D
Dave Slayer
Guest
When did humans seperate from apes? How long ago was it? Who was the first human to have evolved from an ape?
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,560
When did humans separate from apes? Define for us the difference?
"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."
--Carolus Linnaeus, February 14, 1747
Linnaeus, as you might know, was a Christian, and believed in creation. He was also the man who first developed the present system of classifying animals.
"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."
--Carolus Linnaeus, February 14, 1747
Linnaeus, as you might know, was a Christian, and believed in creation. He was also the man who first developed the present system of classifying animals.
coelacanth
Member
- Jun 8, 2009
- 243
- 0
The question I take it that you are asking is "when did humans separate from other apes?"
To which, the answer is that we are working out the dates that our species separated from the lineages of other modern apes as specifically as possible. At present, our most recent common ancestor with another extant (still living) species is estimated to be about 6 million years ago or so. The image below is a simplified diagram that shows chimpanzees (both species, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo) as most closely related, then gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons as you go backward through time. Whenever the line splits, it is meant to represent the formation of separate species/separate lineages.
To which, the answer is that we are working out the dates that our species separated from the lineages of other modern apes as specifically as possible. At present, our most recent common ancestor with another extant (still living) species is estimated to be about 6 million years ago or so. The image below is a simplified diagram that shows chimpanzees (both species, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo) as most closely related, then gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons as you go backward through time. Whenever the line splits, it is meant to represent the formation of separate species/separate lineages.
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
Did humans evolve from cave men back in the day?
K
kenan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
Cave men meaning the earliest humans? Yes.
coelacanth
Member
- Jun 8, 2009
- 243
- 0
Dave Slayer said:
You'll have to be more specific in the question. At what point do you consider our ancestors human? By "cave men" do you just mean the behavioral trait of living in caves? Also, I should let you know that there are extinct lineages of hominids that are not our ancestors.
coelacanth
Member
- Jun 8, 2009
- 243
- 0
Sorry, I misread your questions as "When did humans evolve..."
VenomFangX
Member
- Sep 7, 2009
- 175
- 0
Humans never separated from apes, we still are apes. Lucy the Australopithecus (Australopithecus afarensis)was found in the Great Rift Valley in Africa. It existed between 3 and 4 million years ago.
I think the common ancestor to the two branches we see today, ourselves and the chimps etc began about 5 million years ago which is tbefore he Quaternary geological period, where most of hominid development and evolution occurred.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
I think the common ancestor to the two branches we see today, ourselves and the chimps etc began about 5 million years ago which is tbefore he Quaternary geological period, where most of hominid development and evolution occurred.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
VenomFangX said:
No wonder why humans act like animals! lol Might as well not even try to grow up and be mature. Let's just act like animals and monkey around! :D
VenomFangX
Member
- Sep 7, 2009
- 175
- 0
:yes 
coelacanth
Member
- Jun 8, 2009
- 243
- 0
Dave Slayer said:
Accepting evolution shouldn't prevent someone from striving for maturity and morality. It's a common anthropocentric hubris underlying a view of other animals that suggests that it is somehow demeaning for a human to be placed in the same category as a non-human.
Sir Pwn4lot
Member
- Dec 11, 2009
- 150
- 0
We're still apes, we never separated from them lol.
By every definition of an ape we are an ape lol.
By every definition of an ape we are an ape lol.
R
RaymondKroft
Guest
- Thread starter
- #14
When Enki seperated them in Ethiopia. After his brother Enlil took his position in Sumeria and Created Adam and Eve.
Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
It is fact that there is no series of graduated transitional fossil to be found on the face of the earth that shows any speciation period, let alone ape/human.
The reason the genetic material is close, is that the creator used the same material.
I know of two homes on my street that were built from the same source material I seriously doubt they evolved. The same builder put them both together.
Anyone who takes a critical look at DNA is forced to admit the absolute necessity of a creator.
Information does not come from chaos.
Also, I'd like to see a single example of "new" DNA being formed in order to get from so called simple single cells to human.
It's akin to asking a contractor to tear down a bungalow and build a high rise apartment building only using the materials from the demolished bungalow.
It can't happen. The builder could utilise some of the bungalow material but he would have to go out and buy copious amounts of new building materials to complete the high rise.
All observed mutation involves either a reshuffling of existing DNA, or a complete loss. If anyone can show otherwise you'll be an evolutionary hero over night.
Also, Lucy is no longer being used as a transitional by serious scientists. You really should keep up on the latest scientific studies if you’re going to use such examples.
Lucy is on the scrap heap of “saviour transitions†along with many, many others.
Take care my friends.
John Bronzesnake
The reason the genetic material is close, is that the creator used the same material.
I know of two homes on my street that were built from the same source material I seriously doubt they evolved. The same builder put them both together.
Anyone who takes a critical look at DNA is forced to admit the absolute necessity of a creator.
Information does not come from chaos.
Also, I'd like to see a single example of "new" DNA being formed in order to get from so called simple single cells to human.
It's akin to asking a contractor to tear down a bungalow and build a high rise apartment building only using the materials from the demolished bungalow.
It can't happen. The builder could utilise some of the bungalow material but he would have to go out and buy copious amounts of new building materials to complete the high rise.
All observed mutation involves either a reshuffling of existing DNA, or a complete loss. If anyone can show otherwise you'll be an evolutionary hero over night.
Also, Lucy is no longer being used as a transitional by serious scientists. You really should keep up on the latest scientific studies if you’re going to use such examples.
Lucy is on the scrap heap of “saviour transitions†along with many, many others.
Take care my friends.
John Bronzesnake
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,560
It is fact that there is no series of graduated transitional fossil to be found on the face of the earth that shows any speciation period, let alone ape/human.
You've confused the material with the plans. Why don't you revise this and try again?
Actually, totally chaotic systems have more information that highly ordered ones. Do you understand what "information" is?
Same old DNA. You see evolution doesn't proceed by making totally new things. It's always a modification of existing things.
What materials would you find in a high rise that are entirely absent from a bungalow? More importantly, what structure do you find in a human that could not have evolved from something simpler?
And, of course, bungalows can't grow or reproduce. But living things can. And they change over time.
Actually, that's deeply wrong. Gene duplication, followed by mutation seems to be a most important part of evolution. Would you like to learn about it?
Someone's really, really pulled the wool over your eyes on that one. Lucy is one of the most important sets of data showing human descent.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Sk ... 0195157062
According to the editors, sorting out the relationship between some of our earliest hominid ancestors depends on interpretations of Australopithecus afarensis. The fairly complete skull of one adult A. afarensis that lies at the heart of this morphological study (A.L.444-2) presents an "unprecedentedly full portrait of the A. afarensis skull at one end of the species' temporal range." Illustrated chapters cover the recovery and reconstruction of the skull; describe the size and shape relationships among the different anatomical regions; examine the endocranial morphology of A.L.444-2; explore the anatomy of individual cranial bones; the mandible, and dentition; and discuss implications for taxonomy and phylogeny. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
Here's a hint; don't ask Fidel Castro, if you want to learn about capitalism. ;)
You've confused the material with the plans. Why don't you revise this and try again?
Actually, totally chaotic systems have more information that highly ordered ones. Do you understand what "information" is?
Same old DNA. You see evolution doesn't proceed by making totally new things. It's always a modification of existing things.
What materials would you find in a high rise that are entirely absent from a bungalow? More importantly, what structure do you find in a human that could not have evolved from something simpler?
And, of course, bungalows can't grow or reproduce. But living things can. And they change over time.
Actually, that's deeply wrong. Gene duplication, followed by mutation seems to be a most important part of evolution. Would you like to learn about it?
Someone's really, really pulled the wool over your eyes on that one. Lucy is one of the most important sets of data showing human descent.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Sk ... 0195157062
According to the editors, sorting out the relationship between some of our earliest hominid ancestors depends on interpretations of Australopithecus afarensis. The fairly complete skull of one adult A. afarensis that lies at the heart of this morphological study (A.L.444-2) presents an "unprecedentedly full portrait of the A. afarensis skull at one end of the species' temporal range." Illustrated chapters cover the recovery and reconstruction of the skull; describe the size and shape relationships among the different anatomical regions; examine the endocranial morphology of A.L.444-2; explore the anatomy of individual cranial bones; the mandible, and dentition; and discuss implications for taxonomy and phylogeny. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
Here's a hint; don't ask Fidel Castro, if you want to learn about capitalism. ;)
Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
Hello Barbarian.
I see a lot a rebuttal but I don't see any substance.
Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures. Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “casts doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.â€
This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,†conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.
However these are examples of patterns. These fall under the scientific category as “chaos and fractals†and are very well understood, and are experienced every day.
The information I am referring to is much more complicated and relevant to this discussion in relation to creation verses evolution.
Consider codes for example...symbolic codes such as music, languages computer programs, blue prints and DNA.
Chaos can produce patterns; it cannot produce a code or symbols my friend. If it can, then please give any examples.
Codes and symbols store information. Information from codes and symbols are not a property of matter and energy alone. Information is a separate entity on an equal level with matter and energy.
Now let’s look at DNA.
Is DNA a pattern? Well DNA is not simply a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language and an information storage mechanism.
Every code known to mankind is created by a conscience mind.
Therefore DNA is designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of God.
With respect, you really don’t have a good grasp on the theory of genetic evolution...at least not macro evolution.
No one is arguing against micro evolution. We see micro evolution happening all the time. That gives us the many different breeds of dogs for example.
Or, micro evolution can cause a finch’s beak to become shorter or longer depending on environmental conditions.
However macro evolution – Darwinian evolution is not found in the fossils, or DNA. Every example of macro evolution to date has either been an outright fraud, or has been found false alarms.
Take the so called whale evolution.
Evolutionist artists took some sparse bone fragments and in their extreme desire to “prove†their preconceptions and biases, they “created†some extremely important MISSING bones (bones which were never part of the actual animals anatomy, because it was never a transitional animal at all) which conveniently enabled their imaginary transitional animal to swim in a way that was most definantly not possible without the specific artistically added parts! That is desperate at best and fraudulent in reality.
The most amazing thing about Darwinian evolution which is completely ignored by evolutionists, or simply unknown, is that if we take Darwinian evolution as fact, for sake of debate, then it would be a fact that the “transitional†intermediate fossils would constitute the vast majority of the fossil record, but as ardent and well known late evolution superstar Steven J. Gould stated,
Now I know evolutionists will become enraged at this quote and will scream out the inevitable defence mantra “quote mining!†The fact is that this quote is exactly as stated and reflects one of the most devastating “trade secrets†of evolution theory...the graduated transitional fossils are not there my friends.
Tell us how you would complete the task?
You can order multiple pieces of any material. You can attach any materials together. This is what you claim happens in evolution...
So you can modify the material but you cannot order any new materials that are not already in the original bungalow. You can only use the tools and equipment that were used to build the bungalow. For example; if you can build a high rise super crane from a bobcat or forklift then go ahead my friend.
As for the biological question; You are aware that no scientist has ever created life in the lab right? Isn’t it odd that evolutionists believe a fluke, random non intelligent accident produced everything, and yet their most brilliant scientists can’t even create a simple single celled life form with all their intelligence and science? Hmmmmm?
While natural selection and beneficial mutations “may increase an organism’s adaptation,†no one has ever been able to point to a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information (new genes or “instructions†for building a new physical trait). All mutations appear to scramble the already-existing information (instructions), either by the reshuffling or duplication of existing genes, or simply by damaging the genes altogether.
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins is generally regarded as one of the most influential neo-Darwinists in the world. During an interview, he was asked a crucial question: Could he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added new genetic information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neo- Darwinism around the world, would know of it.) Dawkins appeared so perplexed by this question that the creation organization who produced the video says that “Dawkins’ response on screen makes a more powerful point against evolution than volumes written by creationists.â€
Another scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening.
It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€
But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people. Yet such examples simply do not support evolution — all observed examples of change are either genetically neutral or genetically downhill, being losses of information instead of the required gains. Losing bits of genetic information a little at a time surely does not help explain how the genetic code was built in the first place; one can’t build a business by losing a little bit of money at a time.
It’s not surprising that one of the most well-known evolutionists openly criticized the traditional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. On the faculties of Harvard and New York University, the late Stephen Jay Gould was the author of over 15 books on scientific topics and contributed monthly essays to the periodical Natural History since January 1974. His essays have also appeared in other scientific periodicals and his work can be found quoted in educational textbooks at all levels. He wrote that although he had been “beguiled†by the unifying power of neo-Darwinism when he studied it as a graduate student in the 1960s, the weight of the evidence pushed him to the reluctant conclusion that neo-Darwinism “as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.â€
Today, there is a growing realization that the presently accepted concept of natural selection and mutations really explains nothing of evolutionary significance. One leading creationist summarized the situation well: “All of our real world experience, especially in today’s ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.†In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.
That’s all for now.
I will return to address the rest of your post my friend.
I have responded to you with respect my friend, which is always my intention.
If I ever come across as arrogant or rude please forgive me as it is not done on purpose.
Take care Barbarian.
Bronzesnake
I see a lot a rebuttal but I don't see any substance.
Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures. Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “casts doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.â€
This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,†conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.
No I haven't. All life has a DNA structure. The plans are certainly not the same unless you're arms reach your knees and you're covered by hair Mr. Barbarian. ;)
I have little doubt that when you state "totally chaotic systems have more information that highly ordered ones " you will refer to things such as snowflakes, stalactites, and sand dunes etc...
However these are examples of patterns. These fall under the scientific category as “chaos and fractals†and are very well understood, and are experienced every day.
The information I am referring to is much more complicated and relevant to this discussion in relation to creation verses evolution.
Consider codes for example...symbolic codes such as music, languages computer programs, blue prints and DNA.
Chaos can produce patterns; it cannot produce a code or symbols my friend. If it can, then please give any examples.
Codes and symbols store information. Information from codes and symbols are not a property of matter and energy alone. Information is a separate entity on an equal level with matter and energy.
Now let’s look at DNA.
Is DNA a pattern? Well DNA is not simply a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language and an information storage mechanism.
Every code known to mankind is created by a conscience mind.
Therefore DNA is designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of God.
OK, so please explain how a so called simple single cell which has no DNA information for an arm for example could modify in order to accomplish this task.
With respect, you really don’t have a good grasp on the theory of genetic evolution...at least not macro evolution.
No one is arguing against micro evolution. We see micro evolution happening all the time. That gives us the many different breeds of dogs for example.
Or, micro evolution can cause a finch’s beak to become shorter or longer depending on environmental conditions.
However macro evolution – Darwinian evolution is not found in the fossils, or DNA. Every example of macro evolution to date has either been an outright fraud, or has been found false alarms.
Take the so called whale evolution.
Evolutionist artists took some sparse bone fragments and in their extreme desire to “prove†their preconceptions and biases, they “created†some extremely important MISSING bones (bones which were never part of the actual animals anatomy, because it was never a transitional animal at all) which conveniently enabled their imaginary transitional animal to swim in a way that was most definantly not possible without the specific artistically added parts! That is desperate at best and fraudulent in reality.
The most amazing thing about Darwinian evolution which is completely ignored by evolutionists, or simply unknown, is that if we take Darwinian evolution as fact, for sake of debate, then it would be a fact that the “transitional†intermediate fossils would constitute the vast majority of the fossil record, but as ardent and well known late evolution superstar Steven J. Gould stated,
- Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Now I know evolutionists will become enraged at this quote and will scream out the inevitable defence mantra “quote mining!†The fact is that this quote is exactly as stated and reflects one of the most devastating “trade secrets†of evolution theory...the graduated transitional fossils are not there my friends.
I’ll answer your question with another question.
Tell us how you would complete the task?
You can order multiple pieces of any material. You can attach any materials together. This is what you claim happens in evolution...
So you can modify the material but you cannot order any new materials that are not already in the original bungalow. You can only use the tools and equipment that were used to build the bungalow. For example; if you can build a high rise super crane from a bobcat or forklift then go ahead my friend.
As for the biological question; You are aware that no scientist has ever created life in the lab right? Isn’t it odd that evolutionists believe a fluke, random non intelligent accident produced everything, and yet their most brilliant scientists can’t even create a simple single celled life form with all their intelligence and science? Hmmmmm?
Really!!?? Wow that’s amazing because scientists across the board know this to be fact.
While natural selection and beneficial mutations “may increase an organism’s adaptation,†no one has ever been able to point to a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information (new genes or “instructions†for building a new physical trait). All mutations appear to scramble the already-existing information (instructions), either by the reshuffling or duplication of existing genes, or simply by damaging the genes altogether.
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins is generally regarded as one of the most influential neo-Darwinists in the world. During an interview, he was asked a crucial question: Could he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added new genetic information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neo- Darwinism around the world, would know of it.) Dawkins appeared so perplexed by this question that the creation organization who produced the video says that “Dawkins’ response on screen makes a more powerful point against evolution than volumes written by creationists.â€
Another scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening.
It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€
But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people. Yet such examples simply do not support evolution — all observed examples of change are either genetically neutral or genetically downhill, being losses of information instead of the required gains. Losing bits of genetic information a little at a time surely does not help explain how the genetic code was built in the first place; one can’t build a business by losing a little bit of money at a time.
It’s not surprising that one of the most well-known evolutionists openly criticized the traditional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. On the faculties of Harvard and New York University, the late Stephen Jay Gould was the author of over 15 books on scientific topics and contributed monthly essays to the periodical Natural History since January 1974. His essays have also appeared in other scientific periodicals and his work can be found quoted in educational textbooks at all levels. He wrote that although he had been “beguiled†by the unifying power of neo-Darwinism when he studied it as a graduate student in the 1960s, the weight of the evidence pushed him to the reluctant conclusion that neo-Darwinism “as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.â€
Today, there is a growing realization that the presently accepted concept of natural selection and mutations really explains nothing of evolutionary significance. One leading creationist summarized the situation well: “All of our real world experience, especially in today’s ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.†In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.
That’s all for now.
I will return to address the rest of your post my friend.
I have responded to you with respect my friend, which is always my intention.
If I ever come across as arrogant or rude please forgive me as it is not done on purpose.
Take care Barbarian.
Bronzesnake
Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
jasoncran said:
Absolutly my friend.
Here it is.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/18/farewell-lucy
Take care.
Bronzesnake
Similar threads
