let's agree for the sake of argument that human share common ancestors with ape

if we agree with this statement, it will mean we are closely related with the apes and that include lesser ape Gibbons and great ape like chimpanzees and gorillas and likewise orangutans... it is reported that they they emerge and diversified during the Miocene epoch ... Miocene epoch was a time of warm global climate than those in the proceeding like Oligocene or the following Pliocene...and science also claim that is the time two major ecosystem appear which is the kip forest and grasslands..

where I need clarification...

who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?


is science claiming there is no mammals on planet earth before the arrivals of the ecosystem?



I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....

The purpose of this questions is to raised the best explanation to who create God..... best explanation can't be explain.... if scientists deem it fit that the evolution theory is conclusive....
they also need to acknowledged it when religion folks says there is no any further explanation as to who create God..... it is conclusive.....

AgentofAllah , johnydon22 , butterflylion and some other scientists in the house.....come and do justice to this topic...... free thinker like me are also invited....

Space booked. Will update shortly

vaxx:

who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?

OP, while these are fantastic questions, ones whose answers are still subject to rigorous explorations and pursuits, the questions themselves have no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution. By this, I mean it's not the answers to these questions whence the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. To clearly understand why, you have to study the simple family tree chart below, and follow my reasoning carefully.
[img]https://metrouk2.files./2014/10/family.png[/img]

Now, OP, let us agree for the sake of argument, that you have a 3rd cousin. Would it be reasonable to formulate the "Vaxx theory of familial evolution", which states that Vaxx and his 3rd cousin have common ancestors in their great-great-grandparents? If you think this is reasonable, then surely, you must know who your great-great grandparents are? You very well may! But what happens when we extend the theory to your 5th cousin and great⁴ grandparents, or your 10th cousin and great⁹ grandparents, hmmm?

So now Vaxx, can you tell me who your great⁹ grandparents were? Any biography about them? their occupation, where they lived? Their skin complexions, whether they had any congenital diseases? Can you answer these questions? Next, can you tell me who gave birth to you great⁹ grandparents?

I am willing to bet you cannot answer these questions with any degree of accuracy. So my next question is, does the fact that you cannot answer these questions belie the Vaxx theory of familial evolution?? Does this mean you do not share a common ancestor with your 10th, 5th, or 11th cousins?
Now, assuming they do not carry the same family name as you, is there another way we can tell that these people are your cousins? Absolutely! It's called DNA profiling.

Now, you tell me Vaxx, if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed?

I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....

Vaxx, you are right that no one can definitively answer that particular question of who the common ancestors of the common ancestors were, but make no mistake, it doesn't pose any problems for the theory of evolution.

AgentOfAllah:

OP, while these are a fantastic questions, ones whose answers are still subject to rigorous explorations and pursuits, the questions themselves have no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution. By this, I mean it's not the answers to these questions whence the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. To clearly understand why, you have to study the simple family tree below, and follow my reasoning carefully.
[img]https://metrouk2.files./2014/10/family.png[/img]

Now, OP, let us agree for the sake of argument, that you have a 3rd cousin. Would it be reasonable to formulate the "Vaxx theory of familial evolution", which states that Vaxx and his 3rd cousin have common ancestors in their great-great-grandparents? If you think this is reasonable, then surely, you must know who your great-great grandparents are? You very well may! But what happens when we extend the theory to your 5th cousin and great⁴ grandparents, or your 10th cousin and great⁹ grandparents, hmmm?

So now Vaxx, can you tell me who your great⁹ grandparents were? Any biography about them? their occupation, where they lived? Their skin complexions, whether they had any congenital diseases? Can you answer these questions? Next, can you tell me who gave birth to you great⁹ grandparents?

I am willing to bet you cannot answer these questions with any degree of accuracy. So my next question is, does the fact that you cannot answer these questions belie the Vaxx theory of familial evolution?? Does this mean you do not share a common ancestor with your 10th, 5th, or 11th cousins?
Now, assuming they do not carry the same family name as you, is there another way we can tell that these people are your cousins? Absolutely! It's called DNA profiling.

Now, you tell me Vaxx, if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed?



Vaxx, you are right that no one can definitively answer that particular question of who the common ancestors of the common ancestors were, but make no mistake, it doesn't pose any problems for the theory of evolution.

brilliant approach....I already give kudos to scientist for been able trace who are my ancestors... a complicated problem for me a non scientist...

so far it is the best explanation scientist can give .....applicable to the religious folks ....the best explanation for the designer of the universe is God and nothing. more....... I think science needs to also agree with this concept....because best explanation do not need an explanation due to an infinite regression of explanation which will render the whole purpose of science and philosophical thinking useless...


for example it is an established theory that living organism are made up of cells...no new evidence is likely to change this scientific verified evidence...


God design the universe that is the best explanation.... nothing more....


I also note one thing if science agree we are both from one common ancestor , is it not also suggesting we are from the same common designer....

Hello Vaxx sorry but my main moniker got erroneously banned almost after I said I will update shortly and the ban is to last till the 10th of October. However I have written to the mods with an explanation so hopefully my ban will be lifted. Permit me to address your OP with my alternate handle which is as good as same with butterflylion.

In most arguments for evolution, the proponent assumes that common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and humans, point to a common ancestor in the distant past. Darwin mocked the idea (proposed by Richard Owen) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.

But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans. The human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.


Development of human and frog digits


Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.

Image 1. human digits to the left and frog digits to the right
Image 2. embryonic development

Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes).

Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide.

The evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common ancestor. But this is false. There are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.

There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die so once a code is settled on, we’re stuck with it. Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors. But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64–69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.

The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or bird.

Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms. For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved

The only thing that fits the gaps in evolution and common ancestry is a creationist / intelligent design position.

We cannot base the issue of common ancestry on suppositions and wild speculations. We have absolutely no evidence for this common ancestry. No DNA evidence. Even if there are some fossils being shown, these fossils are perfected variants on their own and do not show any signs of evolutionary transition.

Look at this in the way a conspiracy theorist views things. He would always see "something" that relates to his conspiracy even from things that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

Science and Evolution do not believe in Spiritual.


We believe in the Spiritual. More than 80% of the world.

Yet we believe every explanation of science.

There are new theories of science everyday.

Yet, we believe firmly in "theories" that can be proven wrong anytime.

A new part of the eye was just discovered recently.


As small as the eyes.

Ask yourself why you believe what you believe.

Is it because it is of science? Of sense? Of realities?


IF You're wrong about what you believe, you are in danger

Air is not seen. Yet it is real.


Thoughts are real, not seen.

Water exists in three different forms. Ice, water,and steam. With different characters.yet it is water.

This is what I believe.

There is only one God.who cannot be seen.

He exists in a bodily form. The son,, to redeem us to himself.

vaxx:
brilliant approach....I already give kudos to scientist for been able trace who are my ancestors... a complicated problem for me a non scientist...

so far it is the best explanation scientist can give .....applicable to the religious folks ....the best explanation for the designer of the universe is God and nothing. more....... I think science needs to also agree with this concept....because best explanation do not need an explanation due to an infinite regression of explanation which will render the whole purpose of science and philosophical thinking useless...

Science generally doesn't adopt superfluous propositions, as such, does not need to agree with the concept of god. God is a stop-gap hypothesis, not a credible scientific discovery!

for example it is an established theory that living organism are made up of cells...no new evidence is likely to change this scientific verified evidence...

New evidence cannot change this observation. It has been incontrovertibly shown to be so.

God design the universe that is the best explanation.... nothing more....

This is not an explanation, it's a claim!

I also note one thing if science agree we are both from one common ancestor , is it not also suggesting we are from the same common designer....

No, having a common ancestor is not the same as having a common designer. In fact, there are many designers in nature. They include temperature, pressure, resource availability, humidity and so on. These factors can design identical twins with the same parents so that they look nothing alike.

butterflyl1on:
Hello Vaxx sorry but my main moniker got erroneously banned almost after I said I will update shortly and the ban is to last till the 10th of October. However I have written to the mods with an explanation so hopefully my ban will be lifted. Permit me to address your OP with my alternate handle which is as good as same with butterflylion.

In most arguments for evolution, the proponent assumes that common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and humans, point to a common ancestor in the distant past. Darwin mocked the idea (proposed by Richard Owen) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.

But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans. The human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.


Development of human and frog digits


Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.

Image 1. human digits to the left and frog digits to the right
Image 2. embryonic development

Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes).

Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide.

The evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common ancestor. But this is false. There are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.

There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die so once a code is settled on, we’re stuck with it. Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors. But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64–69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.

The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or bird.

Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms. For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved

The only thing that fits the gaps in evolution and common ancestry is a creationist / intelligent design position.

sorry about that... You guys should stop this E war palaver...

We cant throw the whole scientific evidence of evolution away... though it can be argue scientifically like you did.... When you place evolution on a smaller scale may be on beestle or bird it can make sense.... But on large scale like fish or mammals... There will br contradiction....


I am not a scientist so I may not be able to detect the flaws scientifically... Even if i agree for the sake of argument....evolution theory do not solve the issue who is our original ancestors......

On this case I assume evolution theory as a science myth as it is best if the same position can be used against the existence of God...

Originakalokalo:


Science and Evolution do not believe in Spiritual.


We believe in the Spiritual. More than 80% of the world.

Yet we believe every explanation of science.

There are new theories of science everyday.

Yet, we believe firmly in "theories" that can be proven wrong anytime.

A new part of the eye was just discovered recently.


As small as the eyes.

Ask yourself why you believe what you believe.

Is it because it is of science? Of sense? Of realities?


IF You're wrong about what you believe, you are in danger

Air is not seen. Yet it is real.


Thoughts are real, not seen.

Water exists in three different forms. Ice, water,and steam. With different characters.yet it is water.

This is what I believe.

There is only one God.who cannot be seen.

He exists in a bodily form. The son,, to redeem us to himself.

not all scientific theory can be proven wrong.... They are some established fact like theory of gravity , cells theory and more... No any evidence again can invalidate this theory... They are fact....

vaxx:
sorry about that... You guys should stop this E war palaver...

We cant throw the whole scientific evidence of evolution away... though it can be argue scientifically like you did.... When you place evolution on a smaller scale may be on beestle or bird it can make sense.... But on large scale like fish or mammals... There will br contradiction....


I am not a scientist so I may not be able to detect the flaws scientifically... Even if i agree for the sake of argument....evolution theory do not solve the issue who is our original ancestors......

On this case I assume evolution theory as a science myth as it is best if the same position can be used against the existence of God...

True! Evolution is a lot of myth mixed in with some real stuff. The entire process is not experimentally provable so a lot of what is being pushed as evolutionary facts are simply scientists force feeding us with their opinion which in itself is riddled with a lot of assumptions.

If you tell me that I evolved from a single cell organism then let me observe in a controlled environment the entire process of this evolutionary process from single celled organism to the humans we are today.

These observations cannot be made using already evolved fossils which as far as we know could be at their perfect stage of evolution as well. So if we cannot observe the process to the conclusion how then can we accept the millions of years evolutionary gap used to explain the time frame it took for evolution to occur?

We need to observe this even once. But of course no single scientist can achieve this but they can tell stories of how it could have been possible and then back this up with bacteria which in itself could also be in its perfect state.

If you have no money and you tell me you somehow left Nigeria and found yourself in Japan then I as a fellow struggling guy should be able to ask you how you made it possible and for you to show me and what you show me must be realistic and replicable. However there is no experimentally replicable process that can adequately show we arrived here from first being single celled organisms.

Absolutely none!

AgentOfAllah:
Science generally doesn't adopt superfluous propositions, as such, does not need to agree with the concept of god. God is a stop-gap hypothesis, not a credible scientific discovery!

New evidence cannot change this observation. It has been incontrovertibly shown to be so.



This is not an explanation, it's a claim!

No, having a common ancestor is not the same as having a common designer. In fact, there are many designers in nature. They include temperature, pressure, resource availability, humidity and so on. These factors can design identical twins with the same parents so that they look nothing alike.

they are two basic method of truth verification... Science and logical reasoning... Religion rely heavily on logic rather than science....


Therefore you can't also throw religious evidence of truth away...

The method of truth verification in religion is not compatible with science but it does not violate logic and reasoning... Must of the claims of religion can be subjected to critical thinking and hence make sense logically...

If the religious folks can argue logically that there is God base on the complexity in the design ....I think it is reasonable and cannot be totally throw into the garbage even If it violate science... For example it is proven scientifically that whale sings but no one can explain what it sings about...which can be debated logically..........my friend once logically prove it to me that water took its colour from the sky..... No scientific evidence that support it.... But by mere observation it can be true...



With your last paragraph.... If I can understand you.... Sea water and salty water can both contain an electric fish even though they are different in nature.... You can explain better......

I've tried to study evolution for years but I just can not understand it. It is just full of speculation, wild guesses and assumptions for me to take it seriously.

Some part of it makes sense though but as a whole it's riddled with so many fallacies and nonsense.

Creationism is also the same pile of nonsense. Creationism is worse because it is completely mythical.

butterflyl1on:


True! Evolution is a lot of myth mixed in with some real stuff. The entire process is not experimentally provable so a lot of what is being pushed as evolutionary facts are simply scientists force feeding us with their opinion which in itself is riddled with a lot of assumptions.

If you tell me that I evolved from a single cell organism then let me observe in a controlled environment the entire process of this evolutionary process from single celled organism to the humans we are today.

These observations cannot be made using already evolved fossils which as far as we know could be at their perfect stage of evolution as well. So if we cannot observe the process to the conclusion how then can we accept the millions of years evolutionary gap used to explain the time frame it took for evolution to occur?

We need to observe this even once. But of course no single scientist can achieve this but they can tell stories of how it could have been possible and then back this up with bacteria which in itself could also be in its perfect state.

If you have no money and you tell me you somehow left Nigeria and found yourself in Japan then I as a fellow struggling guy should be able to ask you how you made it possible and for you to show me and what you show me must be realistic and replicable. However there is no experimentally replicable process that can adequately show we arrived here from first being single celled organisms.

Absolutely none!

i love it when people argue using logic and science.. You just did that....

HOW MAN EVOLVE FROM APE AND WE ARE BRILLIANT AND INTELLIGENT THAN ME??

dalaman:
I've tried to study evolution for years but I just can not understand it. It is just full of speculation, wild guesses and assumptions for me to take it seriously.

Some part of it makes sense though but as a whole it's riddles with so many fallacies and nonsense.

Creationism is also the same pile of nonsense. Creationism is worse because it is completely mythical.

Science tries to offer a detailed explanation of what creationism summarises. That's the difference. I always tell people that science validates creationism.

However due to the position of creationism and the impression that science is against it then it becomes hard for science oftentimes to adequately explain the process creation took and when they meet this hurdle they simply look for a reason to fill the gap and therein is the reason for all the suppositions and assumptions and speculations.

Only an intelligent designer position can explain the reason for all their speculations.

Remember, creationism offers a summary while science tries to offer detail (this they are struggling with terribly)

vaxx:


Most of the claims of religion can be subjected to critical thinking and hence make sense logically.

Which major claims of christianity or Islam can be subjected to critical thinking and found to make sense?

vaxx:
i love it when people argue using logic and science.. You just did that....

Bro I am simply trying to reason it all out and not regurgitate whatever someone has as assumptions and speculations.

butterflyl1on:


Science tries to offer a detailed explanation of what creationism summarises. That's the difference. I always tell people that science validates creationism.

However due to the position of creationism and the impression that science is against it then it becomes hard for science oftentimes to adequately explain the process creation took and when they meet this hurdle they simply look for a reason to fill the gap and therein is the reason for all the suppositions and assumptions and speculations.

Only an intelligent designer position can explain the reason for all their speculations.

Remember, creationism offers a summary while science tries to offer detail (this they are struggling with terribly)

Creationism does NOT offer any summary. Creationism only offers an assumption and supposition, that is why it remains empty and can not be used to know or understand anything about nature or what it assumes.

Creationism for example just assumes that something called God created, but it can never tell you how God created anything, it can not tell you why God created, when he created and for what purpose.

A creationist will tell you that God created the earth, ask him to explain how God created the earth's magnetic field for example and he'll start crying because he has no idea at all. He is just runnig on wild assumptions.

dalaman:


Creationism does NOT offer any summary. Creationism only offers an assumption and supposition, that is why it remains empty and can not be used to know or understand anything about nature or what it assumes.

Creationism for example just assumes that something called God created, but it can never tell you how God created anything, it can tell you why God created, when he created and for what purpose.

A creationist will tell you that God created the earth, as him to explain how God created the earth's magnetic filed and he'll start crying because he has no idea at all. He is just runnig on wild assumptions.

Try not to derail the thread as you are beginning to lean that way.

Creationism does not need to show you "how". "How" isn't the focus but "why" is the reason for creation and not "how".

After you find out "how", would that somehow change the "why"? If it does change the "why" would it be for good or for bad?

If somehow you found out that you just "happened" on this earth so there really is no purpose or no "why" to life but you are just a chemical mix going through the motions then any sane person would ask, "why then do I go to work", "why do I have or need children? ", " why do I need or do anything? " "why do I even love or have or make friends? " summary would be that life is meaningless.

Now imagine half the population of this earth having this mentality and then see how long anything would survive on this earth. Killing would mean nothing! Morals would mean nothing! There would be no good or evil as purpose or "why" is no more. There would only be survival so whatever you can do to survive you are free to do it.

Is that the world you wish for?

butterflyl1on:


Try not to derail the thread as you are beginning to lean that way.

Creationism does not need to show you "how". "How" isn't the focus but "why" is the reason for creation and not "how".

It needs to. Creationism is making a claim so it needs to substantiate it by showing us how. You are being deliberately hypocritical here. You just claim that evolution has failed to show us how but you are now trying to give creationism a pass over the same issue.

Hpw did God create human beings? Ever sane person willwant to know. How did God create the DNA and the human cells? Everybody will want to know. How did God create the human eyes or how did the various human races come about? Every rational person will want to know that. But because creationism is empty it can't tell you. It will only tell you that God created and you are to accept it though various mythical stories that explain and offer nothing about the creation process.

After you find out "how", would that somehow change the "why"? If it does change the "why" would it be for good or for bad?

If somehow you found out that you just "happened" on this earth so there really is no purpose or no "why" to life but you are just a chemical mix going through the motions then any sane person would ask, "why then do I go to work", "why do I have or need children? ", " why do I need or do anything? " "why do I even love or have or make friends? " summary would be that life is meaningless.

Now imagine half the population of this earth having this mentality and then see how long anything would survive on this earth. Killing would mean nothing! Morals would mean nothing! There would be no good or evil as purpose or "why" is no more. There would only be survival so whatever you can do to survive you are free to do it.

Is that the world you wish for?

Why did God create bacteria and virus?

dalaman:


It needs to. Creationism is making a claim so it needs to substantiate it by showing us how. You are being deliberately hypocritical here. You just claim that evolution has failed to show us how but you are now trying to give creationism a pass over the same issue.

Hpw did God create human beings? Ever sane person willwant to know. How did God create the DNA and the human cells? Everybody will want to know. How did God create the human eyes or how did the various human races come about? Every rational person will want to know that. But because creationism is empty it can't tell you. It will only tell you that God created and you are to accept it though various mythical stories that explain and offer nothing about the creation process.



Why did God create bacteria and virus?

My reference was for evolutionists and not creationism. Read my comment again. Asking for how and getting none shows you have a right to ask but another also has the right to reject responding. Demanding for how from one who does not care to share it is pushing the envelope.

Regarding your bacteria and virus question I knew you wanted to derail this thread.

This thread is not about "why" it's about "how". The OP wishes to see "how" possible it could be that we came from a common ancestor.

butterflyl1on:


Try not to derail the thread as you are beginning to lean that way.

Creationism does not need to show you "how". "How" isn't the focus but "why" is the reason for creation and not "how".

After you find out "how", would that somehow change the "why"? If it does change the "why" would it be for good or for bad?

If somehow you found out that you just "happened" on this earth so there really is no purpose or no "why" to life but you are just a chemical mix going through the motions then any sane person would ask, "why then do I go to work", "why do I have or need children? ", " why do I need or do anything? " "why do I even love or have or make friends? " summary would be that life is meaningless.

Now imagine half the population of this earth having this mentality and then see how long anything would survive on this earth. Killing would mean nothing! Morals would mean nothing! There would be no good or evil as purpose or "why" is no more. There would only be survival so whatever you can do to survive you are free to do it.

Is that the world you wish for?

I want to disagree with you butterfly
Créationism should be able to give explanations on "HOW", "WHY", "WHEN", WHERE of events

This topic is good even tho I everything is like a mirage/illusion to me.

To me, they both look false and fake.
Tho some aspect of evolution make sense and plausible

dalaman:


It needs to. Creationism is making a claim so it needs to substantiate it by showing us how. You are being deliberately hypocritical here. You just claim that evolution has failed to show us how but you are now trying to give creationism a pass over the same issue.

Hpw did God create human beings? Ever sane person willwant to know. How did God create the DNA and the human cells? Everybody will want to know. How did God create the human eyes or how did the various human races come about? Every rational person will want to know that. But because creationism is empty it can't tell you. It will only tell you that God created and you are to accept it though various mythical stories that explain and offer nothing about the creation process.



Why did God create bacteria and virus?

You're making some sense bro

adepeter2027:


I want to disagree with you butterfly
Créationism should be able to give explanations on "HOW", "WHY", "WHEN", WHERE of events

Sorry I disagree. Of the 4 you listed there, for creation, WHY is the most important. When we know why then when, where and how fades into the distance.

You can only ask and get the HOW if it is replicable. Can man make man from his raw materials? Can man make even plants from its raw materials?

Why bother about HOW when such an information is useless to you.

Even ever since evolutionists claimed man came from a single celled organism have they been able to make or create anything with this information?

vaxx:
let's agree for the sake of argument that human share common ancestors with ape

if we agree with this statement, it will mean we are closely related with the apes and that include lesser ape Gibbons and great ape like chimpanzees and gorillas and likewise orangutans... it is reported that they they emerge and diversified during the Miocene epoch ... Miocene epoch was a time of warm global climate than those in the proceeding like Oligocene or the following Pliocene...and science also claim that is the time two major ecosystem appear which is the kip forest and grasslands..

where I need clarification...

who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?


is science claiming there is no mammals on planet earth before the arrivals of the ecosystem?



I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....

honestly i didn't read your post. As an atheist i don't believe in evolution theory. It's so unreasonable and irrational. The bible story of creation is completely absurd and lack critical thinking. Nobody knows the truth about creation

segunojo866:
honestly i didn't read your post. As an atheist i don't believe in evolution theory. It's so unreasonable and irrational. The bible story of creation is completely absurd and lack critical thinking. Nobody knows the truth about creation

You do believe in creation but not the bible kind judging by your very last comment. You said "nobody knows the truth about creation" ( implying intelligent design) . As an atheist you should have said "nobody knows the truth about how we got here".

butterflyl1on:


Sorry I disagree. Of the 4 you listed there, for creation, WHY is the most important. When we know why then when, where and how fades into the distance.

You can only ask and get the HOW if it is replicable. Can man make man from his raw materials? Can man make even plants from its raw materials?

Why bother about HOW when such an information is useless to you.

Even ever since evolutionists claimed man came from a single celled organism have they been able to make or create anything with this information?

I don't know why I feel so lazy typing long.

Anyways, no problem. I understand ya perspective sha

adepeter2027:

I don't know why I feel so lazy typing long.

Anyways, no problem. I understand ya perspective sha

Thank you.