No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

[Astrophile]

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

If God made us in his image, why do people believe that we were conceived by our parents and were born 'between urine and faeces'?

 

[miknik5]

And with that I'm putting you on ignore since you are a really insufferable person.

That’s okay since by your post 36 it is clear that this might be a better decision for you before you begin to get rude(r)

 

[miknik5]

If God made us in his image, why do people believe that we were conceived by our parents and were born 'between urine and faeces'?

As the reminder that you’re not GOD and you need HIM to lift you up from all that

 

[sfs]

The origin of our bodies was pure
The origin of the bodies of apes was pure

Until both intermingled

Then the gene pool became....impure

That is your belief. It's not what the genetic evidence shows, however. I'll stick with what the evidence says.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is no such a thing as a transitional from the chimp-human common ancestor, it jumps from a profoundly chimpanzee Homo habilis to Homo erectus over night about 2 million years ago. Yet for a million years starting about 3 million years ago you have paranthropos which is an obvious transitional somewhere between the gorilla and chimpanzee.

Genomic comparisons map the essential changes required and they are extensive. Brain related genes would have to be built from the ground up and hundreds of millions of stasis in other brain related genes would have had to be radically altered.

What is far more telling is that there are no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record, if they were not alive to day there would be no proof they ever existed. The human brain is almost three times bigger then a chimpanzee and the brain matter is nearly twice as dense. With human evolution from ape like ancestors you have an effect without a cause. This isn't science, it's supposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[HitchSlap]

GOD is the evidence of “my claim”

That is to say, there is no evidence for your claim, then.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is to say, there is no evidence for your claim, then.

Opinions vary

 

[DogmaHunter]

If no evidence has been found, how do you know it actually existed?

Genetic evidence.
Common ancestry is a fact, as demonstrated by our collective genomes.

Relations between species are knowable, wheter we find fossils or not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Let me ask you an honest question as an atheist...
This god of yours.... is it a being that looks like a human? Visually, I mean. Not metaphorically, conceptually, spiritually or whatever other abstract word you wish to use.

Does your god have a physical, biological body that looks like a homo sapiens, who has nipples, a nose, a tube used for both eating and breathing, 2 ears, 2 eyes, 2 hands, 10 fingers, an appendix that can explode and cause great pain, a spine that isn't really fit for bipedalism which is a great cause of back pains,... etc?

No?

Then how is your question relevant?

 

[DogmaHunter]

GOD told me
And I am one of those people who KNOW THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD

Lucky you.

I'm one of those people who KNOW THE WORD OF GOD IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD
Now what?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn’t the cladogram of the human ancestral tree the “writings of men”?

No. It is the "mapping of data coming from various independent lines of evidence like genetics, comparative anatomy, fossils, geographic distribution,... unto a caldogram".

Sure, the work is done by humans. But the difference is that one doesn't have to assume their infallability. You can actually just repeat the exercise: re-gather data and start over.

Which has been done, actually. It resulted in the same graphs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can’t go back to the ORIGINAL and pure state of being

what "original and pure" state?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There isn’t an original model from which man and ape evolved from and became what they are today

They may share similar unexpressed genetic material

But that is the result of their intermingling

You won’t find a common ancestor because there isn’t one

lol, wait.....

Are you saying that a human and a non-human ape had sex, had viable off spring and that we descend from that "hybrid"?

 

[HitchSlap]

Opinions vary

And some stink more than others.

 

[mark kennedy]

And some stink more than others.

Indeed!

 

[miknik5]

That is your belief. It's not what the genetic evidence shows, however. I'll stick with what the evidence says.

Of course not. The effect of the fall was immediate and progressive

 

[sfs]

Of course not. The effect of the fall was immediate and progressive

So what? The genetic evidence still says that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm more curious why we haven't found the common ancestor between chickens and birds, take that scientists!

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is no such a thing as a transitional from the chimp-human common ancestor, it jumps from a profoundly chimpanzee Homo habilis to Homo erectus over night about 2 million years ago.

Neither of them are "profoundly chimpanzee". You'd think you could infer that by the fact that they were similar enough to us to be put in the same genus as us.
chimp skull https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1467/6660/products/BC-003_Chimpanzee-x4.jpg?v=1509395068

Homo erectus skull http://www.anatomicalproducts.com/i...b400x400/dfc72cb180b058076ea930345785db21.jpg

Homo habilis skull https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1591-main-original-1415043897.jpg

Yet for a million years starting about 3 million years ago you have paranthropos which is an obvious transitional somewhere between the gorilla and chimpanzee.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha, members of that genus were hominins, which excludes gorillas. Heck, it's uncertain if chimpanzees should be included in that or not, but regardless, no member of the Paranthropos genus is a gorilla ancestor. The shared lineage of chimps and gorillas diverged BEFORE the shared lineage of humans and chimps.

Genomic comparisons map the essential changes required and they are extensive. Brain related genes would have to be built from the ground up and hundreds of millions of stasis in other brain related genes would have had to be radically altered.

-_- hundreds of millions? Dude, humans don't even have 30,000 genes, what the heck are you talking about? Also, justify why any human brain genes would have had to have been "built from the ground up" when most of the brain related genes in humans are the same as those in chimps, and the most relevant differences are gene losses on our part.

What is far more telling is that there are no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record, if they were not alive to day there would be no proof they ever existed.

-_- first chimp fossil was discovered in 2005, but all of us are well aware that it is likely the majority of life that has ever lived on this planet has never left behind any fossils and is thus lost to time. Our lineage is actually fortunate; human ancestors happened to live in areas that were great for fossil formation. Chimp ancestors, not so much, but to act as if there are no transitional fossils for them, or even fossils of that species, when just 1 quick Google search demonstrates otherwise, doesn't make you look good.

The human brain is almost three times bigger then a chimpanzee and the brain matter is nearly twice as dense.

-_- and I am taller than my sister. More of something is one of the most trivial forms of variation in a population, especially if it doesn't disrupt bilateral symmetry. Heck, human variation in intelligence spans from immense genius to people so stupid I wouldn't be shocked if they forgot to breathe from time to time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Bait and switch fail.

This is as ridiculous as me stating that if you can't show me the remains of your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather then he never existed.

And that's ridiculous. Just one find of any, once living human that old will be proof positive it is as least possible to show those remains, making it not in the least ridiculous in context to which you replied

If you know where your GF was burred, all depending on the preservation circumstance you may well be able to show the remains..