Can evolutionists name the original ancestor of mankind?

Question

Can they produce evidence and show us the "common ancestor" that both apes and men evolved from, and tell us where that creature came from? More, can they produce evidence and show us the first living creature, and tell us where it came from?
If they can, why have they not done so?
If they cannot, what makes evolution more valid than Intelligent Design?
Shouldn't our children be trusted to make intelligent choices for themselves based on ALL the evidence??

Answer 1

Scientists have done mitochondrial DNA analysis and determined that all humans have a common ancestor dubbed "Eve". Of interest, that same study also found no common link with apes.

I saw one poster immediately attack religion. Not sure why, but let me point out that not believing in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is not the same as not believing blindly a scientific theory that is supported by only very flimsy evidence and that some of the evidence has been shown over time to be hoaxes.

Since we are not able to go back in time and observe the macro-evolutionary process, it will remain a theory based on current evidence. A sort of probable explanation. But let me remind you that probable and certain are two different things. If we are going to discuss theory, should we not discuss all theories? Intelligent Design is a theory as well. So is Panspermia. I understand the knee jerk reaction some have against anything the even smells of religion, but in the interests of intellectual honesty, why should these other theories not be brought to the marketplace of ideas?

Answer 2

You are asking us to provide concrete evidence of something that happened more than 10 million years ago (but less than 100 million years ago). Do you realize how rare it is for bones to be preserved that long? We have found lots of samples of differerent primate and hominid species scattered over time, but no, we haven't yet found that concrete physical evidence of the common ancestor. However, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that there is one. The analysis of DNA of various primate species (including Homo Sapiens) is very compelling.

Now let's consider the evidence for Intelligent Design. Can you give ANY evidence for Intelligent Design? The ONLY "evidence" put forward by ID is either
1) purely mathematical theories that are wildly speculative and have been shown faulty by other mathematicians
2) The concept of "Irreducible complexity" that has also been debunked several different ways.

Now let's consider the evidence for Creationism. A story that claims that everything was created about 6000 years ago?? A story that is totally inconsistent with vast amounts of geological and astronomical data? A story that has more in common with the myths of other ancient civilizations that YOU would dismiss as being myth?

Evolution has FAR MORE evidence supporting it than any other story of life. If you reject it, then you reject reality.

It's a shame that you and so many people think that if you reject it that you are rejecting God. If I were convinced that there is a God (I'm agnostic to that question, just atheist with respect to the God described in the Old Testament) then I would want to find a way to reconcile Evolution with my concept of God. Many religious people have done this. Why can't you?

Answer 3

In order...
1) The most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living people has been calculated as living roughly 200,000 years ago and has been named "Eve." (see http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/eve.html for a reasonable discussion of the topic). Of course, the full answer to your question is "no," but this is an interesting aspect of the question you raise.
2,3) Not so far as I'm aware.
4) n/a
5) Here one must ask as to the meaning of "valid." There are three apparently relevant definitions in the 1994 edition of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
a) sound; just; well-founded
b) producing the desired result; effective
c) having force, weight or cogency; authoritative
I suspect that wrt definition (b), evolution is significantly *less* valid than ID from your perspective. I won't attempt to argue details of which theories are or are not authoritative, so let's go with definition (a) -- which I suspect is the one you had in mind, in any case. Furthermore, I'll add one additional word into your question: more *scientifically* valid. This seems like a reasonable addition since the evolution vs. ID argument seems to take place within the context of science education.
*Any* scientific theory is more valid than ID (given the above) because ID cannot (to the best of my knowledge) be tested, and the ability to test a hypothesis (and, yes, even a theory) is a bedrock scientific principle. Tests can (and have been for lo these many years) designed to test aspects of evolutionary theroy. I am unaware of any test that has been suggested that has the potential to prove or to disprove either of the following two questions (really two versions of the same question):
a) Are the mechanisms of life so complex that they could not have arisen naturally (meaning without the action of an intelligent designer)?
b) Was an intelligent designer involved in the creation of life on Earth?
As I understand ID (and I'll admit that I'm not particularly well-versed in this regard), this is the central difference between it and mainstream evolutionary theory -- the former posits the necessary existence of an intelligent designer while the latter leaves open the question of the ultimate origin of life.
Until a test can be designed that can prove or disprove aspects of an idea, it isn't a scientifically valid hypothesis.
6) Yes, of course they should -- with two caveats.
a) It seems patently unreasonable to expect 6-year-olds to make intelligent choices between the various flavors of string theory and its alternatives -- the facts, concepts and thinking required are beyond my (at least immediate) ability, and I like to think I'm somewhat more advanced than the typical 6-year-old in this regard. The choices and evidence in question must be appropriate for the abilities of the children in question.
b) With regard to schooling, we typically divide the choices/evidence into disciplines. While certain basics of math and English may cross boundaries, I wouldn't expect a discussion of trigonometry in a high school history class; it's beyond the scope of the course. I submit that there is value in doing this, as it allows focus on the various disciplines.
So while my answer to your actual question is "yes (within limits)," my answer to what I suspect is your real question ("shouldn't we teach ID in childrens' science classes") is a resounding "no." And I would answer the same thing if the question is whether or not we should teach that life on this planet originated *without* an intelligent designer. It isn't unreasonable (and in fact is quite *reasonable*, imho) to mention that mainstream evolutionary theory doesn't address this question, but until such time as there is a way to test the hypothesis, I don't believe we should waste significant (science) classroom time on the topic. Note that my answer becomes very different if we change the question so that we're talking about philosophy or theology classes...

Answer 4

Well, what IS Intelligent Design? I keep hearing about flaws in Evolution (irreducible complexity and other arguments), but never about I.D. research that leads anywhere. What can I.D. actually explain? What predictions can it produce?

What you've shown us here are only gray areas on a huge map. Evolution works, and makes predictions that can be verified. Unanswered questions are nothing but a challenge that can be met at a later date. You need to find an actual contradiction in Evolution, not just things we have yet to find.

Without Evolution, Biology is merely a kind of system for categorizing life. Darwin turned it into a science. This is why kids need to learn about Evolution in biology class. I.D. has nothing to contribute there.

Finally, a shocker: The priests, pastors and religious authors you rely on may actually not know as much about these subjects as you give them credit for. Until you're willing to consider that, nothing I say will sway you from Intelligent Design and other non-scientific concepts.

Answer 5

As a matter of fact, all creatures (including humans and ape) evolved from simple one-celled life forms. Evolutionists have shown the links they have, and the evidence is compelling to anyone with an open mind.

I have yet to see any proof at all of intelligent design.

Personally, I don't see why creationists can't just assume that evolution is god's way of making and changing the world. The two ideas don't have to be in conflict.

And no, children cannot be trusted to make intelligent choices, that's why there are laws to protect them.

Answer 6

Actually they have identified the first "Adam". Scientists have done a gigantic trace on mitochondrial DNA ( which would have come from the first "Eve" and traceable only through males) and found that all men have one common isolated DNA strand. The theory is that there was one man who developed the ability to verbalize. He was the smartest and therefore the most attractive to women etc. including women from other groups of humans. He passed his more developed DNA to his descendants, they were smarter and survived those things that caused others to become extinct. Science has not found evolution BETWEEN a species but it has explained evolution within one. People are confused (ok in my opinion) on the subject of evolution. Yes evolution is all around us and I whole-heartedly believe in it. I do not however believe that 2 separate genus of primates merged into humans. I believe that separate species of humans could very easily have merged into what we see today. If God created everything, he also created science. He never said we would have a full understanding of it; who are we to assume creationism wasn't achieved with science?

Answer 7

It depends on what you want to teach your children. If you want to teach them science, then you'll have to accept they learn the scientific method. That would rule out so-called "intelligent design" for various reasons, not the least of which is that it contributes no explanation at all. (Conjuring up a "force" or "entity" that by its nature is inaccessible and not subject to verification is, to put it kindly, anti-science.)

And no, education is not a democratic process in which children get to pick what they think is better - science or myth. (By the way, would you apply your criteria to the teaching of religion? Instead of indoctrinating them from birth, we could teach them various religious outlooks. That way they could "make intelligent choices" when they were shown "ALL the evidence.")

Answer 8

You mean evidence like this?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html


It is clear that you do not understand either evolution nor intelligent design (I would guess you've never read a book on either one not written by a creationists). How would you expect children with no scientific background to make an informed decision on the validity of a false science like ID?

Answer 9

Science gives us the tools to research and figure out who that common ancestor was. Your question should be asked in the science section.

You want to teach intelligent design, why, thats not science. Intelligent design says there is a creator. It further has the subjective word intelligent.

Evolution isnt taught right in 75% of science class according to the evolutionist literature I have. While we don't want intelligent design, we also don't want evolution taught wrong either.

Science is tools, not a defense of evolution.

Answer 10

This is one of the points we Muslims meet with christians..yes we believe that evolution theory is not right...Even scientifically it still lacks the concrete proof.
And that guy who asked you to show him God....you don't know the limits of the universe...how can you measure or see its creator...how can you still believe that this delicate universal system is created without a great creator..you stil don't understand how you can think..and how can this fleshy organ "the brain" can control this magnificint body...It's the only truth on earth that God is the creator of everything..creator of time and place so they don't limit him...you are smaller than a drop in an ocean if you measure your logic and knowledge to God's knowledge and wisdom.