Someone said men came from apes.

[Pipedreamer]

Heyla. I wanted to point out a huge mistake everyone in this thread is making. It is, in fact, the most common mistake made by people debating the origins of life, be it human or otherwise. It's not the theory of evolution, it's the theory of natural selection. The problem with the term evolution is what is implicit to that particular word; guidance, direction, intent. There is none of this with natural selection and it's compatriots, genetic drift and mutation.

I don't understand how anyone with a computer can choose to "not believe" in natural selection. It's not a matter of faith; it's much more fact than theory at this point. You can see natural selection at work in the world around us right now in bacteria and some diseases that have become resistant, or downright immune, to antibiotics and other medications. Environmental pressures have caused this to happen within my own lifetime and I've not even seen two score years yet, so I have no problem with environmental pressures forcing a massive changes over "merely" millions of years.

We know that if you change a creature's environment it'll either go extinct or adapt. Adaptation is done via natural selection of those most suited to their changed environment surviving to breed more than those which are less suited to the changes. This can also be seen in the polar bear population. The loss of their natural environment is forcing them to either move south or die. Those moving south, meaning the most adaptable to change, are finding mates among the grizzly, kodiak, etc, populations of bears in Alaska and Canada. They are, right this minute, creating new subspecies of bears. That's natural selection at work, friends.

Are you familiar with the worldwide genetic testing which confirmed a middle eastern origin for a common male chromosome for all males?

The main problem with that is the lack of proof that any changes actually occured.

Your first statement proves the second to be incorrect by pure dent of logic. If we accept as fact that every human who's lived in the past 6000 years has sprung from a single male progenitor, as your statement implies, then you have but to look around yourself at the wildly varying types of the human animal to note some very drastic, physical changes along the way. Hair-type, skin pigmentation, eye color, even nose shape, are all environmental adaptations. If we couldn't and didn't then we would, all of us, be the same race. You have, probably within your own home town, all the proof you need that we can, and have, changed at a genetic level even within the very limited time frame you have allotted us.

 

[marktheblake]

Nope, we didn't evolve from apes. We do, however, share a common ancestor with apes.

What did this common ancestor look like?

 

[Todd Grace]

Heyla. I wanted to point out a huge mistake everyone in this thread is making. It is, in fact, the most common mistake made by people debating the origins of life, be it human or otherwise. It's not the theory of evolution, it's the theory of natural selection. The problem with the term evolution is what is implicit to that particular word; guidance, direction, intent. There is none of this with natural selection and it's compatriots, genetic drift and mutation.

I don't understand how anyone with a computer can choose to "not believe" in natural selection. It's not a matter of faith; it's much more fact than theory at this point. You can see natural selection at work in the world around us right now in bacteria and some diseases that have become resistant, or downright immune, to antibiotics and other medications. Environmental pressures have caused this to happen within my own lifetime and I've not even seen two score years yet, so I have no problem with environmental pressures forcing a massive changes over "merely" millions of years.

We know that if you change a creature's environment it'll either go extinct or adapt. Adaptation is done via natural selection of those most suited to their changed environment surviving to breed more than those which are less suited to the changes. This can also be seen in the polar bear population. The loss of their natural environment is forcing them to either move south or die. Those moving south, meaning the most adaptable to change, are finding mates among the grizzly, kodiak, etc, populations of bears in Alaska and Canada. They are, right this minute, creating new subspecies of bears. That's natural selection at work, friends.



Your first statement proves the second to be incorrect by pure dent of logic. If we accept as fact that every human who's lived in the past 6000 years has sprung from a single male progenitor, as your statement implies, then you have but to look around yourself at the wildly varying types of the human animal to note some very drastic, physical changes along the way. Hair-type, skin pigmentation, eye color, even nose shape, are all environmental adaptations. If we couldn't and didn't then we would, all of us, be the same race. You have, probably within your own home town, all the proof you need that we can, and have, changed at a genetic level even within the very limited time frame you have allotted us.

You took those out of context.
I didn't imply a time frame.
You imply it as fact when it most certainly is not. It is theory.
Humans were never apes and there is no proof otherwise.
Adam is the father of all humans and the proof was easily verifiable through our work with the lineage of the Y Chromosome. Keep chasing those chickens, the theory will always remain just that. Sorry fellas.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
This thread has been moved to the Origins Theology Forum from the Christian Apologetics Forum​

Thread location Here
Mod hat off ​

 

[sfs]

On the subject of the single male ancestor who lived 50,000 years ago, it might be helpful to read this, which provides a good description of both Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

 

[Greg1234]

## I

sn't it better to come from apes, than to come from sinners ?

Really?

Evolution is almost a Third Testament, because, indirectly, it tells us a great deal about God.

Darwinism tells us nothing about God, and Darwinism isnt it needed.

In addition to that, the ability of palaeontologists to found out so much from so little is a marvellous achievement

You basically line up fossils and leave out evidence for modern humans prior to and among their "ancestors". Nevertheless, it's good that we do not need to engage in these games when experimentation on random mutations, the intelligent mechanism at work in adaptation along with the limits, all directly observed facts, are implemented in analysis.

- the fact that mere humans are capable of such things is a testimony to the Wisdom of God.

Again, God is not in random mutations. You should know that. Either this is another trite attempt at deception or the effect of same.

 

[marktheblake]

I don't understand how anyone with a computer can choose to "not believe" in natural selection. It's not a matter of faith; it's much more fact than theory at this point.

The typical Creationist agrees with all of those observed facts of natural selection. They just dont accept pond scum to people evolution

so I have no problem with environmental pressures forcing a massive changes over "merely" millions of years.

Having no problem with it is fine, . however this is not the same as the natural selection that we observe.

They are, right this minute, creating new subspecies of bears. That's natural selection at work, friends.

Yep - and they are still bears.

 

[philadiddle]

There is NO fossil evidence. Anthropologists have faked interpretations from hunks of fossils from other animals at times. They create intermediary skeletons from their minds with tiny fragments they dub [from early man] then build an entire skeleton based on a few teeth or small skull fragment in an attempt to fill in gaps which don't and have never existed. Lucy the skeleton was a flat out hoax that was later admitted to by it's so called [discoverers] but even today it gets used sometimes.

Lucy was not a fake. I outlined the evidence in another post which you are welcome to join if you like.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7503000/

If we did evolve from apes at the rate suggested, some 4 million years, we would have to be experiencing that continual change. 4 million years is like a second in proposed evolutionary theory and certainly does not allow even remotely enough time for an ape to undergo the mutations nes. to get from ape to human. Using models proposed by the most renown evolutionist the process is just too slow to go from ape to human in 4 million years.

The super evolution required after the flood is way faster than anything we find in the fossil record, so you can't really use "not enough time" as an argument.

Also, in Gould's book Ever Since Darwin he gives several observed instances where evolution took place at a faster pace than any evolution we find in the fossil record. Time is clearly not a concern for the theory of evolution.

 

[matthewgar]

Question, if scientists are going to go as far as fabricate and make up evidence for evolution, why havn't they found something so mindblowingly obvious that evolution happened that every creationist gives up their beliefs? It's funny how, "They will make stuff up from bone fragments from multiple animals." to fake evidence, but they don't fake evidence in a way that be so undeniably real untill someone got the hoax?

If I was going to fake evlution, I do much better job then the so called "fakes" have been so far. DO andy of you guys really buy your own stories?

 

[Willtor]

On the subject of the single male ancestor who lived 50,000 years ago, it might be helpful to read this, which provides a good description of both Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

^^ This.

Todd Grace, I think you misunderstood what you saw. They use the terms Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve because they're convenient terms to use. They aren't saying that, e.g., Y-chromosome Adam was the only human, nor that his name was actually Adam. This is an interesting mathematical consequence of populations. It may be that, say, 1000 years ago, there was a different, earlier Y-chromosome Adam, and that 1000 years from now, there will be another, later Y-chromosome Adam (i.e., we don't have to go back as far to find a universal male progenitor). Likewise with mitochondrial Eve. Further, Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve may have lived thousands of years apart from one another in different parts of the world. If the flood had been global, for example, Noah would be our Y-chromosome Adam, but mitochondrial Eve would have been from much earlier.

The use of "Adam" and "Eve" are convenient because of the obvious literary reference.

 

[Pipedreamer]

Are you familiar with the worldwide genetic testing which confirmed a middle eastern origin for a common male chromosome for all males? Here's a clue, the group is secular and puts out a magazine.
I'll might answer your educational questions if you stop with the passive aggressive attitude.

This reference kept niggling at my subconscious, driving me nuts in truth, so I went looking and found that the secular group involved is National Geographic and the project is called The Genographic Project and your information about its findings is not accurate. That ancestor that all you men got your Y chromosome from lived ca. 60,000 years ago in Africa, not the middle east. For women, it's the mitochondrial DNA you look at and that is traced back to an African woman ca. 150,000 - ca. 200,000 years ago. From that woman's loins sprang the entire human species in all it's amazing diversity. Watch "National Geographic: The Human Family Tree." It's enlightening.

Oh, and this issue you have with massive changes, which you insist on calling evolution, of said humans into what we are today from what we were some 4 million or so years ago? This problem you've got with how natural selection happens in a fairly slow and steady way so it "can't" account for the rapid increase in brain size and so forth? Well that's all about Phyletic Gradualism. Two words; Punctuated Equilibrium.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

This came to me from some blog site and is the opening comment by someone saying we came from apes.

By the time that our ape ancestors split from the line that would produce chimpanzees, which happened about 4 million to 7 million years ago.
_________________________________________________________________
That humans evolved from apes in 4 million years is <staff edit>. Absolutlely impossible. It is these types of claims that make evolutionists look stupid. There is NO fossil evidence. Anthropologists have faked interpretations from hunks of fossils from other animals at times. They create intermediary skeletons from their minds with tiny fragments they dub [from early man] then build an entire skeleton based on a few teeth or small skull fragment in an attempt to fill in gaps which don't and have never existed. Lucy the skeleton was a flat out hoax that was later admitted to by it's so called [discoverers] but even today it gets used sometimes. They brainwash students with a picture of all these skeletons showing an ape slowly standing up to finally become man but nothing has EVER been unearthed of shown through DNA to make this possible. The only PROOf is when people theorize an impose it with their minds.
The evidence shows a human has never been anything else but a human.

We didn't come from apes. We did, however, come from ape-like creatures (primates) which would be our "ancestor" that we share with apes. Smart people have just found a way to make all this sound intelligent. And yes, evidence does show that a human has always been a human. But then again, smart people want to tell us what they think nature intended, even though there is no way to ever prove it exclusively. Better listen to them!

 

[vetobob]

This came to me from some blog site and is the opening comment by someone saying we came from apes.

By the time that our ape ancestors split from the line that would produce chimpanzees, which happened about 4 million to 7 million years ago.
_________________________________________________________________
That humans evolved from apes in 4 million years is <staff edit>. Absolutlely impossible. It is these types of claims that make evolutionists look stupid. There is NO fossil evidence. Anthropologists have faked interpretations from hunks of fossils from other animals at times. They create intermediary skeletons from their minds with tiny fragments they dub [from early man] then build an entire skeleton based on a few teeth or small skull fragment in an attempt to fill in gaps which don't and have never existed. Lucy the skeleton was a flat out hoax that was later admitted to by it's so called [discoverers] but even today it gets used sometimes. They brainwash students with a picture of all these skeletons showing an ape slowly standing up to finally become man but nothing has EVER been unearthed of shown through DNA to make this possible. The only PROOf is when people theorize an impose it with their minds.
The evidence shows a human has never been anything else but a human.

Well I can say that a couple thousand years ago as soon aswe developed language we suddenly started doing all the other stuff like inventing writing and mathematical formulas to complex political systems and cities with various subcultures.
Interesting that with evolution as soon as language shows up all the coolstuff starts happening.
The key is not really the fossils, it would be language. The fact we could not do anything of the things we do without language creates questions.
Is this proof of intelligent design or is it just nature hitting a random jackpot?

 

[Mallon]

And yes, evidence does show that a human has always been a human.

What does that even mean???