Re: In the News: 'Expelled' Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters

Jeffrey Turner wrote:

backspace wrote:


On Nov 30, 7:57 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Organisms do not transmogrify.


This contradicts Darwin he used the "transmutation" which means "morph
into". Are you saying Darwin was wrong?



The common ancestor of mammals
and modern fish would have been a vertebrate, but neither modern-type
fish nor mammal.


Obviously not, for by hypothesis there wasn't a modern fish to begin
with it had to transform from some prior species. And can we cut this
"common ancestor" weasel term. This is deliberate deception to obscure
that the theory is the transmutation or transformation of a species
into another species such as a monkey/ape/bonobo/simian or whatever
vernacular you want to use for something that hanged from a tree by
its tail and showed its balls for the monkey babes.

For those of you who can't believe what you are reading in this thread
it is actually an outflow of a ground breaking thread that clarified
much of the confusion surrounding this nonsense term "common ancestor"
that ran for three months and had over 3300 replies. I started the
thread here http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/f20412f90f39e7f7#f20412f90f39e7f7
You should read the posts by UC or Uraniumcommittee. The "common
ancestor" term is blatant deceit, there are millions of evolutionists
out there who have no idea what their intent is with the term. It
actually arose to counter Bishop Wilberforce's mocking of materialists
believing their daddy was an ape.

Lets take for example the passage below:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mkEF-YniSyIJ:www.bio.ilstu.edu/Armstrong/misconceptions.doc+common+ancestor+monkey+misconception+%22absurd%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=za
Humans have monkeys for ancestors.
"..This demonstrates a conceptual misunderstanding. About 5 million
years ago the great apes and humans had a common ancestor. This
organism would not be either ape or human. About 50 million years ago
the great ape-human lineage had a common ancestry with monkeys, but
that ancestor was neither human, ape, or monkey. And of course if you
don't think so, then you must explain why humans share so many
features and so much of their genetic heritage with other primates.
Humans have a 99% genetic similarity to chimpanzees..."

Note how the author J.E. Armstrong contradicts the authors in our
present thread. If the ancestor was neither
ape, human or monkey then what was it then? What would this common
ancestor have looked like to an observer back then - like a simian
perhaps to use the vernacular.


I see the problem. The ancestor of all living species of apes, humans,
and monkeys was a monkey. But the common ancestor of all the apes,
humans, and monkeys that have ever lived was a "pre-monkey." Most of
the contributors to this thread mean "currently living" apes, humans and
monkeys when they make their claims. However, Armstrong is taking the
other meaning.

Sorry, but I think this is silly. The common ancestor of all the apes,
humans, and monkeys that have ever lived was a monkey, the first monkey
in fact. Now if you want to make the point that the common ancestor of a
group can't be a member of that group, this is logical quibbling that's
contrary to modern taxonomic practice. If that's really what Armstrong
meant, which I doubt, he was being silly too.

.

Relevant Pages