The term "common ancestor" is often used by Darwinists to explain the origins of creatures, so here's a couple for you Darwinists:

What is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the human, and what is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the fish?

What is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the human, and what is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the fish?

it's the same. And it is not. depends on how far back you go.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123211616.htm

Men and Women lie. The Earth does not lie, her truths lay dormant and she does not debate.

Was that an answer? (That's why they call you spuriousmonkey.)

And that is why they call you troll.

Because you give a vague and actually silly answer makes me a troll? Go figure.

Troll

Because you give a vague and actually silly answer makes me a troll? Go figure.

The answer makes perfect sense to me.

Picture a tree.
The leaf is you.
Follow it back and eventually you get to the trunk.
Along the way, you will pass branches.

How poetic one raven.

How poetic one raven.

Don't get pissy with me because you didn't understand my analogy.

The fact that you do not have the capacity to grasp analogy explains a LOT.

The term "common ancestor" is often used by Darwinists to explain the origins of creatures, so here's a couple for you Darwinists:

What is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the human, and what is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the fish?

The common ancestor of the modern monkey and mankind probably resembled a monkey. It is not any living creature, so it doesn't have a name, is that what you are looking for?

The common ancestor of the monkey and the fish is more vague since it was so long ago. It probably looked more like a fish or a worm of some sort.

That's just awesome spidergoat.

It's strange that the supposed immediate ancestors of various creatures are there, but they're not there, kind of a "now you see it now you don't" kind of a deal, rather perplexing.

The pre-monkey-man's name was Gerald. The pre-fish-monkey's name was Princess Hyperion. Hope that helps.

Gerald the Shrew and Princess Hyperion the Worm.

I hope that isn't too technical for you to understand.

That would be a fun way to present it to the young Darwinites.

It's strange that the supposed immediate ancestors of various creatures are there, but they're not there, kind of a "now you see it now you don't" kind of a deal, rather perplexing.

Many have been found in the fossil record.

Of course, there's a very good reason why many common ancestor species no longer exist today: their descendants have out-competed them for the same ecological niche. That's one way that extinction happens.

Only a creationist would be silly enough to believe that all forms of life that have ever existed must still exist today.

In fact, over 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are extinct.

Hardly, you've got to be kidding.

Hardly, you've got to be kidding. That is known for higher - multicellular - beings. It is less certain for bacteria, etc - but it's certainly the way to bet.

It's strange that the supposed immediate ancestors of various creatures are there, but they're not there, It's more of a "they were there long ago, they aren't here now" deal.

Was that an answer? (That's why they call you spuriousmonkey.)

He gave a very clear precise answer if you know how to read the questions.

Hardly, you've got to be kidding.

Can't understand that. Try to express yourself clearly in future.

The common ancestor of the modern monkey and mankind probably resembled a monkey. It is not any living creature, so it doesn't have a name, is that what you are looking for?

The common ancestor of the monkey and the fish is more vague since it was so long ago. It probably looked more like a fish or a worm of some sort.

It depends entirely on which fish.

What is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the human, and what is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the fish?Why do you use the word "supposed" in front of scientific terms? Are you not a scientist? Why do you call scientists "Darwinists"? Darwin's theory has been amplified and adjusted by more than a century of research, but it remains the basis of modern evolutionary biology. All evolutionary biologists are "Darwinists" because there is no competing scientific theory. "Intelligent design," "creationism," etc. are religious beliefs, not scientific theories.

If you dispute science you are not a scientist and you don't belong here. There is a religion forum for you.

Humans split off from the other apes about ten million years ago. The common ancestor of the human and the chimpanzee, our closest relative, probably looked more like a chimpanzee than a human. We have developed more in those ten million years than they did.

Apes split off from monkey 25 million years ago. The common ancestor was an old world monkey, it would be recognizable as an old world monkey today. Apes went on to undergo some remarkable changes, such as losing their tails.

Mammals split off from reptiles roughly 150 million years ago. The common ancestor was a reptile. Mammals went on to develop advanced characteristics, whereas reptiles have not changed much. Crocodiles have been around in very much their modern form for about 70 million years.

Reptiles split off from amphibians about 350 million years ago. The common ancestor was an amphibian. Amphibians haven't changed much, whereas reptiles went on to develop lungs, claws, and a wide variety of forms. Amphibians aren't much older than reptiles, the sources I've found put them both around 350 million years.

Amphibians split off from fish. The amphibians were the first vertebrates to undero an almost larval form of post-natal development. When frog eggs hatch, the young animals are tadpoles, which have only hind legs and no lungs. They are basically fish with two legs. As they mature, they develop their front legs and their lungs, and they can come out of the water.

You're looking for a tree structure where amphibians and fish both descended from an older ancestor, but that's not how it worked. Amphibians descended from fish.

Similary, reptiles descended from amphibians. They did not have a common ancestor. Reptiles are newer than amphibians.

Similarly, mammals descended from reptiles. The shrew was one of the earliest types of mammals and primates descended from shrews. Apes descended from monkeys. Humans are apes, but we descended from a creature that could be reasonably classified as a chimpanzee.

We don't have common ancestors. We are descended from creatures who did not evolve as quickly as we did.

BTW, you can get much better answers to your questions much more quickly from Wikipedia. Their biology articles are excellent.

And some didn't "evolve" into anything new, such as bacteria, viruses, frogs, fish, never changed, why is that?

By the way Frag, there is a big difference between evolution per se and Darwinian evolution, the first is observable, the second has never been.

And some didn't "evolve" into anything new, such as bacteria, viruses, frogs, fish, never changed, why is that?

Species which are well adapted to their environmental niches suffer no particular natural selection pressures, and therefore have no "need" to evolve (although this is importing teleology into the process, and we must be careful with such use of language).

And all the "common ancestors" are "unknown," just great.

Species which are well adapted to their environmental niches suffer no particular natural selection pressures, and therefore have no "need" to evolve (although this is importing teleology into the process, and we must be careful with such use of language).

Well, actually frogs, bacteria, viruses, fish have evolved too. Even living fossils aren't identical to their ancestors that they resemble.

Viruses are in fact the fastest evolving entities in our world.

And they're all still viruses, frogs, fish, etc.

And they're all still viruses, frogs, fish, etc.

Yes, but not the same ones.

Just as I am not the same as Thomas Jefferson.

That is patently obvious.

Different individuals, same syngameon.

What is a syngamegoo?

I am quoting certain authors but my post is open to everyone.

Why do you use the word "supposed" in front of scientific terms?.....

That was nicely prepared and concise Fraggle. Some questions an aspiring biologist would ask are:

What is the primary methodoloy for dating fossils?

They are basically fish with two legs. As they mature, they develop their front legs and their lungs, and they can come out of the water.

Does'nt this show the normal life cycle of a frog?

Ultimately couldnt a frog just be a frog? Would the frog mom be offended if you call her offsping fish?

You present that timeline as if you are talking about 1965, but this is 100's of miilions of years. To say "one was here 130 mill. yrs. ago and the other dodnt come about untill 135 mill. yrs...." well should we just accept this?

Can a rock be dated in this way? what environmental factors woud\may inhibit accuracy?

Back to the fish and frog's. It has been observed that fish change sex (male\female) during their lifetime, possibly as a matter of requirement. Does anyone here know why and what other organism's have this ability?

Well, actually frogs, bacteria, viruses, fish have evolved too. Even living fossils aren't identical to their ancestors that they resemble.

Viruses are in fact the fastest evolving entities in our world.

Is this not simply a survival mechanism? The human body does this by rejecting the effect of harmfull drugs, rendering foreign substances useless as best it can.

after all it is still a virus, just as when it began. "Evolving" is a term that can be used to describe paint drying, do you see this as an indication of what is it called? Darwin Evolution.

Thanks guys.

The ol' "Darwinian drying-paint morphing" analogy, I like that, so thank you John99.

I believe people when stressed may become either suicidal, or homicidal. I am not the suicidal type.
I really dislike seeing gross ignorance strutted upon the stage of life as a plus point.

So since you're not suicidal, you're homicidal, great Ophi, you really should watch your language.

I watch my language carefully, rarely making a mistake. You have correctly interpreted, in part, my last post. Well done.

Who have you killed lately?

I believe people when stressed may become either suicidal, or homicidal. I am not the suicidal type.
I really dislike seeing gross ignorance strutted upon the stage of life as a plus point.

Relax.

Do you have a personal stake in this?

Is this related to your line of work?

Are you a scientist doing this kind of research?

How in the world does anyone take something posted on some obscure message board personally?

Science relies heavily on questions being asked, when the questions stop so may the research?

NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU.

I never once said that Darwin Evolution did not happen and I know this to be a fact.

Everyone sitting in a biology class has a shred of doubt, everyone wonders "what if..."

This is accepted and expected by scientists.

ARE YOU A PAID SCIENTIST.

Is your middle name Darwin?

Is this not simply a survival mechanism? The human body does this by rejecting the effect of harmfull drugs, rendering foreign substances useless as best it can.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the principle of evolution. There is no evolution without a new generation.


after all it is still a virus, just as when it began.

It's the progeny of the virus.


"Evolving" is a term that can be used to describe paint drying, do you see this as an indication of what is it called? Darwin Evolution.


Only if you are brain dead.

Of cause we must have common ancestors, it explains why we hate each other

Of cause we must have common ancestors, it explains why we hate each other

good point.:itold:

The term "common ancestor" is often used by Darwinists to explain the origins of creatures, so here's a couple for you Darwinists:

What is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the human, and what is the supposed common ancestor of the monkey and the fish?

IAC, you don't care about the answer so why ask the question?

My ant next door. I accidently stepped on her. :bravo:

Relax.
Do you have a personal stake in this?
Yes. Very definitely. Ignorance contributed to the Crusades. Ignorance led to thousands of withc burnings. Ignorance led to the Spanish Inquisition. Ignorance led to global warming. Ignorance is screwing up the planet and the the future of my children and grandchildren, so you better believe I have a personal stake in this.
Is this related to your line of work?
Are you a scientist doing this kind of research?Frankly I don't see the relevance of that question. I have considerable interest in the topic area as a keen amateur.
How in the world does anyone take something posted on some obscure message board personally?I imagine it would depend upon the nature of the post. I don't think the question has much relevance. I am not taking anything personally, unless you consider my commitment to doing what I can to improve the environment and the future for humanity, taking things personally.
Frankly I am a little puzzled as to why anyone like yourself would be so bothered by a few lines thrown away on an obscure message board that they would take the time to respond to them.
Science relies heavily on questions being asked, when the questions stop so may the research?.The questions need to be asked in the right way, within the right context, and following careful study of state of understanding to that point. Otherwise the questions become idle queries and cease to be science.
NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU.
I am well aware that most people are wrong much of the time.:)
I never once said that Darwin Evolution did not happen and I know this to be a fact.Again, the relevance of this statement misses me entirely. Also what does the statement mean. That you know Darwin evolution is a fact, or that you never said it wasn't. Relevant or irrlevant there is a world of difference between the two.
Everyone sitting in a biology class has a shred of doubt, everyone wonders "what if...".My God! You've spoken to everyone sitting in a biology class.
Bad news. Somehow you missed mine. Perhaps you weren't born then.
This is accepted and expected by scientists.Doubt is one thing. Intransigent stupidity in the face of voluminous facts ia quite another.
ARE YOU A PAID SCIENTIST.I am paid. I trained as a scientist. I am probably not a paid scientist in the sense that you mean.

And all the "common ancestors" are "unknown," just great.

Keep in mind IAC, not every animal in the history of animals has been fossilized since fossilization is a rare occurance.

In any case, "digging for extinct animals" in its truest sense has only been going on for about 180 years. That's it. And as the years go on, more and more proof for Darwinian Evolution is being found.

You claim, IAC, that all common ancestors are unknown. Read below:

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
May 2006

Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/news/tiktaalik_reconstruction.jpg


So what you have here is really a mix between a croc and a fish. Logically, it would seem that this creature is a common ancestor then of some types of fish and crocs.

I'm sure God just created a half croc, half fish though, just to trick us. ;)