Can YOU Spot Them?

Can You Spot the Common Ancestors? Part 2

Warning: this post is really long, but it’s got an important point at the end. You can make it!

All right, let’s get back to our hunt for a common ancestor for seagulls!

English: Modified version of http://en.wikiped...

After the grouping Theropoda on the Tree of Life Web Project we are still following a “containing group”. No one is willing to say which one of these organisms is their grandparents at all. Next comes Dinosauria, which is easy to figure out, but have you ever heard which one is supposed to be their ancestor?

On that page there’s a name where two branches join, “Saurischia”. Could it be a dino they believe turned into the others? When you search around for what “saurischia” means, it’s just another group name. No dinosaur has that name for itself.

Next comes Archosauria, which doesn’t have a chart again. Let’s see what we find on the next link with the tongue twister name Archosauromorpha. Oooh! Look at this:

UofC Museum of Paleontology: The phylogenetic definition of Archosauria is the most recent common ancestor of birds and crocodiles, and all of its descendants.

We’ve got a common ancestor! But what does the Tree of Life page show? A single animal? It does have a picture of a bird (it’s a cormorant), which is supposed to have evolved from dinosaurs, it can’t be the dinosaurs’ common ancestor. There’s also a list of all different forms of extinct creatures, but no sign that one of them was the original version they all developed from. 🙁

Reptile

Next comes the “containing group”, Diapsida which has a connecting chart. At the top, those archosauromorphia are connected to other lizard types with a line labeled “sauria“. Think this will be a common ancestor? A dictionary tells us “saurian” is just the ancient name for lizards.

We still are using classifications (except lumping birds in) that a creationist would have no problem with and no hint of a single “common ancestor”. This is getting discouraging.

Oh, goody, Amniota, has two names where branches come together towards the “first living cell”: Romeriida and Reptilia. The only websites using the term Romeriida (not a commonly used name) were Evolutionary wikis, so I won’t link to them. Mostly they talked about a group of “earliest form reptiles” but didn’t pick one out. They did list one particular fossil “Romeria” but said it has been thrown out as a possible common ancestor.

As for “Reptilia”, you can figure this one out; it just means “reptiles”.

Terrestrial Vertebrates  is the containing group for Amniota and gives us two more names where branches meet: Reptilomorpha and Tetrapoda. I bet you know what the first one means “has the form of a reptile”. It is not a particular animal. Neither is “tetrapoda“:

Hynerpeton bassetti, a basal tetrapoda from th...

Hynerpeton bassetti, a “basal tetrapoda” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dictionary Reference.com Tetrapod: any vertebrate having four limbs or, as in the snake and whale, having had four-limbed ancestors.

I would disagree with them on the whale, but you get the idea.

The terrestrial vertebrates page is perfect for showing what a common ancestor ought to look like. See all those branching steps? Each place where the lines jo
in should be a real animal, but all the lines are blank; they don’t try to make any suggestions on what any of them could be.

The Sarcopterygii group is listed under the Gnathostomata group that has several more groups on the lines. What do you think of that “Node 1”. That’s an strange scientific term.

The Vertebrata  page turns out to have 3 of these Nodes. Below the chart is a list of what they mean. Turns out they are just more ways to organize animals. Except for the way they draw lines showing they believe “Node 1” turned into “Node 2” Creationists would probably set this up the same way.

A family Tree

What a real family Tree looks like

On to Craniata (we have to be getting there soon!), this is the grouping for any animal with a skull. Then comes Chordata, or, any animal with a spinal column. No common ancestor there. Deuterostomia doesn’t make a suggestion either.

I’m guessing most of you are taking my word for it on most of these links, but I’d really like you to click on Bilateria. See those short lines, white space, followed by a question mark and short lines on the right? That’s the way a creationist would set up all the genaeologies for creatures once you get to the “kind” level. They started on Creation Days 4, 5, or 6 from ancestors who already looked something like their grandchildren today (or would if they’d survived).

You don’t even need an explanation for the next page name, Animals. We know they can’t be talking about some particular version (except maybe a puppet) and the next, Eukaryotes, is just a fancy way to say ‘any creature whose cells have a nucleus’.

This page is followed by a page titled Life on Earth. That is not the name of a common ancestor! And when we click on the arrow to the left we find…. there isn’t a link. It just has an arrow to nothing.

What do we see in all this exhausting search? The Evolutionists think we’re crazy for believing in a genius Creator God. They say any one with a brain knows life can develop all by itself from nothing. They claim the facts are all on their side and we Christians only have blind faith.

Looking at the Tree of Life website, who has faith, even when things become crazy for thinking that way? Are the facts really on their side?

O LORD, how your works are multiplied! in wisdom you made them all: the earth is full of your riches. Psalm 104:24 

For more check out: Darwin Then and Now: Evolution 101, Non-Existent Common Ancestors

How many Great, Great, Grandparents do you have?

Generations

Generations (Photo credit: Mr. Jay Yohe)

Scientists have known for some time now (much to their astonishment) that all people everywhere can be traced back to just a handful of people. Although they would like to have people evolving away from apes several million years ago, the farthest they can push back a single common ancestor for all guys (Y chromosome) is 140,000 years!

BTW artifacts show modern people go much “earlier in time” than even a million years ago. We have fossilized footprints and signs of hunting that date to well over a million years. Do you think they are relying on a bunch of assumptions to get their dates? To keep their brains from frying between these two ideas, they say these first people were not “anatomically modern.” I think they’re just disguising some major problems!

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAThe genetics that guys carry are remarkably similar across the world. As for ladies, we have… WAIT! let’s see if you can guess how many direct lines back to Eve:

And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. Genesis 7:7 

What do we have here?

  • One dad passed on his genes to all three sons: check!
  • How many wives that didn’t have to be sisters? Three! Researchers call them Halotype M, N, and R. I’d probably call them SW, HW and JW (can you guess why?) 😀

It’s funny how Evolutionists refuse to let the Bible be true. They badly want us to come from anywhere except near the mountains of Ararat. The Americas and Australia are out as a first region (everyone knows those people migrated not too long ago), while Eurasia is too close to the Bible, which leaves Africa as their only option. So, where do they put “mitochondrial eve”? Ethiopia, or some other favored spot in the north. That’s about as close to Ararat as you can get without admitting the truth.

OK, now we get to our title topic. The Bible says there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah during the 1,600 or so years before the Flood. Then it starts focusing in on Jacob’s family pretty quickly. Genesis 11 tells us that from Noah to Abraham was another 10 generations. At least for one man, we know exactly how many great grandfathers he had:

English: Computer generated single branch of a...

 

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Matthew 1:17

14×3=42 plus 20 back to Adam = 62 generations from the dawn of time to Jesus. That’s cool!

What about you and me? Well, we have to do a lot more guessing, but it’s not actually too hard. We can be pretty sure that the generations would have been about the same up to the time of Abraham and history tells us that was “early 2nd millennium BC” (amazingly, they are probably right on that!). That gives us about 3,800 years between his time and right now.

Figuring out how far apart an average parent is from their average child isn’t as easy as you might think. One thing you will notice looking at Jesus’ ancestry is that a bunch of his grandpas were really old when they had their son who joined them on that line. Even Evolutionists are realizing this is a bigger issue than they would have liked. It looks like a reasonable gap would be even bigger than the 20-25 years I’ve always heard!

So, lest try something easy, how ’bout 30 years per generation?

3,800 divided by 30 = 126 2/3 generations

That means the average person on earth today would have 146 or 147 great grandpas between them and Adam! Even with only 20 years per generation you get exactly 200 grandpas back to Noah.

Awesome!

Know therefore that the LORD your God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; Deuteronomy 7:9 

(of course, this is just dad’s, dad’s, dad… there would be a lot more people listed if we include moms and dads, but the generation count is accurate)

For more see these great articles:

Creation Ministries International: Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics

Institute for Creation Research: Human Mutation Clock Confirms Creation

s8nt.com: A Simple Experiment Which Should Refute Creationism?