A simple question for creationists.

[camanintx]

How the heck can we evovle from apes and share ancestors at the same time? Makes no sense

The same way you and your cousins can share grandparents.

 

[painted wolf]

How the heck can we evovle from apes and share ancestors at the same time? Makes no sense

How can Americans and the Australians have the same ancestors.... it makes no sense!

wa:do

 

[Dan4reason]

Ok, so if you trace the linage back, you will be left with one ape. What did that ape evovle from??

From a 99% ape 1% monkey.

 

[shawn001]

Awesome. We had a debate in a long forgotten thread around here dealing with that. The one person kept referring to it as a big cat prehistoric cat by simply looking at the artist cartoon style drawing of it.

I think it was the Sarkastodon.

Dirty Penguin, check out the other two as well. When whales had legs and dinosaurs to turkey.

In fact

Jurassic chicken '50-100 years off'

The scientists in the film Jurassic Park reconstructed dinosaurs from DNA preserved in amber...


But reconstructing a dinosaur from genes passed down the evolutionary tree to modern birds might be viable before the end of the century, according to scientists in the United States. "On the timescale of 50-100 years... you might conceivably be able to alter the DNA of a chicken, say, to reconstruct something that looks more like a dinosaur," David Stern, an evolutionary biologist at Princeton University told the BBC.



BBC News | SCI/TECH | Jurassic chicken '50-100 years off'


The Jurassic Park scientist who plans to turn a chicken into T Rex

In a lab in the Montana Rockies, the palaeontologist who advised Spielberg on the making of 'Jurassic Park' tells Nick Collins how he is using genetics to create a modern-day dinosaur.

The Jurassic Park scientist who plans to turn a chicken into T Rex - Telegraph

 

[shawn001]

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild
How the heck can we evovle from apes and share ancestors at the same time? Makes no sense

This has been shown to you numerous times, but you must not have watched it yet.

They found the reason.

Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome

The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.

[youtube]8FGYzZOZxMw[/youtube]
Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome - YouTube



"We have 46 chromosomes. Our nearest great ape relatives have 48. On the surface, it looks like we must have lost two. But that's actually a huge problem. Made up of organized packs of DNA and proteins, chromosomes don't just up and vanish. In fact, it's doubtful any primate could survive a mutation that simply deleted a pair of chromosomes. That's because chromosomes are to the human body what instruction sheets are to inexpensive, Swedish flat-pack furniture. If you're missing one screw, you can still put that bookcase together pretty easily. But if the how-to guide suddenly jumps from page 1 (take plywood panels out of box--uff da) to page 5 (enjoy bookcäse!), you're likely to end up missing something pretty vital. All this left scientists with a thorny dilemma: How could we have a common ancestor with great apes, but fewer chromosomes?
Turns out: The chromosomes aren't missing at all.
Genetic investigators caught the first whiff of the prodigal chromosomes' scent in 1982. That year, a paper published in the journal Science described a very funny phenomenon. Researchers knew all chromosomes had distinctive signatures; patterns of DNA sequences that can be reliably found in specific spots, including in the center and on the ends. These end-cap sequences are called telomeres. Molecular biologist [youtube]irUQEG4BSK4[/youtube]
Elizabeth Blackburn says telomeres are like the little plastic tips that keep your shoelaces from unravelling. They protect the ends of chromosomes and hold things together. Given that important function, you wouldn't expect to find telomeres hanging out on other parts of the chromosome. But that's exactly what the 1982 study reported. Looking at human chromosome 2, the scientists found telomeres snuggled up against the centromere--the central sequence. What's more, these out-of-place human telomeres were strikingly similar to telomeres that can be found, in their proper location, on two great ape chromosomes.

This evidence laid the groundwork for a brilliant discovery. Rather than falling apart, the two missing chromosomes had fused together. Their format changed, but they didn't lose any information, so the mutation wasn't deadly. Instead, scientists now think, the fusion made it difficult for our ancestors to mate with the ancestors of chimpanzees, leading our two species to strike out alone. In the two decades since the original study, more evidence has surfaced backing this up, which leads us to 2005, when the chimpanzee genome was sequenced around the same time that the National Human Genome Research Institute published a detailed survey of human chromosome 2. According to Kenneth Miller, we can now see extra centromeres in chromosome 2 and trace how its genes neatly line up with those on chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. It's a great example of evidence supporting the common descent of man and ape.

Our "Missing" Chromosomes - Boing Boing

 

[Krok]

If by "poe" you mean someone that doesn't buy in to the lies being taught based on the theory of evolution,.......

Can you name one lie "being taught based on the theory of evolution" or are you making it up?

It's also amazing that you want to reject the ToE on the basis of you percieving some evolutionists teaching "lies", but don't reject the pseudoscience of creationism, where they always tell lies about everything. Or people like Kent Hovind telling lies about everything, from his "qualifications" to his tax returns. Yet you don't reject creationism. Double standards?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How the heck can we evovle from apes and share ancestors at the same time? Makes no sense

Here ya go......It makes perfect sense and we have the molecular evidence to support it.

The Bonobo Page (Prof. W. H. Calvin)

[FONT=,Verdana,Arial]

[/FONT]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dirty Penguin, check out the other two as well. When whales had legs and dinosaurs to turkey.

In fact

Jurassic chicken '50-100 years off'

The scientists in the film Jurassic Park reconstructed dinosaurs from DNA preserved in amber...


But reconstructing a dinosaur from genes passed down the evolutionary tree to modern birds might be viable before the end of the century, according to scientists in the United States. "On the timescale of 50-100 years... you might conceivably be able to alter the DNA of a chicken, say, to reconstruct something that looks more like a dinosaur," David Stern, an evolutionary biologist at Princeton University told the BBC.



BBC News | SCI/TECH | Jurassic chicken '50-100 years off'


The Jurassic Park scientist who plans to turn a chicken into T Rex

In a lab in the Montana Rockies, the palaeontologist who advised Spielberg on the making of 'Jurassic Park' tells Nick Collins how he is using genetics to create a modern-day dinosaur.

The Jurassic Park scientist who plans to turn a chicken into T Rex - Telegraph

:yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you name one lie "being taught based on the theory of evolution" or are you making it up?

It's also amazing that you want to reject the ToE on the basis of you percieving some evolutionists teaching "lies", but don't reject the pseudoscience of creationism, where they always tell lies about everything. Or people like Kent Hovind telling lies about everything, from his "qualifications" to his tax returns. Yet you don't reject creationism. Double standards?

There is absolutely no evidence of animals producing something other than its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. The evolutionist want us to believe that in the distance past, animals slowly started changing in to other kinds animals. That is a lie. There is no evidence of this. It has not been observed and it has not been tested, so therefore, it isn't SCIENCE, because science is study based on observation and experiment. So evolution doesn't even qualify to be science. What we do observe is animals producing their own kind. Creationists agree, there is a variation within the animal, but it is the same animal. There are many kinds of dogs, from the chihuahua to the great dane, but they are all the same kind of animal, DOGS. To think or speculate anything other than this is when you allow your religion to creep in.

 

[McBell]

There is absolutely no evidence of animals producing something other than its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. The evolutionist want us to believe that in the distance past, animals slowly started changing in to other kinds animals. That is a lie. There is no evidence of this. It has not been observed and it has not been tested, so therefore, it isn't SCIENCE, because science is study based on observation and experiment. So evolution doesn't even qualify to be science. What we do observe is animals producing their own kind. Creationists agree, there is a variation within the animal, but it is the same animal. There are many kinds of dogs, from the chihuahua to the great dane, but they are all the same kind of animal, DOGS. To think or speculate anything other than this is when you allow your religion to creep in.

I am pretty sure he was asking about a lie told by evolutionists, not creationists.

I understand how easily you can confuse the two though.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here ya go......It makes perfect sense and we have the molecular evidence to support it.

The Bonobo Page (Prof. W. H. Calvin)

[FONT=,Verdana,Arial]

[/FONT]

Ok, if humans are apes (on your view), and from the apes we have different varieties (chimps, orangatans, gorillas, bonobo's), they are all APES. They are changes from within the kind. But on your view, the very gorilla that we evovled from had to evovle from something else. And that something else was not an ape. This doesn't support macroevolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The same way you and your cousins can share grandparents.

Um, my couins and i are all human and my grandparents were human. How are humans reproducing and giving birth to other humans an example of evolution?? Wow.

 

[McBell]

Ok, if humans are apes (on your view), and from the apes we have different varieties (chimps, orangatans, gorillas, bonobo's), they are all APES. They are changes from within the kind. But on your view, the very gorilla that we evovled from had to evovle from something else. And that something else was not an ape. This doesn't support macroevolution.

You keep throwing the word "kind" around like it has some sort of actual useful meaning other than a shield for you to hide behind.

please be so kind as to define what exactly is a kind and what makes one kind different from another kind.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am pretty sure he was asking about a lie told by evolutionists, not creationists.

I understand how easily you can confuse the two though.

Um, the fact that evolutionists believe in macroevolution is the lie. But i guess you didn't catch that.

 

[painted wolf]

There is absolutely no evidence of animals producing something other than its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. The evolutionist want us to believe that in the distance past, animals slowly started changing in to other kinds animals. That is a lie. There is no evidence of this. It has not been observed and it has not been tested, so therefore, it isn't SCIENCE, because science is study based on observation and experiment. So evolution doesn't even qualify to be science. What we do observe is animals producing their own kind. Creationists agree, there is a variation within the animal, but it is the same animal. There are many kinds of dogs, from the chihuahua to the great dane, but they are all the same kind of animal, DOGS. To think or speculate anything other than this is when you allow your religion to creep in.

Please define a "kind".

wa:do

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You keep throwing the word "kind" around like it has some sort of actual useful meaning other than a shield for you hide behind.

please be so kind as to define what exactly is a kind and what makes one kind different from another kind.

I understand that when talking about biology and such, the word "kind" is unjustly sort of a big deal, which i don't understand. A dog is a different KIND of animal than a snake. Would you agree?? Thats what i mean by the word "kind". Instead of playing semantic games why not focus on the core issues here.

 

[Photonic]

Ok, if humans are apes (on your view), and from the apes we have different varieties (chimps, orangatans, gorillas, bonobo's), they are all APES. They are changes from within the kind. But on your view, the very gorilla that we evovled from had to evovle from something else. And that something else was not an ape. This doesn't support macroevolution.

You don't really understand what Microevolution and macroevolution is, do you?

 

[McBell]

Um, the fact that evolutionists believe in macroevolution is the lie. But i guess you didn't catch that.

Nice try, but you should actually prove a point before you start trying to be a smart arse.
Otherwise, much like the above quoted post, it just makes you look even more stupid.

Now since I have as yet to hear an evolutionist use the term "kind" in any explanation of evolution, your sad attempt at putting it in there is nothing more than a bold faced lie.

Sadly, it isn't even a new or original lie. So you are merely trying to pass off old out dated lies and old dishonest tactics on a group of people who have already thoroughly debunked them more times than they can count.

Then, to top it off, you act as though you are so much smarter.

Basically just another willfully ignorant creationist talking the same old same old.

 

[McBell]

I understand that when talking about biology and such, the word "kind" is unjustly sort of a big deal, which i don't understand. A dog is a different KIND of animal than a snake. Would you agree?? Thats what i mean by the word "kind". Instead of playing semantic games why not focus on the core issues here.

Yet it is you who is hiding behind your completely worthless semantic "kind".

Your blatant hypocrisy is not the least bit surprising.
Double standards are part and parcel to the dishonesty of creationists.

 

[painted wolf]

I understand that when talking about biology and such, the word "kind" is unjustly sort of a big deal, which i don't understand. A dog is a different KIND of animal than a snake. Would you agree?? Thats what i mean by the word "kind". Instead of playing semantic games why not focus on the core issues here.

Not really... they have more in common than they have differences. They are both vertebrate aminotes for a start.

Please define what makes the "dog kind" different from everything else.
Is "Dog kind" different from "Coyote kind" or "Fox kind" for example?

wa:do