Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

backspace wrote:

On May 23, 3:14 pm, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:

It has certainly failed to hurt you recently.

Why is this thread still going strong - some of you seem to be severly
traumatised by my post.

Don't be too proud. This thread is still here because it's been hijacked
by the troll who calls himself "Uranium Committee", and he's saying all
manner of stupid things just to get responses.

In anycase you do realise that Common Ancestor redirects to Common
Descent on Wikipedia?

No, but so what?

Would anybody care to tell me what has Common Ancestor as used in my
opening post got to do with Common Descent.

Can't have one without the other, can you? There can't be a common
ancestor between man and ape without common descent of man and apes, and
vice versa. This would seem like a very simple thing to understand.

I presume we all had a
common ancestor 5billion or whatever years ago?

More like 4, but whatever.

Ok, thats wonderful.
Now what I want to know is who has actually established that all
living creatures today had a common ancestor 5billion years ago and
what would this common ancestor have looked like?

It's an obvious inference from the existence of a common genetic code,
replication machinery, protein translation machinery, and a few other
features. And it would have looked like a typical bacterium. These are
so obvious that there hardly seems a need for someone to have
"established" them. Who established that the moon is round?

If you can't tell me what this common ancestor looked like how are you
so certain that we had such a single common ancestor?

Because what it looked like is irrelevant. It's the biochemical
similarities that provide the evidence.

You know
gentlemen I simply can't believe that seemingly intelligent people
like Dr. Wilkins who's grammar and jawdropping command of the English
language compared to my pathetic grammar can with a straight face
state that he in actuall reality believes that our great-great-
grandfather was a bug or a slimemold or banana tree or whatever. Is
there simply no limit to the fantasies you people are capable of
believing?

Yes. For example, we find it hard to believe that a talking snake
convinced our ancestors to eat some bad fruit, thus causing all human woes.

And what came before this bug, some primordial soup. And
before that the oceans was in turmoil and before that the earth was
still hot cooling down. And before that hot lava rock covered the
earth. In other words Dr. Wilkins believes he came from a rock. I am
simply speechless.

Sorry, but don't you believe we came from dirt? What's dirt other than
ground-up rock? (Well, there's lots of organic matter, but presumably
that wasn't present then, there having been no death to put it into the
soil.)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Genetic proof for the origin of man
    ... common ancestor: an ape-like creature that lived perhaps five to ten million ... Evolutionists aren't consistent in their claims: ... hierarchy in the same sense that we observe protons in a bubble chamber. ... since Common Descent is assumed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG and "kinds"
    ... Gould on the notion of species as 'natural kinds' ... Ehrlich & Ehrlich on present-day non-appearance of new animal kinds ... > chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor. ... ID + common descent: A Proposal ...
    (talk.origins)