The Instigator
Abeceda
Pro (for)
The Contender
IBeatMyMeats
Con (against)

There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
IBeatMyMeats has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 99226
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

Abeceda

Pro

My position is that there is not one piece of evidence in support of the idea that humans share a common ancestor with apes - that can not be interpreted in another way. To clarify my position even further, I shall provide an example.

Homology, which is considered evidence of such common ancestry, might equally be evidence of common factory (i.e. that the similarities are not due to a shared ancestor, but a shared maker).

If you disagree with this, and believe that you have definitive evidences that humans do share a common ancestor with apes, feel free to participate. Before you do, the rule is that we take one evidence at a time, instead of several. This ensures that we stay clear and systematic throughout the debate.
IBeatMyMeats

Con

This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it.

First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.

Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same.

A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require.

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized.

We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed.

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.
Debate Round No. 1
Abeceda

Pro

Here is the title that I have written: There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes.

Clearly, I have never said, or hinted, that apes turned into humans. I clearly and correctly presented the evolutionary theory. You, on the other hand, for some reason, completely failed to realize this, and spent a round attempting to educate me on the basics of evolutionary theory when everything I stated was perfectly correct and in line with the evolutionary viewpoint.
IBeatMyMeats

Con

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of Hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years ago (Pliocene).

Speciation from Pan to Homo appears to have been a long, drawn-out process. After the "original" divergence(s), there were, according to Patterson (2006), periods of hybridization between population groups and a process of alternating divergence and hybridization that lasted over several millions of years.[1] Sometime during the late Miocene or early Pliocene the earliest members of the human clade completed a final separation from the lineage of Pan " with dates estimated by several specialists ranging from 13 million[2] to as recent as 4 million years ago.[1] The latter date and the argument for hybridization events are rejected by Wakeley[3] (see current estimates regarding complex speciation).

Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) " so much so that it should be classified as a member of the Pan genus and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior.[4] However, to date no fossil has been identified as a probable candidate for the CHLCA or the taxon Pan prior.

In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup, that is, as the extant species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Debate Round No. 2
Abeceda

Pro

Perfect, you understood that I am talking about a common ancestor. Now, what you still have not understood, is that I am not looking for speculation on when we separated from the common ancestor, but scientific evidence that there was one in the first place. Looking forward to hearing from you on that specific issue, that this debate was started to discuss in the first place.

I have been quite clear in the title and the opening statement what this debate is about. It still astounds me that you have not understood this. If you could provide a possible explanation for the misunderstanding, that would be perfect.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sonofcharl 11 months ago
Sonofcharl
I think Con was far to clever, for Pro to handle.
Posted by brian.bors7 11 months ago
brian.bors7
IBeatMyMeats so far has completly missed the point of the debate. Even though am technically in his corner on this issue, I would be forced to vote for Abeceda so far.
Posted by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
@Samthakid You know chromosome number doesn't mean anything, right? We have the exact same amount of chromosomes as a sable antelope, doesn't imply we're closely related.

Also, fail on IBeatMyMeats' part for not understanding what the debate was even about. XD
Posted by Samthakid 11 months ago
Samthakid
Primates said to have the same ancestors as humans contain one more chromosome than humans. in order to truly say humans share ancestors, there needs to be a fused chromosome, one that shows evidence that we used to have more. that would be chromosome 2 on the human karyotype.
Posted by Amarandum 11 months ago
Amarandum
Haha! Creationism! Love it!
Posted by madness 11 months ago
madness
Was this a copy and paste debate?
Posted by Abeceda 11 months ago
Abeceda
I can say that this debate was wasted as the opponent completely failed to understand what the debate was about, even though it was clearly stated.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Why is this debate still listed as in the Challenge period?
Posted by IBeatMyMeats 11 months ago
IBeatMyMeats
I don't care what you say.
Posted by jo154676 11 months ago
jo154676
You used sources but didnt cite them

I am on your side that evolution proves we have a common ancestor with apes, I was just hoping that you were going to do that in the first round and it sounded like you didnt believe in evolution
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.