The common ancestory theory is BS, always was and always will be.  Nothing in nature is a straight line but branches like a tree.  Some of those branches go off at angles and survive while others die and cease to exist.  

It's that simple.

There are many theories now that some prehistoric evodence of man used in the straight line theory  actually were an off branch and died off.  

Apes/monkies have many traits in common with man but one single ancestor with those traits isn't one of them.  The timelines of boths evolution simply doesn't work since evidence of ape and man is in the same periods at the same times.  

I daresay there isn't a missing link for it never existed.  Speculation yep but no more than it did.  The odds are simply against it.  Common traits is a mathmatical approach to genetics being used to explain evolution.  Random is kind of hard to calculate.  Nor does the methodology take into consideration parrell evolution.  Like a circle the discussion goes back to there's no straight lines in nature.

A way to think of it is fur bearing animals.  Both a cat and dog have many things in common but it doesn't mean there was catdog but two separate types of creatures evolved with simlilar traits due to enviromental impacts.  Yes there may have been a common ancestor reptile or amphibian but not a catdog.  

Thinking a man came from monkies approach to evolution is simplistic and worthy of a grammer school students reasoning.    

Like most things The History Channel approaches or television period it talks down to it's ignorant audience just as self proclaimed scientist and religious theorists have for generation upon generation.  They take the complex and put it into a tea spoon to be spoon fed to the unthinking.

Tj

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When did the History channel start doing fiction? They're covering the bible now too? If you watched, you'd see that they treat the Bible like fiction. Perhaps because 60% of it is??

BTW, this is one really witty post.  Did you stay up all night thinking about posting it?  Or should we just accept your opinion because you have a whole of 245 posts regardless of the fact no one knows you?

This is why we have a religion forum so you can debate such topics  however don't be surprised if someone asks you why or to prove what you post.  

Otherwise it's highjacking this thread or if not then DienBienPhu54 is trolling and the thread should be locked.

Tj

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When did the History channel start doing fiction? They're covering the bible now too? If you watched, you'd see that they treat the Bible like fiction. Perhaps because 60% of it is?? BTW, this is one really witty post.  Did you stay up all night thinking about posting it?  Or should we just accept your opinion because you have a whole of 245 posts regardless of the fact no one knows you? This is why we have a religion forum so you can debate such topics  however don't be surprised if someone asks you why or to prove what you post.   Otherwise it's highjacking this thread or if not then DienBienPhu54 is trolling and the thread should be locked. Tj The ironic thing is, the real Thomas Jefferson thought much of the Bible was utter BS. Ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? He literally cut out the virgin birth, miracle stories, claims to Jesus' divinity and the resurrection. He Never fell for the hocus pocus, dogmatic approach to Christianity, yet he considered himself a Christian. Sounds like a rational man.

Ah, come on now!  I never even posted that the original post wasn't acurate other than it was off topic and lacked any content prevalent to the discussion.  The post I was commenting on was posting to get a negative response.

Yes I've read about everything I can on Jefferson and his relgious views especially political views.  Strange I never saw the word Bullshit in any of them.

I might suggest  you actually read them instead of the Cliff notes.  

One thing he was emphatic on was the freedom of religion not just his personal views.  He was free with his veiws but not with condeming others for theirs but protecting their right to have them.

I appreaciate you painting me with a broad brush and Jefferson too for that matter but you are so off base it isn't funny.  Like Jefferson I am a Christian that doesn't believe in a literal translation of the bible but then that has little to do with trashing others beliefs on the internet and nothing to do with the topic of evolution.

If you look at it having a separate Relgion forum is almost Jeffersonian.

Tj



 

Quoted: Quoted: ...... Like most things The History Channel approaches or television period it talks down to it's ignorant audience just as self proclaimed scientist and religious theorists have for generation upon generation.  They take the complex and put it into a tea spoon to be spoon fed to the unthinking. Tj Actually, the History Channels shows approach in the show explained pretty well, the branching theory that you described in your post.  I thought is was pretty interesting.   The title of the show "Ape to Man" is misleading, and leads to people thinking linearly.

Thanks guns.  If this is a case, I will give the show a watch for it may interesting.  Haven't read much on the topic, non-linear evolvution of man, lately and would like to see a different perspective.  

I still doubt seriously that a TV show can convince me of the missing link and man came from ape concept and sometimes enjoy watching a show I can say Bull a few times.

Tj

Quoted: Quoted: I still doubt seriously that a TV show can convince me of the missing link and man came from ape concept and sometimes enjoy watching a show I can say Bull a few times. Tj This is a good point, and the show started with the theory of a "missing link", but in the end, they stated that there probably wasn't any one "link" but many, diverging, and branches creating the different species.   Apes of today and us probably came from a common ancestor.  They went one way, we went another.   One of the more fascinating aspects of the show was talking about how Neanderthal is NOT a genetic match to us, and was around when Humans were.  They were also an offshoot, or branch in our evolutionary tree.

The neanderthal therory is something I really find interesting especially in light of for years the books carried them in the linier evolution process until recently.  There was even a pretty lame Daryl Hanna movie on the topic.  Though the movie was lame the subject matter wasn't.  

Saw a special too long ago on the lifestyle of the neanderthal I thought was well done since it backed the speculation with the archialogical evidence.  Was one rough ass lifestyle and some tough creatures for sure.

TJ