Atheists, could you answer this question that a Christian THINK you can't answer?

Question

Here's her statement and question

"so you're using something on yahoo answers...to prove that you're smarter than Christians?"

"I got one for you: I copied this from this site as well, " We did not evolve from an ape, We evolved from a common ancestor!"

"What common Ancestor? Can anyone answer that one? Nope! "

Answer 1

Ok...common ancestor...well our DNA is all common....different from any other animal on earthh right...so there is some commonality there.
But really if she wants to believe in Adam and Eve..hey I can live with a little incest in my ancestrial history. Not only that..its a lovely bedtime story.

Answer 2

Can you please be more specific on what exactly you were talking about. Half-assed copying of a conversation that has no details then pasting it here is neither logical nor intelligent. The two questions as they are posted here are irrelevant to each other without knowing the full context to the conversation that took place. The first question is a valid question...the person is asking if someone is using YA to prove an Athiest is smarter than a Christian. To answer the question is simple, for anyone to think they can use YA as a measuring stick between the intelligence of two groups is ridiculous, I as a Christian have seen intelligence or the lack there of in both groups as well as any other group (Muslin, WICCA, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) that attempts to lay claim in this forum.

The second question has to do with evolution versus creationism. This has nothing to do with proof of intelligence as was asked in the first question. For Evolutionists the common ancestor is some ape like being that branched off and eventually came to be known as the humans of present day as well as monkeys/apes of present day. For Christians the common ancestor of all humans is Adam and Eve. I do find it amusing when Evolutionists attempt to poke fun at Creationists by bringing in the idea of incest because of their common ancestor in Adam and Eve, yet fail to see the incest that is implied in their own beliefs of a common ancestor.

For people who like to quote Wikipedia as a "Credible" source to prove their point please keep in mind Wikipedia's own words...“Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information,” it says in a general disclaimer.

Answer 3

Christian...think...those two words don't go well together in the same sentence :)

We not only know of one common ancestor, we know of several intermediates along the way. We know pretty accurately when the split from our common ancestor happened (about 3.8 million years ago). All of this information is readily available in the scientific literature.

That the questioner is ignorant of the facts doesn't render the facts incorrect -- it simply points out the ignorance of the questioner.

When a simple google or Yahoo search (ignoring, of course, the non-scientific religious sites that come up in the results) on "human evolution" will point anyone to the information, it's the height of ignorance to claim it doesn't exist. But then again, christians make claims daily that are factually incorrect and lack any validating evidence, so this sort of ignorance shouldn't surprise anyone.

Peace.

Answer 4

The "missing link" is a common red-herring error made in the thinking process of those who would superficially search for a proof of evolution, (or for the absence of it as has been divisively done in many cases.) Most would search for a distinct and unmistakable man when in fact this is not the case.

People and other primates, apes and monkeys, evolved along similar paths where the evolutionary changes in each unique species were minute and yet nonetheless evolutionary steps. Human evolution moves away from that of the other primates in several ways but it can be traced best through the skeletal remains found buy anthropologists. These scientists have compiled a remarkably telling history of man's physical changes throughout his existence. Apes and monkeys, too, have similarly experienced changes but they have been quite identifiably different than those of man.

The division between man and the apes was very likely a split which came early on in evolutionary time and it was likely made in such very, very small incremental steps that even at these early stages of change there remained the opportunity for interaction and reproduction of cross-species lines; thus allowing for an even greater gene pool and further definition between the lower animals and the one highest animal to come, that being the animal of "superior intellect," i. e., man.

"Yes," we did derive from a common ancestor... and "ape-man" of sorts that was only slightly distinguishable from the common ape of the time, snd he represents the "missing link" if you'd like, but distinguishing him from his relatives of the day is as near an impossibility to accomplish as would be to find a single gold nugget hidden within the sand of all the sand dunes of all the world's deserts.

Evolution is no longer being question as a theory by those who know it best. It is only from those who would wish the facts were different, (like your friend,) that these superficially doubting and ignorant questions continue to surface... The "missing link" will possible never be specifically identified, yet it is certainly there somewhere in our past.

Your friend may accept that the "link" was or not... and may continue to reject the obvious truth out of stubborn stupidity, but as an established fact beyond the need of faith the question has an easily understood answer, doesn't it?

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 5

Humans didn't just evolve from ancestors who would be classified as apes. Humans ARE apes. Chimps and Bonobos are our closest relatives, nearly 98% genetically identical, as proven by DNA analysis. And that is because we had a common ancestor! Just like you (everyone reading this) and I have a common ancestor in the more recent past.

The question "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Let me restate the question: If we were born from our mothers, why are there still mothers?

Answer 6

Sure... There are actually many, many common ancestors, but the one usually referred to is the *last* common ancestor ("concestor"); i.e. between chimps/bonobos and hominids.

About 6.5 to 7.5 million years ago, a primate existed which gave rise to (as implied above) both the chimp/bonobo line and the hominid line. This last concestor may have been one of: Sahelanthropus tchadensis or Orrorin tugenensis. Note that hominids had a fair way to evolve to get to where we are now - Australopithecines (often called the First Hominids; this tree even bushier than in genus H*mo), H. habilis, H. rudolfen-sis H. erectus (incl. H. ergaster), Archaic H*mo sapiens, H. heidelbergensis, Pre-Neanderthal / H. sapiens Neanderthal, H. sapiens idaltu, and finally H. sapiens sapiens.

Answer 7

What, does she want his name, like he was called John Smith or something?

The cladistics and phylogeny of early primates is a complicated business - fossil studies are being replaced by DNA sequencing, looking at things on a molecular level to determine the AGE of the splits. Any ancestor of both is a member of family Hominidae.

Answer 8

Scientists call it the "Common Ancestor."
Scientists understand that there a many things yet to be discovered. They use known data to extrapolate hypotheses and figure out where the data leads. They also know, and accept there are things that might never be found. Since most thing decay, or get eaten, when they die, fossils are extremely rare occurrences.

Science's usual response to what is unknown is, "Let's find out!" rather than "God did it!"

Answer 9

First of all, not an atheist.

You're very presumptuous. First of all, we did evolve from some form of ape. The belief you couldn't even manage to get right is "We evolved from monkeys" which is of course false. But what "common ancestor" means is, some forms-of-apes and humans are descended from another animal which branched off into our different species over time.

Answer 10

There are stupid Christians, stupid wiccans, stupid pagans, stupid muslims, stupid pastafarians, stupid atheists, stupid people of every stripe.
So maybe our common ancestor was really, really, really, really DUMB!
I am rather happy, however, that humans have progressed beyond the nasty habit of throwing s.h.i.t. at one another and have evolved to the extent of throwing insults instead.
Nice.
Maybe, eventually, hopefully, we can actually evolve past the point of having to put someone else down in order to feel better about ourselves.
We can only hope!

Answer 11

I believe common theory now is that it was a rodent of some kind, something that survived whatever calamity earth suffered that began this all (by the hands of the grand director of course). That IS what we refer to as a common ancestor...its a response to...why are there still monkeys.

I have wondered before...just exactly what science theory non-believers DO believe in? You seem to be reluctant to put your support behind evolution as well...is that because so many Christians now accept it as the probably answer?

Poppie