Common Universal Ancestor

[happyindian]

Hi,

We humans have always been a divided lot, dividing ourselves in the name of religion, race, language, socio-cultural differences and so on. Most of us hold on to our (social, religious or otherwise) beliefs as a crutch to deliver us from our own weaknesses. While some of us reject scientific evidence to hold on to our dogmatic views, some of us struggle with rational conflict regarding acceptance or non-acceptance of scientific evidence.

These are a few links I would like all hubbers who reject acceptance of differences in a fellow human being to go through:
1) http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

The structure of the ToL project illustrates the genetic connections between all living things: http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/structure.html

2) Looking for the Last Universal Common Ancestor:
http://www-archbac.u-psud.fr/Meeting...reilles_e.html

Please post your comments on how you feel after going through these links. Doesn't dislike seem a waste of time?

[happyindian]

Would also like to know from you hubbers - what do you think will the state of the world possibly be if all mankind united - on hindsight, doesn't dislike for those not our kind, seem like an evolutionary game plan to eliminate each other?

[r_kk]

Your posting will be more appropriate if you can post it under “evolution or creation thread”. The common ancestor originating from Africa is most common acceptable basis for scientist as well as to theist. The main problem starts before the current human race and linking with other human predecessors and other life on earth. Even though we are genetically very close (99%) to Gorilla, most of the theist (except those consider sequential avatharams as an explanation to evolution) don’t accept both ape and super ape had same ancestor.

[aravindhan]

most of the theist (except those consider sequential avatharams as an explanation to evolution) don’t accept both ape and super ape had same ancestor.

Could you please point to some source, such as a multi-religious survey, which would support the claim that most theists do not accept evolution? My experience has been that the rejection of evolution, and more generally anti-scienticism, is a characteristic of certain fundamentalist Christian sects, not even of Christianity as a whole and certainly not of religion in general. Most believers I know accept some form of evolution, even if they believe God had a hand in guiding the overall direction it took.

[r_kk]

I hope you might have heard the news about the move to ban teaching evolution in schools in USA. (Kansas, Georgia …). The Christianity and Islam have the human origin starting with Adam. They accept secondary evolution to reply changes in human color and races. But the basic question on common ancestor before early present human race with other animals, most of them reject (islam has little more flexibility). If you go through the another thread on creation/evolution discussion, you can find many Christians supports recent earth theory and creation.

For % details refer
http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/v...=asc&start=105

[happyindian]

Your posting will be more appropriate if you can post it under “evolution or creation thread”. The common ancestor originating from Africa is most common acceptable basis for scientist as well as to theist.

Guess a new thread with a fresh start and more onus on evolutionary models will be better?? Old threads are already full.

Not all support the Africa theory. The Out-Of-Africa theory is popular as well.

I hope you might have heard the news about the move to ban teaching evolution in schools in USA. (Kansas, Georgia …).

A move by a forward nation backwards?? The Arab world was a fledging scientific arena in the past with great poets, musicians, travellers and discoverers until they mixed up religion with state administration and education, and failed to keep both of them gracefully seperated. I hope the US of A doesn't go their way.

Even though we are genetically very close (99%) to Gorilla, most of the theist (except those consider sequential avatharams as an explanation to evolution) don’t accept both ape and super ape had same ancestor.

Well, I am a Theist and I support evolution and believe all life had a common source origin. And I know many Theists have the same outlook. It is not necessary to support or reject the sequential avatharams as we do not know by proof or dis-proof whether it is right or not.

My experience has been that the rejection of evolution, and more generally anti-scienticism, is a characteristic of certain fundamentalist Christian sects, not even of Christianity as a whole and certainly not of religion in general. Most believers I know accept some form of evolution, even if they believe God had a hand in guiding the overall direction it took.

Christians generally subscribe in a greater way to Creationism rather than Evolution and many have found a happy blend of the two. Well, isn't it true that life could not have evolved if atoms were first not created? Chemistry lovers will agree with me if I say that it is tough to imagine a molecule with a set orbit and everything 'evolving' on its own? Can evolution be that powerful? There seems nothing left that nature has not experimented with first, only they are undiscovered.

[aravindhan]

I am aware of the attitudes of Biblical-literalists towards the idea of evolution. However, these people are a relatively small minority of Christians, even in the US where they are numerically strong. Their views do not by any means reflect the views of theists worldwide.

So, once again, what gives you the impression that theists generally reject evolution in favour of creation? I simply don't think this is true.

[aravindhan]

The Arab world was a fledging scientific arena in the past with great poets, musicians, travellers and discoverers until they mixed up religion with state administration and education, and failed to keep both of them gracefully seperated.

Speaking of which, have you ever read Ibn Rushd's attempts to refute the school of Al-Ghazali in the 12th century? He argues that rational thinking, freedom of thought, and openness toward other cultures are critical for any civilisation, and that being wedded to "irrefutable" or "revealed" doctrines will inevitably lead to decline. Much of it is as relevant to us today as it was to Arabs in his day.

[r_kk]

Lot have been discussed theistic and atheistic thread, and still it is one of the never ending discussions. So, let us leave the creation or evolution type discussions and concentrate the scientific aspects of evolution, common ancestor, human migration, genitical tracing, aspects of isolated animals and human groups (less mixing of different breads) in evolution study etc.

[Bad Boy]

Not all support the Africa theory. The Out-Of-Africa theory is popular as well - the only difference is that Lucy was found in Africa. And she was found in Ethiopia which was joined with the Middle-East and India in the past. Moreover, the Javanese man has never been found. I think Evolution seems to hv started when earth mass was pangea and the Austro-Asiatic Earth mass was still Gondwana at first?

Yes, only few deny the Africa theory. Even some think that humans arrived from outerspace.
Only in Africa you find Gorrillas, Chimpanse and Bonobos. In Congo you find all the three species. Near Lup (sounds somehow like that, in Congo) the Mandrills show a suspicious behaviour that is not common for Mandrills. They gather together in numbers (over 1000) when they cross a grass land from one Rainforrest to another. All the other Mandrills don't show this bahaviour.
The quetion is not if the Humans come from Africa, it is from where in Africa they started to spread.

Well, isn't it true that life could not have evolved if atoms were first not created? Chemistry lovers will agree with me if I say that it is tough to imagine a molecule with a set orbit and everything 'evolving' on its own? Can evolution be that powerful? Lalji Singh of CCMB-CDFD, Hyderabad once said in an audience "We can not experiment with anything that Nature has not experimented with." True, there seems nothing left that nature has not experimented with first, only they are undiscovered.

And who created the creator of atoms? Was it the Egg or the Hen to be the first? If there is nothing left to be experimented with then could God be the Nature?

And to all the chemistry lovers: there is a lot of physics behind the atoms, molecules, ... rather than chemistry!