Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

reply to post by novastrike81
I always think that nature seems too orderly for the allowance of this theory anyway - if anything can happen, then why isn't it?

I think the reason the theory is still accepted is simply because professors tell us it's true, but if the masses could be witness to a fair debate on the subject, I think most would understand not only that it doesn't really make sense, but also that it's not just an outdated and unproven theory, it's been actively pushed on us as fact by academics that know they are lying.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Theory as evolutionists define: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

don't forget the giraffe, if we're going to discuss creatures that couldn't have evolved. darwin, when trying to explain their evolution, said that giraffes with a neck 2" longer had a significant survival advantage because they could reach limbs that other creatures couldn't. the problem with that? there is a 2 foot difference in neck length between males and females. so all the females would have died out if 2 inches is that big of a difference. also, without having a neck of over 10 feet, the giraffes of that time wouldn't even have a chance at reaching any tree's leaves.

also, when they go to drink, a sponge catches the flow of blood to the brain so the rush of blood down their necks doesn't kill them, or make them faint. how would that evolve? once their necks became long enough for that to be a problem, they would either die, or pass out and drown in the water, or get eaten by predators, or die of thirst. none of them could have survived.

I like how people ask obscure detailed questions.. yet when they are given reasonable answers they just dismiss them as bs.. it's almost like that was their intention all along.

So what alternative creation explanation might they offer instead?

"In the beginning a fully grown naked man and woman spoke to a snake in a garden, ate a piece of magic fruit and were forever cursed by a red demon with horns.."





[edit on 29-4-2010 by riley]

So there are beneficial mutations that give survival advantage.

Then tell me what survival advantage does the hairless, thin skinned, tender-footed, weak muscled human have?

reply to post by OhZone


good point! the average neanderthal was said to be stronger than the strongest weight lifters of today, if "survival of the fittest" is taken into account, how did they go extinct to us weaklings? this also kinda debunks those claiming that homo sapiens wiped out neanderthals, how could we win against a people that is naturally much stronger? (the brain sizes were the same)

Originally posted by riley
I like how people ask obscure detailed questions.. yet when they are given reasonable answers they just dismiss them as bs.. it's almost like that was their intention all along.

Touche, the same can be said about you.

So what alternative creation explanation might they offer instead?

"In the beginning a fully grown naked man and woman spoke to a snake in a garden, ate a piece of magic fruit and were forever cursed by a red demon with horns.."

You clearly are ignorant and have no understanding of the Bible. Where does it say Satan is a red demon with horns? I'll tell you... NOWHERE. You follow too much Greek mythology. You're thinking of the god Pan. Also, to show you're lack of understanding; Satan did NOT curse the earth, God did. Please before you comment again do some research on the subject you're debating before you make yourself look stupid with illogical and biased opinions.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by novastrike81]

We all came from bananas, that is the common ancestor you are looking for, or was it mud struck by lightning

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
We all came from bananas, that is the common ancestor you are looking for, or was it mud struck by lightning

I thought it was a comet from space? Or maybe lightning struck a pond of water and juiced us up? Yea that sounds just as funny as God did it, am I right? I forgot, science says it so we must believe them!

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

... so all the females would have died out if 2 inches is that big of a difference. also, without having a neck of over 10 feet, the giraffes of that time wouldn't even have a chance at reaching any tree's leaves.

The story of the evolution of the Giraffe has indeed ebbed and flowed over the years. Remember that Darwin's suggestion was made 150 years ago and there has been a lot of new work and new ideas since then.

Darwin is NOT the last word in evolutionary science. He is not even the first word! He is just the best known and most influential. He occupies exactly the same position in Biology that Louis Armstrong occupies in Jazz (and perhaps in all of pop music but I'll avoid too much hyperbole there).

Anyway, over the years the browsing advantage hypothesis has fallen out of favor. The more modern idea is that the longer neck gives the advantage in mating battles, like larger antlers on an elk. Even more recently, the browsing advantage is coming back into the picture.

That the female has a shorter neck does not negate the fact that her neck is still longer than non-giraffes. It does mean that the male can 'stand over' the female at the same tree and get leaves she can't reach while protecting her from other males and predators.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

We all came from bananas, that is the common ancestor you are looking for, or was it mud struck by lightning

The ONLY claim to life coming from mud is in... (drum roll please) ...

THE BIBLE

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

 

We all came from bananas, that is the common ancestor you are looking for, or was it mud struck by lightning

The ONLY claim to life coming from mud is in... (drum roll please) ...

THE BIBLE

Actually God made man from dirt not mud. Mud is wet earth and it clearly says dirt in the Bible. However, you can't mold dry dirt it just falls apart. Take it for what it says and it's dirt.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

good point! the average neanderthal was said to be stronger than the strongest weight lifters of today, if "survival of the fittest" is taken into account, how did they go extinct to us weaklings?

I suspect you are being willfully disingenuous here but "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean "survival of the physically strongest".

It means "survival of the fittest for purpose".

BBC Science & Nature: Ice People... Extinction

... the appearance of modern humans in Europe 40,000 years ago placed Neanderthals in direct competition with our ancestors for resources. It was a competition the Neanderthals would lose. Around 28,000 years ago, the last Neanderthals died out.

Computer simulations show that once Neanderthals and modern humans started interacting, a Neanderthal mortality rate just 2% higher than that of modern humans could have resulted in Neanderthal extinction within 1,000 years.

'We' were 'fitter': smarter, faster, more adaptable to a wider variety of environments. 'We' are omnivores, Neanderthals were carnivores. 'We' could live in the cold but could thrive in the warmer zones where game and fish and plant foods were available, Neanderthals were adapted better to the colder areas and had only game as a food source.


[edit on 29/4/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

good point! the average neanderthal was said to be stronger than the strongest weight lifters of today, if "survival of the fittest" is taken into account, how did they go extinct to us weaklings?

I suspect you are being willfully disingenuous here but "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean "survival of the physically strongest".

It means "survival of the fittest for purpose".

BBC Science & Nature: Ice People... Extinction

... the appearance of modern humans in Europe 40,000 years ago placed Neanderthals in direct competition with our ancestors for resources. It was a competition the Neanderthals would lose. Around 28,000 years ago, the last Neanderthals died out.

Computer simulations show that once Neanderthals and modern humans started interacting, a Neanderthal mortality rate just 2% higher than that of modern humans could have resulted in Neanderthal extinction within 1,000 years.

'We' were 'fitter': smarter, faster, more adaptable to a wider variety of environments. 'We' are omnivores, Neanderthals were carnivores. We could live in the cold or the warm but could thrive in the warmer zones where game and fish and plant foods were available, Neanderthals were adapted better to the colder areas but had only game as a food source.

[edit on 29/4/2010 by rnaa]

We are still humans though and no where has it been explained where we transitioned from. All I hear is we share a common ancestor with apes but that doesn't say what we transitioned from; it could have been a different mammal for all we know. It's just a best guess with no evidence; just similarities. Sure we are evolving by adaption but from one species to another is not possible.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by OhZone


The answer is that we are blessed with a larger prefrontal cortex. While the Neanderthal's brain cavity may have been as large as a humans, but based on the structure of the Neanderthal skull, they would have a much smaller prefrontal cortex. For those that don't know, the prefrontal cortex is involved in complex cognitive behaviors, decision making, and social behavior. The same things that have allowed us to essentially become superior to every other animal on the planet, regardless of the fact that we are physically very weak.

reply to post by novastrike81

Actually God made man from dirt not mud. Mud is wet earth and it clearly says dirt in the Bible. However, you can't mold dry dirt it just falls apart. Take it for what it says and it's dirt.

And that is your comeback?

Mud is dirt. Navel fluff is dirt. Toe jam is dirt. The dust under your bed is dirt.

The fact remains that the only reference to life coming from anything resembling 'dirt' (wet or not) is in the Bible.

reply to post by rnaa


you're actually wrong. neanderthals have a larger brain than even we today have by about 10% on average. so, (according to evolution) they had larger brains, and much stronger muscles, plus, there is even evidence (again according to evolutionists) that they had a longer life span than humans.

Their brains were roughly 10 percent larger than those of modern humans. On average, Neanderthals stood about 1.65m tall (just under 5' 6") and were very muscular, comparable to modern weight-lifters.

www.sheppardsoftware.com...

Further, it has recently been suggested, based on intense dental study, that Neanderthals may have had a greater longevity than modern populations.

www.icr.org...

also, some evidence suggests that their children developed into maturity faster than humans, this would be very beneficial to them as there is a smaller period of them taking from society without being able to contribute.

Neanderthal children may have grown faster than modern human children. Modern humans have the slowest body growth of any mammal during childhood (the period between infancy and puberty) with lack of growth during this period being made up later in an adolescent growth spurt.[50][51][52] The possibility that Neanderthal childhood growth was different was first raised in 1928 by the excavators of the Mousterian rock-shelter of a Neanderthal juvenile.[53] Arthur Keith in 1931 wrote, "Apparently Neanderthal children assumed the appearances of maturity at an earlier age than modern children."[54] The earliness of body maturation can be inferred from the maturity of a juvenile's fossile remains and estimated age of death.

en.wikipedia.org...

this all points to them being much more likely to survive and pass on their genes than humans. what happened? in every senario they had the advantage.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Once again. The brain size doesn't matter if their brain is not as specialized as ours. The prefrontal cortex has been key to human survival and development. It allows us to plan, predict the outcomes of our actions, work more effectively in groups, etc. all of which has lead to such things as civilization and technology. This structure is essentially what makes us human. Through it we were able to develop better methods at hunting and better tools to hunt with. It allowed us to predict whether or not attacking something would result in death. These are all important factors to consider and the very factors that brought us to the point we are at today. It doesn't matter if someone is stronger than you when you have better planning and implementation.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


interesting. do you have any proof of that?

i believe that neanderthals were 100% human, not a sub-species, or different species. why do asians have squinty eyes? why do africans have superior athletic ability? there is much space for genetic variation in the human genetic code, and i haven't seen anything to suggest that neanderthals were anything but human.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

Once again. The brain size doesn't matter if their brain is not as specialized as ours. The prefrontal cortex has been key to human survival and development. It allows us to plan, predict the outcomes of our actions, work more effectively in groups, etc. all of which has lead to such things as civilization and technology. This structure is essentially what makes us human. Through it we were able to develop better methods at hunting and better tools to hunt with. It allowed us to predict whether or not attacking something would result in death. These are all important factors to consider and the very factors that brought us to the point we are at today. It doesn't matter if someone is stronger than you when you have better planning and implementation.

Again, Neanderthals, if you must give them a name, are still our ancestors. They were human, just like we are still human today. Our brain evolved, is it that hard to understand that we can change by adapting to our surroundings? The fact that we have to map it back through apes to some unknown common ancestor is illogical and makes no sense. If you want to prove evolution by scientific means; one species changing into another, then find the common ancestor. If not your theory is no more the same then a creationist's point of view. You can't prove where we came from and we can't prove Adam and Eve were the first. Why? because we weren't there to see it happen ourselves.