budaatum:

That's not true. My opinion of your mouth being potty has nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not or what you, as annalice or emmanystone, stand for.

I am disagreeing with vaxx (sorry for the mention vaxx), but I have posted somewhere how much regard I have for him, and I wouldn't be wasting time discussing with him if his mouth were potty. I am disagreeing with OkCornel, and while I admit that I am reserving an insult for his avoidance of the elephant in his argument, his mouth is not potty. I disagree with butter pretty often, but I can not honestly claim his mouth is potty (least, not towards me), and here is immhotep disagreeing with me on homosexuality itself without pot in his mouth.

You however just can't seem to hold a discussion without resorting to baseless insults is what I find about you. But the uncouth way that you go about it is even more unbecoming and is the reason I give you a very wide berth. I refuse to insult myself by discussing with people who have not learnt how to behave in public! Associating with such people might make me stink like you do!

Thank you. But can you pls post my insults to you?
Oh, don't bother, i don't care.

Of course they are biased, that's usually what reviews are about, but one of them has less than 5 reviews in total indicative of the nicheness of his writing, and hardly a wide enough sample on which to base an opinion. But that wouldn't matter much, if not for more negative stuff about Richard Rives on the internet Ok. If you read such stuff about buda, we both know how you would take anything I say. Note how you reacted to apes having common ancestry with humans, yet you want more credence given to a more incredible claims made by an irreputable Richard Rives!

I'm done (least my mouth goes potty like annalice's). Hopefully, I would clear my mind from holding this against you in future discussions.

OkCornel:


First ... you are getting me more confused about what exactly you need... you stated this...


I asked you to check the book reviews of two books he wrote bordering on the flaws in modern Christianity (you would have discovered this if you googled as I told you to initially)... and now you are saying book reviews are subjective...

WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT?

Are you implying majority of the feedback of those who reviewed the books are biased?

budaatum:
Of course they are biased, that's usually what reviews are about, but one of them has less than 5 reviews in total indicative of the nicheness of his writing, and hardly a wide enough sample on which to base an opinion. But that wouldn't matter much, if not for more negative stuff about Richard Rives on the internet Ok. If you read such stuff about buda, we both know how you would take anything I say. Note how you reacted to apes having common ancestry with humans, yet you want more credence given to a more incredible claims made by an irreputable Richard Rives!

I'm done (least my mouth goes potty like annalice's). Hopefully, I would clear my mind from holding this against you in future discussions.

If we go by your logic... then most likely, your opinion and every other person's opinion is biased and subjective...

My reactions to apes and humans having a common ancestry stemmed from nothing being known about this common ancestor apes and humans shared... do you have anything that can help in that regard?

Potty mouth has nothing to do with our dialogue...thanks...

No, everyone's opinion is not necessarily biased, and if sufficient valid objective evidence is provided for an opinion, one would not say such a view is purely subjective. But if there is evidence (or none) to hold either side of a position, then a personal preference is one choice, sitting on the fence is the other. Deciding to not accept valid evidence for a claim is either due to bias, or perhaps not being sufficiently informed.

There is sufficient evidence out there about the common ancestry of apes and humans. Google will help.

OkCornel:


If we go by your logic... then most likely, your opinion and every other person's opinion is biased and subjective...

My reactions to apes and humans having a common ancestry stemmed from nothing being known about this common ancestor apes and humans shared... do you have anything that can help in that regard?

Potty mouth has nothing to do with our dialogue...thanks...

budaatum:
No, everyone's opinion is not necessarily biased, and if sufficient valid objective evidence is provided for an opinion, one would not say such a view is purely subjective. But if there is evidence (or none) to hold either side of a position, then a personal preference is one choice, sitting on the fence is the other. Deciding to not accept valid evidence for a claim is either due to bias, or perhaps not being sufficiently informed.

There is sufficient evidence out there about the common ancestry of apes and humans. Google will help.

Per the bolded... that was where I was stuck with PastorAIO before replying your posts...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

I have gone through evolution theories just like the link above...these are not sufficient evidence...but more of estimates, theories and guesses on the timelines where the split between man and ape occurred from their common ancestor...

My question still remains...

If man and ape have a common ancestor due to similarities in their genetic make up... can the same hold water for banana & plantain or yam & cassava having a common ancestor due to similarities in their genetic make up?


Common creator sounds more like it. Because it takes knowledge of what to tweak in the chromosome structures of different animals/plants to make them unique per specie...

OkCornel:



My question still remains...

If man and ape have a common ancestor due to similarities in their genetic make up... can the same hold water for banana & plantain or yam & cassava having a common ancestor due to similarities in their genetic make up?

What are the genetic similarities you refer to please, between:

Yam and cassava?

Banana and plantain?

Humans and apes?

OkCornel:


But I thought you clearly stated I should give my reasons on what distinguishes humans from other hominids whilst discussing chromosome 2...now you are giving this response... that I want to derail...all for answering your question...

Why are you twisting things? Ifeness was questioning the authenticity of the bible and whether Mary could have a child without a father. Are you not the one that derailed into genetics when you said the following...

OkCornel:


I would also wish the Bible is completely false...

But can you explain how the DNA of a human being has no chromosome traceable to an earthly father?

Unless you wanna live in denial...don't bother going through the video.

I am not scared of seeking the TRUTH...that is why I have read a lot of books far and wide...including the Epic of Gilgamesh..
I am also not going to ridicule you for choosing to believe the Annunaki story with no evidence for the sighting of planet Nibiru...

So you derail into 'genetics' using some twaddle that your semiliterate mind could not tell was utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, we followed you down the derailed path where you totally exposed yourself to be a nincompoop. Now you resort to lying that I started the genetics talk.

OkCornel:




You claim I am ignorant and arrogant...but you are busy postulating that humans and apes have a common ancestor you have no idea of! ... but yet it sounds like an intelligent opinion to you...


I have given up on you... it appears you cannot hold a conversation without insults... it says a lot about your maturity...

budaatum...what again did you see in this guy?

The difference between me and you is that where I have no knowledge of something I am happy to admit that I have no knowledge of it. You on the other hand will be posturing and derailing and jumping around from one inane source to another.

It doesn't occur to you that if your god can create one extra X chromosome to create a deformed tomato messiah that he could also have created 23 extra chromosomes to create a healthy human being. But I suppose your god is too useless to create 23 whole other chromosomes. He could only manage one more.

It could also not occur to you that the process of evolution could be guided by a divinity.

These are all just speculations but they at least show that the person presenting them has imagination and is not a dullard such as you are demonstrating yourself to be.

[img]https://s1/images/wiki.jpg[/img]

FAO of any having irresistible and inescapable dependency on wikipedia

PastorAIO:


Why are you twisting things? Ifeness was questioning the authenticity of the bible and whether Mary could have a child without a father. Are you not the one that derailed into genetics when you said the following...

Check the trend of discussion on this thread if truly you can comprehend. Who started talks on genetics? was it not the Annunaki believers?

PastorAIO:

So you derail into 'genetics' using some twaddle that your semiliterate mind could not tell was utter nonsense.

It's officially confirmed, you cannot hold a discussion without insults...and I won't stoop so low to wrestle with you in your mud of insults. It's not worth it at all.

PastorAIO:

Unfortunately, we followed you down the derailed path where you totally exposed yourself to be a nincompoop. Now you resort to lying that I started the genetics talk.

It's funny when you claim another person has a comprehension problem...whereas you have twisted what I said earlier (either because you are eager to tell lies). We had a discussion on the common ancestor for man and apes where you mentioned losing 2 chromosomes distinguishes man from other hominids...and you clearly mentioned I should state if I think otherwise, I should table my reasons (in your words below)...

PastorAIO:


It is a trait that distinguishes humans from all other hominids. If you think otherwise then please table your reasons.

HOW DOES THIS TRANSLATE INTO ME ACCUSING YOU OF STARTING THE GENETICS TALK? It's either;

a) You have a tough time following the flow of a conversation.
b) You have a tough time understanding the basic message one pass across
c) You are hasty to tell a lie to falsely accuse another person...


Since you have been quoting all my posts on this thread...please quote where I accused you of starting the genetics talk...or admit your mistake...if not lies

PastorAIO:

The difference between me and you is that where I have no knowledge of something I am happy to admit that I have no knowledge of it. You on the other hand will be posturing and derailing and jumping around from one inane source to another.

I guess you are conveniently blind to my posts on other threads where I repeatedly mention... I DO NOT KNOW IT ALL...

If you have the intelligence to connect the dots, you would see that all the sources I have posted here do not in anyway contradict themselves, but unfortunately, your level of intelligence can only analyze them in piecemeal rather than seeing the big picture.

PastorAIO:

It doesn't occur to you that if your god can create one extra X chromosome to create a deformed tomato messiah that he could also have created 23 extra chromosomes to create a healthy human being. But I suppose your god is too useless to create 23 whole other chromosomes. He could only manage one more.

It also never occurred to you that God who designed the system such that man needs 46 chromosomes is not limited to following that pattern...and that's because nothing is impossible for Him to do.

For example, how many chromosomes do you think Adam would have had bearing in mind that he had no earthly parents?

PastorAIO:

It could also not occur to you that the process of evolution could be guided by a divinity.

Even the Universe is in constant evolution, and I credit that to the programmer and creator of it. As for the intelligent design of creatures and plants on earth, inasmuch as there are seeming conflicts between evolutionists and creationists, it does not in anyway invalidate the argument for a superior intelligence being responsible for their existence and functions...

PastorAIO:

These are all just speculations but they at least show that the person presenting them has imagination and is not a dullard such as you are demonstrating yourself to be.

Now shifting the goal post I see... it's fine to speculate because the person presenting them has imagination rather than facts abi?

This is getting interesting. I guess you have to follow their imaginations and speculations to make your points as well...

budaatum:

What are the genetic similarities you refer to please, between:

Yam and cassava?

Banana and plantain?

Humans and apes?

In summary;
Banana and plantain share the Musaceae genome

Human and apes share the hominid genome

Yam and Cassava share the Dioscorea genome (I think)...

If Human and apes share a common ancestor... does the same thing apply to Yam & Cassava and Banana & Plantain?

OkCornel:


In summary;
Banana and plantain share the Musaceae genome

Human and apes share the hominid genome

Yam and Cassava share the Dioscorea genome (I think)...

If Human and apes share a common ancestor... does the same thing apply to Yam & Cassava and Banana & Plantain?

All known living organisms on earth share a common ancestor. It is referred as LUA or LUCA,(( Last Universal –Common– Ancestor.)) LUCA is the ancestor of bacteria, archaea, and eucaryotes. From the wikipedia article on LUCA: "A universal common ancestor is at least 10^2860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors''. This common ancestry explains why plants and animals share genetic code to the extent that genes from animals can be spliced into plants and will continue to be transcribed into proteins in the same way as when they were in the original host. For example, using jellyfish genes to make a tomato glow in the dark (via recombinant DNA technology) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

vaxx:
All known living organisms on earth share a common ancestor. It is referred as LUA or LUCA,(( Last Universal –Common– Ancestor.)) LUCA is the ancestor of bacteria, archaea, and eucaryotes. From the wikipedia article on LUCA: "A universal common ancestor is at least 10^2860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors''. This common ancestry explains why plants and animals share genetic code to the extent that genes from animals can be spliced into plants and will continue to be transcribed into proteins in the same way as when they were in the original host. For example, using jellyfish genes to make a tomato glow in the dark (via recombinant DNA technology) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

Thanks for this piece.

Just to be sure I understood this correctly... it means all living organisms here on earth descended (are traceable) from LUCA...because of similarities in the genetic code of animals and plants...

What exactly is this LUCA? What are its properties?

From the part of your quote I bolded...this is more of an opinion from probability...but that notwithstanding, let's continue with this discussion...

OkCornel:



It's officially confirmed, you cannot hold a discussion without insults...and I won't stoop so low to wrestle with you in your mud of insults. It's not worth it at all.

You're at least right here. There is no way that I'll be able to engage in such abject nonsense as you serve up without using insults. Abeg just find your way and avoid my insults.

PastorAIO:


You're at least right here. There is no way that I'll be able to engage in such abject nonsense as you serve up without using insults. Abeg just find your way and avoid my insults.

I have engaged in dialogues with Emmanystone, budaatum, ifeness, somnvayina, MuttleyLaff on this thread... and despite our differences in opinion, I haven't used derogatory words on them even when I am tempted to...and neither do they reply with insults despite differences in our opinion...

I wonder why your case is different... you can't hold a discussion without insults?

Vaxx is currently engaging me on a discussion you have initially stated you have no idea of. We might end up having our divergent opinions...but you won't see us exchanging insults to make our points...

This is far better than claiming your opinion is an intelligent one..but when you are probed further, we all find out you have no idea of what you believe in...

OkCornel:


Thanks for this piece.

Just to be sure I understood this correctly... it means all living organisms here on earth descended from LUCA...

What exactly is this LUCA? What are its properties?

From the part of your quote I bolded...this is more of an opinion from probability...but that notwithstanding, let's continue with this discussion...

.There are bacterial fossils as old as 3.465 billion years ago (https://phys.org/news/2017-12-oldest-fossils-life-earth-began.html) but these aren’t LUCA. There are traces of carbon and haematite that seem to have come from living things that might have lived as much as 4.2 billion years ago (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21377) but those traces don’t tell us much about what LUCA was like.

Science only learn about what the earliest life forms by using the comparative method. If all living things have a particular attribute then we can assume that LUCA had that attribute.All living things use a similar set of amino acids to create proteins, so LUCA must have used this set.

All living things use RNA, ribosomes, and mostly the same genetic code, so LUCA must have used RNA, ribosomes, and the same genetic code.

All living things use ATP as an energy source, so LUCA must have used ATP.

All living things generate ATP by letting protons (hydrogen nuclei) through a membrane, so LUCA must have used the same mechanism.

He/SHE is the last common ancestor of plants and animals, it said to lived around 1.6 billion years ago and was a single celled organism, neither plant nor animal itself. It's probable that plants and animals separately evolved into multi celled organisms but the basic cellular processes are homologous. there is no fossils of LUCA yet.

vaxx:
.There are bacterial fossils as old as 3.465 billion years ago (https://phys.org/news/2017-12-oldest-fossils-life-earth-began.html) but these aren’t LUCA. There are traces of carbon and haematite that seem to have come from living things that might have lived as much as 4.2 billion years ago (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21377) but those traces don’t tell us much about what LUCA was like.

Science only learn about what the earliest life forms by using the comparative method. If all living things have a particular attribute then we can assume that LUCA had that attribute.All living things use a similar set of amino acids to create proteins, so LUCA must have used this set.

All living things use RNA, ribosomes, and mostly the same genetic code, so LUCA must have used RNA, ribosomes, and the same genetic code.

All living things use ATP as an energy source, so LUCA must have used ATP.

All living things generate ATP by letting protons (hydrogen nuclei) through a membrane, so LUCA must have used the same mechanism.

He/SHE is the last common ancestor of plants and animals, it said to lived around 1.6 billion years ago and was a single celled organism, neither plant nor animal itself. It's probable that plants and animals separately evolved into multi celled organisms but the basic cellular processes are homologous. there is no fossils of LUCA yet.

Thanks once more for your reply. It's the comparative method employed by Science in studying earliest life forms I am challenging...remember its also probability we are dealing with here...

All living organisms having a common denominator (or material) in their genetic code...does not necessarily translate into these organisms evolving out of this common denominator...

I wonder if this view point has been considered... i.e. the possibility of this LUCA replicating rapidly such that different/distinct forms of life (animals & plant) can evolve separately at the same time...

There's also the missing of link of how life evolved from simple celled organisms into more complex life forms i.e. into tissues, organs, systems...e.t.c.

OkCornel:


Thanks once more for your reply. It's the comparative method employed by Science in studying earliest life forms I am challenging...remember its also probability we are dealing with here...

All living organisms having a common denominator (or material) in their genetic code...does not necessarily translate into these organisms evolving out of this common denominator...

I wonder if this view point has been considered... i.e. the possibility of this LUCA replicating rapidly such that different/distinct forms of life (animals & plant) can evolve separately at the same time...

There's also the [b]missing of link of how life evolved from simple celled organisms into more complex life forms [/b]i.e. into tissues, organs, systems...e.t.c.

there are lot of hypothesis on it. but before bringing in the hypothesis, look at this dynamic changes in the horse leg and hoof, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse. Everything that can be placed on the Phylogenetic tree from the first multicellular organisms onward were either intermediate species to descendents living today, or are lines with no descendents because they went extinct. Some of the branches can be traced pretty well along the route of evolution that led to us. Most would be divergent, leading to our cats and dogs, birds, whales in the sea, etc.

i will like to see your reasons why you think all living things cannot exist from common denominator?Are there bacteria/single celled organisms in remote locations on Earth which are not related to the rest of the life on Earth? my guess is NO, therefore the scientific approach on the comparative method seems to be more accurate than saying otherwise, Plants and animals are both eukaryotes, and that immediately makes them more closely related to one another than either is to all the bacteria and archaea. In addition to that, there are many single celled eukaryotes that are more distantly relatedly to both animals and plants than animals and plants are to one another.

Being both eukaryotes, plants and animals actually share many, many similarities pattern. They use almost same enzymes to replicate their DNA, and the exact same types of ribosomes to produce proteins. Their cells have nuclei, and linear chromosomes packaged with histone proteins. They have active cell cytoskeletons, mitochondria, internal membranes and vacuoles. They both have meiosis, mitosis, and reproduce sexually .https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm.

we are all FAMILY

vaxx:
there a lot of hypothesis on it. but before bringing in the hypothesis, look at this dynamic changes in the horse leg and hoof, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse. Everything that can be placed on the Phylogenetic tree from the first multicellular organisms onward were either intermediate species to descendents living today, or are lines with no descendents because they went extinct. Some of the branches can be traced pretty well along the route of evolution that led to us. Most would be divergent, leading to our cats and dogs, birds, whales in the sea, etc.

i will like to see your reasons why you think all living things cannot exist from common denominator? Are there bacteria/single celled organisms in remote locations on Earth which are not related to the rest of the life on Earth? my guess is NO, therefore the scientific approach on the comparative method seems to be more accurate than saying otherwise, Plants and animals are both eukaryotes, and that immediately makes them more closely related to one another than either is to all the bacteria and archaea. In addition to that, there are many single celled eukaryotes that are more distantly relatedly to both animals and plants than animals and plants are to one another.

Being both eukaryotes, plants and animals actually share many, many similarities pattern. They use almost same enzymes to replicate their DNA, and the exact same types of ribosomes to produce proteins. Their cells have nuclei, and linear chromosomes packaged with histone proteins. They have active cell cytoskeletons, mitochondria, internal membranes and vacuoles. They both have meiosis, mitosis, and reproduce sexually .https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm.

The assumption that all life forms descended from a common denominator focuses more on the similarities in the genetic code of life forms and ignores their differences...

What accounts for their differences and variations?

You can create different products at the same time from a raw material (This supports the LUCA theory) by complimenting it with other materials (The LUCA theory ignores this part)... I stand to be corrected...

I haven't seen a response to my enquiry on how complex life forms evolved from simple celled life forms... it's a gaping hole in the evolution process... are there theories that can explain this?

OkCornel:
The assumption that all life forms descended from a common denominator focuses more on the similarities in the genetic code of life forms and ignores their differences...

NO, It focus more on the DNA structure, which give the probability a high chance.

What accounts for their differences and variations?

photosynthesize,but this can be explain scientifically,Plants photosynthesize because they have chloroplasts, while animals do not. Chloroplasts are the descendents of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. Animals have endosymbionts as well, and acquired them by the exact same mechanisms that plants do (also shared with all other eukaryotes). It just happens that the ancestors of plants happened to get an endosymbiotic that could photosynthesize, while animals did not.

You can create different products at the same time from a raw material (This supports the LUCA theory) by complimenting it with other materials (The LUCA theory ignores this part)... I stand to be corrected...

you are ignoring the very critical component of life that is traceable and take about 90 percent of every living creature. AMINO ACIDS. i could go on here, but let me make it simple, do any living things composed of little or no amino acid?

I haven't seen a response to my enquiry on how complex life forms evolved from simple celled life forms... it's a gaping hole in the evolution process... are there theories that can explain this?

AS soon i get home, i will send you some links to some hypothesis that has been developed on it. but i am afraid to tell you, you are yet to understand evolution, evolution is about Evolution is about being the fittest to pass on your genes in your current environment. It’s not for the good of anything, not for complexity, not for ultimate longevity of a species, not for intelligence, not for making anything better. Just passing on genes that’s it.

double post...

vaxx:
NO, It focus more on the DNA structure, which give the probability a high chance.
photosynthesize,but this can be explain scientifically,Plants photosynthesize because they have chloroplasts, while animals do not. Chloroplasts are the descendents of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. Animals have endosymbionts as well, and acquired them by the exact same mechanisms that plants do (also shared with all other eukaryotes). It just happens that the ancestors of plants happened to get an endosymbiotic that could photosynthesize, while animals did not.


you are ignoring the very critical component of life that is traceable and take about 90 percent of every living creature. AMINO ACIDS. i could go on here, but let me make it simple, do any living things composed of little or no amino acid?

AS soon i get home, i will send you some links to some hypothesis that has been developed on it. but i am afraid to tell you, you are yet to understand evolution, evolution is about Evolution is about being the fittest to pass on your genes in your current environment. It’s not for the good of anything, not for complexity, not for ultimate longevity of a species, not for intelligence, not for making anything better. Just passing on genes that’s it.

I am not ignoring the common denominator which supports the LUCA theory... I am stating that the theory focuses on the similarities (common denominator) without taking cognizance on the origin of the differences in DNA structure of various life forms...

Cement can be used to build houses...but not all houses are made entirely of cement... (I have a reason for including this statement)

I'll be waiting for the materials on evolution theory...

Note: I am not debunking evolution...however, I don't think it has ALL the answers to the origin of life...

[quote author=OkCornel post=66905762]

I

am not ignoring the common denominator which supports the LUCA theory... I am stating that the theory focuses on the similarities (common denominator) without taking cognizance on the origin of the differences in DNA structure of various life forms...

at the chemicals level, which is lthe DNA structure, we share lot of similarities than difference, Believe it or not, plants and animals are related. All life on earth, Scientists confirm this in the LUCA evidenve, though our DNA, which is sometimes referred to as the "building blocks" or "blueprints" of life. It is Stored in the nucleus of every cell of every living thing, DNA is a long chain of amino acids that form together in ways to create a specific living thing.

Cement can be used to build houses...but not all houses are made entirely of cement... (I have a reason for including this statement

)all living thing are made from matter, what we have now is recycling system. The end product of cement or iron. Or glass or whatsoever that is used in building house is dust. A very vital component of matter.

I'll be waiting for the materials on evolution theory...

evolution is not about creation, Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodivlersity at every level of biological composition. Evolution is not about how the species arrived, she only treat how the species evolve.
You have to study the difference. Science has not come up with a theory of such.

Note: I am not debunking evolution...however, I don't think it has ALL the answers to the origin of life...

sure, but it has the most convincing answer for now, you are an evidence of evolution. You are once a toddler now an adult. This is a proof.

[quote author=vaxx post=66908890][/quote]

I appreciate your well structured response.

It is satisfactory to an extent.

My only disappointment is that evolution has nothing to do about creation (going by your feedback), hence might not satisfy my curiousity in that regard...

Using growth as evidence of evolution is not what I am looking for...

What I was looking for is something to corroborate something like the homo-habilis to homo-erectus to homo-sapien to whatever man might evolve into in the distant future... OR DNA test results on any identifiable remains (fossil) of the common ancestor of man and apes...

I also wonder why the homo-habilis and homo-erectus no longer exist today...; or whatever happened to the common ancestor of man and apes...

OkCornel:


I appreciate your well structured response.

It is satisfactory to an extent.

My only disappointment is that evolution has nothing to do about creation (going by your feedback), hence might not satisfy my curiousity in that regard...

Using growth as evidence of evolution is not what I am looking for...

What I was looking for is something to corroborate something like the homo-habilis to homo-erectus to homo-sapien to whatever man might evolve into in the distant future... OR DNA test results on any identifiable remains (fossil) of the common ancestor of man and apes...

I also wonder why the homo-habilis and homo-erectus no longer exist today...; or whatever happened to the common ancestor of man and apes...

Do not be disappointed, evolution does not treat origination, and nether does big bang , what they attempt is how and not why, since why is out of the reached of science. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here. https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow or when uni cellular organism turning into multi cellular organism. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

i read a book in the library( the name escape my memory for now)but you can do a goggle search, it is assume that Homo - Erectus likely evolved into Homo - Heidelbergensis in Africa and Homo-Erectus in Eurasian interbred with the Neanderthal and Denisovan and became extinct just like the Neanderthal and Denisovan became extinct after breeding with modern humans while homo habilis could not just survive the competition of survival. the survival of the fittest just like hobbit of Indonesia and neanderthal of Europe went into extinction. but in anyway, home erectus and homo habilis do not make evolution a dead end. it is just like asking what happened to your childhood self.

vaxx:
Do not be disappointed, evolution does not treat origination, and nether does big bang , what they attempt is how and not why, since why is out of the reached of science. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here. https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow or when uni cellular organism turning into multi cellular organism. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

i read a book in the library( the name escape my memory for now)but you can do a goggle search, it is assume that Homo - Erectus likely evolved into Homo - Heidelbergensis in Africa and Homo-Erectus in Eurasian interbred with the Neanderthal and Denisovan and became extinct just like the Neanderthal and Denisovan became extinct after breeding with modern humans while homo habilis could not just survive the competition of survival. the survival of the fittest just like hobbit of Indonesia and neanderthal of Europe went into extinction. but in anyway, home erectus and homo habilis do not make evolution a dead end. it is just like asking what happened to your childhood self.

What's the name of the book and the author?

Thanks...

sonmvayina:


What do you want to know?

Do u not know the meaning of facts?

Lol...have you really read the Epic of Gilgamesh? If you really have you'll realise that all the gods in the Enuma Elish were created by two other gods. Jehovah (YHWH) is the creator of everything and everyone. Don't you get? Babylonian fairytales that look like Assyrian and GrecoRoman mythologies are what you're using to describe the UNKNOWN GOD? I laugh in shit hole

ifenes:
Yahweh, Anu are the same reptilian being the Christians referred to as god. The Chinese knows this being as the dragon, the South America have always stressed the worship of the dragon king who visited from the sky. Moses himself had an encounter with the same shape-shifting being. Although I doubt the Moses character itself was real as the original story may have belonged to an Egyptian prince who had similar story.

Before we consider the Sumerian version: The Epic of Gilgermersh being first before Genesis, let’s look at Moses. Was Moses the writer of a book which spoke about his own death ? If we are to believe the stories of Genesis, then Moses did not write it. There is no clear evidence but then going by logic( which is often not a good excuse) Moses did not write the first 5 books of the bible because he was said to have died in the first book.

Is it possible the Moses was taken back in time to write the books which included his own death ? Yes it is possible. Whether it is true or not shouldn’t be a big deal because anything is possible with advance technology, especially a time machine used by Yahweh/Anu, the father of Enki.

The epic of gilermerch along with The Enuma Elish predates the bible because they talked about previous civilisations on this planet. If you want to know about the story of Atlantis,the 8 god kings who ruled the planet for 250 thousand years and each one ruling for a minimum of 15 thousand years, stories that were briefly copied into the book of Genesis, read the Enuma Elish. Then you can see for yourself that the bible plagiarised other books

Peace

It is good to read but it is better to read and understand. Enki, like Zeus and Jupiter, had parents. They were Anu and Nammu/Tiamat. In fact, he was inside Apsu before Nammu awoke him. He is in Akkadian known as Ea.

YHWH is not a personification of a sea or rock or sky. He is a God according to your perception. He has been El-Shaddai, Elohim, El-Elyon, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, etc. He has no origins. In fact, he created time (Chronos) and the seas (Nammu/Tiamat) and the Storm (Madurk) and the fallen star (Lucifer). To compare Him with Enki who(if one is to take you seriously) is not even an original God but was birthed by other gods is the height of madness. Read Exodus 15:11. #Hallelujah