Christian and Ape ?

[volcano rocket]

This is an incorrect interpretation and not a valid comparison. It is not a fine point or difference. Hercules is an anatomical human, and not a mythical creature. He is considered a mythical person probably simply a mythical exaggeration of a real person, which is common in ancient history..

You are biased in your interpretation of the facts. The common ancestor of humans and non-human apes is mythical because it is said to resemble transitional fossils but possesses exaggerated capabilities to give birth to descendants that are both human and non-human apes. Not only are such exaggerations common in ancient history, but they are common in modern times as well. For some reason, you do not understand this.

Your view of mythical creatures, and modern myths in science carries little valid comparison. Apparently you do not believe in evolution, which biases your view toward this conclusion.

You know nothing of what I believe. Stop assuming you do. I never said there were modern myths in science. Re-read what I wrote. It’s our scientific culture that carries these myths not science. Also, to correct another one of your misassumptions…I do support the truth of evolution.

The bones, and foot prints of our ancestors represent real species and not mythical creatures, and the evidence of their relationship is based on real anatomical comparisons combined with genetic evidence of amny living and some extinct primates. There are many well documented intermediates in the fossil record and more being discovered all the time.

I do not dispute that the bones and footprints represent real species nor do I dispute the evidence of their relationship with humans and non-human apes. The question I would like answered is, “Are those the confirmed bones and footprints of our common ancestor with non-human apes?” Point me to those findings. I will be glad to read up on it.

The recent discovery of the excellently preserved primate fossil 'Ida', I think that name is what they use, is a good example of an intermediate between modern humans and other primates.

I am excited about the “Ida” fossil find too. The reality is that it nor any of the well-documented intermediate fossils are acknowledged to be both a human and non-human ape ancestor. I am still waiting on anybody to provide proof of the existence of our common ancestor with non-human apes. Until then, it is no more than a mythical creature.

[shunyadragon]

You know nothing of what I believe. Stop assuming you do. I never said there were modern myths in science. Re-read what I wrote. It’s our scientific culture that carries these myths not science. Also, to correct another one of your misassumptions…I do support the truth of evolution.

Do you accept the human evolution among primates.

[volcano rocket]

Do you accept the human evolution among primates.

Yes, I accept human evolution. However, evolution does not deal with origin of life issues. My problem is science has not successfully proven the origin of human life or the origin of any other primate life just like it has not successfully proven the origin of life in general.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I accept human evolution. However, evolution does not deal with origin of life issues. My problem is science has not successfully proven the origin of human life or the origin of any other primate life just like it has not successfully proven the origin of life in general.

You are leaping to another argument, which has nothing to do with your original assertion of 'mythical creatures' representing the phylogenic tree. This is the realm of abiogenesis, and the topic of another thread if you wish. Again you are misusing 'proven' in relationship to evolution. origins of life and any scientific discipline.

For your interest there is a growing body of evidence that is leading to much better understanding of the natural processes of abiogenisis, as demonstrated here.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...bonucleotides/

By the way, 'not successfully . . .' is not a very good argument for understanding science and results of science based the objective methods of science using falsification and prdicatability to support hypothesis and theories.