Evolutionists, prize question: what common ancestor did man and monkey evolve from and prove it?

Answer 1

This is one question that is always skirted around by Atheists and I have yet to see one of them give an intelligent answer to this.

Answer 2

think of it like a tree, all life frorms started at the base. when the first life form bred its offspring were all slightly diffrent, most of the time these diffrences would go un noticed, but occasionaly something useful shows up, like flagella aiding movement, these life forms would have an advantage over the others, and were likley to produce more offspring.
lets say one group grows cholopohyl and can gain nutrients from the sun, somewhere else one developes a coating that allows it to live in cooler areas, these are two branches of the tree, the original life form is less sucessful then both the new ones and is bred out or dies off.
if we fast foward we can look at humans and apes (monkeys split off long before human ancestors) the main diffenece between humans and apes is the bipedal movement of a human, resulting in arms free to do other things during movement, and long distance walking. there are fossils such as 'lucy' which are clearly not human yet have hips which would allow bi pedal movement (standing on two legs) this is an early split from the common ancestor, apes became better at aboreal movement instead, both systems worked well.
nobody can travel through time we have to work with what we have. I have been very brief, there are many other fossils showing human evolution, and some of other hominids which resulted in dead ends.
the best thing about evolution is that there are always more fossils being found, and nothing is set in stone.
nothing stays the same forever. nature strives for perfection.

Answer 3

Eh, there is a few problems with the question. you notice no one in technological know-how claims " guy and monkeys developed from an person-friendly ancestor." no one. Monkeys have been around for 25 million years. human beings, as recognizable human beings have been around 3 million years. somewhat hard to settle for " guy and monkeys developed from an person-friendly ancestor" Then there is the subject with "DNA does not instruct something different than a similarity between the species not that they had an person-friendly ancestor." i'm particular there are a number of adult adult males paying baby help that could have an interest. that they had DNA exams and the courts desperate they have been the easy ancestor to the youngster.Then there is the case of Chedder guy with a 9,000 year previous skeleton replaced into appropriate to a at the instant residing guy. Now had you asked with regards to the human ape split you have gotten been on extra impregnable floor. "Biochemical evidence indicated that the final uncomplicated ancestor of hominids and apes passed off between 5 and 10 million years in the past, and in all probability in the decrease end of that selection (Lewin 1987). " Even the "similarity between the species" creates issues. below creationist perception (of which there are what, a dozen different ones?) Species won't be able to get up. you may have "varieties" of dogs yet not something like the ninety 8% DNA journey got here across between say human beings and chimps.although that's what DNA needless to say states. on the grounds that we are on the subject, please clarify how the beautiful little koala endure have been given from the Mountain of Ararat to Australia? that is a few 6 thousand miles and the little adult adult males have a constrained nutrition habitual, in many situations spend their lives in one tree and can't incredibly swim. basically crossing the Wallace line may well be a topic. Plus the Ark replaced into already grounded. Then there is the sparkling water, salt water fish subject., yet we are going to watch for the koala endure answer.

Answer 4

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, It is the common ancestor of all humans and of the great apes of the world, like gorillas. The proof is in the fossil evidence. You see, I don't believe in calling someone stupid for asking a question. These other people are wrong for calling you the missing link and many other things. I don't see how calling someone names teaches them anything about evolution. Sad really. What it tells me is that they believe in evolution more blindly than some people believe in God because they don't know to put forth an answer. Knowledge of God = Wise. Knowledge of Science = Intelligent. Knowledge of Both = Very wise and intelligent indeed. Simple equation. :)

Answer 5

and what proof would you accept, friend L.o.G.? When would you concede "this is not quite a man yet not quite an ape"? Do you need a name or something? A bone? What?

You realise that all species are transitional, right? Just because we're the current endpoint doesn't mean natural selection isn't still optimising us for our environment. Do you expect to see this happen in your lifetime? Written human history? You do know that evolution works in geological time, not the pityful 5000 or so years of our recorded history, right?

Answer 6

Evolutionists will answer your question by telling you that they can't answer your question at this point in time because scientists have not found the evidence of man and monkeys' common ancestor. That said, it does not mean scientists/naturalists are not seeking the answer to your question, and most likely, given enough time, will find such evidence.

That's more than can be said for most of those who are religious who do not even question the lack of evidence of Adam & Eve being the first humans on earth, nor the validity or origin of the bible/koran or any other scriptures, and commonly refer to their validity by saying that the bible/koran/scripture simply claim to be valid.

Following my post I read Mr. Ashton VanHelsing's post, who kindly referred us all to scientific evidence in answer to your question. And wasn't I wrong! . . . And that's another thing that's great about evolutionists. They will most likely admit to having made a mistake when faced with evidence proving them wrong.

Answer 7

The bones of a creature who has said to have a similar skull to us was found in Eurasia less then a couple years ago. It is called the Pierolapithicuis, as someone who reads the bible this could possibly be Adam.

Answer 8

Why bother? Your apparently so closed minded on the issue that nothing I bring up from the work of the Leaky's or others will get your attention. If you don't want to recognize the fact of evolution then that's your right.

Answer 9

What a joke. Is this the best you can do? I bet that you think that this question is proof of god.

You are demanding proof of evolution, yet you obviously do not, and cannot, even demand evidence of god.

Answer 10

I can't be bother, because presumably given your question your alternative is one of the most nonsensical pieces of fiction ever created - a man and a woman in a garden with a tree and a snake. There is only one word for this as a theory of anything - mad.

Answer 11

A Lemur?