbelief because I have no rational reason to believe.
It's essentially the same reason why "the supernatural" isn't included in science... not because it doesn't want... but because there is no reason to.

GOD would have to do for you what you can not do for yourself

Uhu, uhu.

Empty rethoric, is what I call that.

This is the problem between us and why we will NEVER agree

The actual problem between us, is that I care about supporting my beliefs with evidence, while you don't.

See, I actually like to be rationally justified in what I accept as true or accurate.
You don't. You just want to hold comfortable beliefs and that's it.
You don't actually really care if it is rational, well-supported, what-have-you...
You only care about upholding your beliefs.

I don't. I want to believe as many accurate things as possible and the least false things possible. And the only way to rationally differentiate the accurate from the inaccurate is evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But we don’t share a common ancestor with them either

The evidence of reality, do not support your claim. Au contraire.

But like you already admitted... evidence doesn't concern you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here you are once again putting words in my mouth based on your incorrect understanding

Nope... instead, there I am again, responding to what you literally said.
Those are your words in the quotes, not mine. Nore did I alter them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The genetic evidence hasn't produced anything.

Except mountains of evidence of common ancestry of all species, off course.

You are not aware that DNA analysis allows us to establish relationships?

 

[xianghua]

What is your answer to Kenneth Miller's powerful argument?

kenneth miller chimpanzees youtube chromozones - Bing video

actually miller claim isnt even evidence for a common descent, just for a chromosomal fusion that happaned in the human lineage. even chimp has 48 chromosomes. so how we can claim its evidence for a common descent when even chimp has a different number of chromosomes?

 

[xianghua]

But God made us in His image. So, how come people believe we evolved from apes?

I personaly believe we are unique. Gods own sons and daughters. Ok, we may share dna with many apes etc but i still believe we are unique.

we also share a lot of DNA with banana. but it doesnt prove any common descent. just a common similarity. and common similarity can be explain by a common designer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually miller claim isnt even evidence for a common descent, just for a chromosomal fusion that happaned in the human lineage. even chimp has 48 chromosomes. so how we can claim its evidence for a common descent when even chimp has a different number of chromosomes?

Did you even watch the video? Because it sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about.

Yes, humans have 46 and chimps have 48.
Chrom 13 in chimps is "missing" in humans.

But we have a fused chromosome. As Miller says in the clip, we actually know the fusion site with a ridiculous degree of detail.

So we can split them at the fusion site and see what we end up with.
One half is a match with chimp's 2nd chromosome.

The other half............. is a match with the chimp's 13th chromosome - exactly the one that was "missing" in humans.

It means that the fusion occured in the ancetral line of homo sapiens and AFTER the split occured with what would eventually become chimps.

It is, in other words, exactly what we would expect if humans and chimps share ancestors.

It is all very clearly explained in the clip. That you obviously didn't watch. Not with some basic attention, at least.

 

[DogmaHunter]

we also share a lot of DNA with banana. but it doesnt prove any common descent

The distribution of shared DNA accross species, does.
It's that annoying concept of "nested hierarchies" that you seem incapable (or unwilling) to wrap your head around.

. just a common similarity. and common similarity can be explain by a common designer.

No, not just "similarity". Instead, shared genetics of which the distribution falls into exactly the nested hierarchy we would expect to result from a process like evolution.
Which, at the same time, is about the last pattern we would expect from invidiual "creation" events.

You may post your nonsensical picture about cars and trucks again now, exposing once again how little you understand of this particular topic.

 

[xianghua]

It means that the fusion occured in the ancetral line of homo sapiens

correct. so this is evidence for a fusion in the human lineage. so human original genome contain 48 chromosomes and then get a fusion event in the human population. not evolution required.

It is, in other words, exactly what we would expect if humans and chimps share ancestors.

incorrect. see above.

 

[DogmaHunter]

correct. so this is evidence for a fusion in the human lineage. so human original genome contain 48 chromosomes and then get a fusion event in the human population.

No, in the ancestral human lineage.
The species it occured in, wasn't necessarily homo sapiens.

incorrect. see above.

No. Correct.

All great apes, except humans, have 48.
Humans have 46.
So either all the others gained a pair, or human ancestors lost one.
Considering that all 48 match among the other great apes, the probable thing is that human ancestors lost one.

lo and behold, chrom 2 in humans is a FUSED chromosome. This matches the expectation above: that the probable thing is that humans "lost" one.

When split apart at the fusion site, we end up with one that matches chrom 2 in chimps and another that matches chrom 13 in chimps. This again matches the expectation in case humans and chimps share ancestors.

Over here in rational land, that is massively supportive of the idea that humans and the other great apes share ancestry.

 

[Larniavc]

And you could look at the dictionary..

And that is like saying to learn the meaning of Jesus one looks it up in the dictionary...

Do you see now?

 

[xianghua]

No, in the ancestral human lineage.
The species it occured in, wasn't necessarily homo sapiens.

it was an homo species. not an ape.

lo and behold, chrom 2 in humans is a FUSED chromosome. This matches the expectation above: that the probable thing is that humans "lost" one.

exactly. so this is evidence for common descent of human with...an ancestral human.

 

[Larniavc]

Didn't take geometry.

This is yet another reason you lack the education to be involved in this conversation: half of the examples used are beyond your level of education.