Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

reply to post by novastrike81

There isn't one fossil that hasn't been tampered with that suggest we evolved from apes.

No.

The only hoaxes that have been perpetrated were all found out and corrected (ie Nebraska Man). Stop getting your information from those who are religiously biased.

Scientist's opinions are based on evidence. Religious opinions are based on faith. The religiously biased will make all sorts of claims in an attempt to bring down Evolution because they believe evolution is at odd with their beliefs. Scientists peer review all their work in order to verify that their conclusions are based on the evidence. There is no peer review for the creationist claims of "tampering" or "evidence suppression" or any of that, it is all just religiously biased propaganda to get you to believe a certain way.

Science is kind of like the sighted leading the sighted, people who know what their doing reviewing each others work to check for errors and correct mistakes.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

New evidence emerges all the time, be it due to a new discovery or advances in technology. When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution he had to rely on direct observation, now we are able to reconstruct an entire species genome. That's a pretty large difference in the evidence that will be produced and as such the theory must be amended to account for it. If science got everything correct right off the bat there would be no need for science. The argument your making is tantamount to saying astronomy is wrong because we keep discovering new planets or that all of physics is wrong because a new particle is discovered.

its nowhere near that. and most, if not all of the "facts" of evolution that have been disproven weren't disproven with genetic testing. take the dinosuar into bird "fact" for instance, earlier birds had been found that were complete and predated dinosaurs, though such evidence was ignored. or the multitude of hoaxes which were barely examined before they were announced as truth, later to be refuted.

so, i'm not asking for the theory to get everything right, i'm merely looking for a time when it has gotten anything right.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

There isn't one fossil that hasn't been tampered with that suggest we evolved from apes.

No.

The only hoaxes that have been perpetrated were all found out and corrected (ie Nebraska Man). Stop getting your information from those who are religiously biased.

Scientist's opinions are based on evidence. Religious opinions are based on faith. The religiously biased will make all sorts of claims in an attempt to bring down Evolution because they believe evolution is at odd with their beliefs. Scientists peer review all their work in order to verify that their conclusions are based on the evidence. There is no peer review for the creationist claims of "tampering" or "evidence suppression" or any of that, it is all just religiously biased propaganda to get you to believe a certain way.

Science is kind of like the sighted leading the sighted, people who know what their doing reviewing each others work to check for errors and correct mistakes.

ok, peer review? it fails. climategate anyone? evolutionist's opinions aren't based on evidence at all. wild speculation, which is overthrown by actual evidence later on. i would say that being an evolutionist takes quite a bit of faith, or maybe more denial.

and you're claiming that there are no "hoaxes" right now, how would you know? all of the other ones were accepted without question. peer reviewed my @$$.

Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years.

Ramapithecus lasted twenty years as considered to be the first in-between of humans and apes by judgment based only on teeth. He is now know to be an extinct baboon. (picture #1)
Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years.

Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away."

emporium.turnpike.net...

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find

Piltdown Man

Hoaxes that have been found out by science are hardly evidence that science is falsifying things or hiding them, in fact is is evidence that scientists are skeptical to new discoveries and investigate any suspected frauds.

And by the way Lucy was never proven to be a hoax, quite the contrary, Lucy is authentic. The site you linked to is part of Creation Science (a rather silly term as there is no such thing) and is a religiously biased website. Religious bias is what drives their version of the truth, not evidence. Evidence is what drives science.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find

Piltdown Man

Hoaxes that have been found out by science are hardly evidence that science is falsifying things or hiding them, in fact is is evidence that scientists are skeptical to new discoveries and investigate any suspected frauds.

And by the way Lucy was never proven to be a hoax, quite the contrary, Lucy is authentic. The site you linked to is part of Creation Science (a rather silly term as there is no such thing) and is a religiously biased website. Religious bias is what drives their version of the truth, not evidence. Evidence is what drives science.

Lucy isn't even a complete fossil. The skull is made up of fragments of a skull. Who knows if they are complete human or a mixture of something else.

reply to post by novastrike81

Who knows if they are complete human or a mixture of something else.

Scientists, people who go to college for years and years and years and study countless other fossils in order to be able to figure that kind of stuff out. And what's more is that their decisions are checked by other people in peer review, so we're not getting a biased opinion but a scientific consensus based upon evidence.

Edit to Add: By the way it is exceptionally rare to find a complete skeleton, almost unheard of. In fact even out in the wild its far more common to come upon scattered bones than it would be to find an entire skeleton even if the animal has died recently.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

Who knows if they are complete human or a mixture of something else.

Scientists, people who go to college for years and years and years and study countless other fossils in order to be able to figure that kind of stuff out. And what's more is that their decisions are checked by other people in peer review, so we're not getting a biased opinion but a scientific consensus based upon evidence.

Edit to Add: By the way it is exceptionally rare to find a complete skeleton, almost unheard of. In fact even out in the wild its far more common to come upon scattered bones than it would be to find an entire skeleton even if the animal has died recently.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

So if the world's leading fossil-anthropologist says that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris' would that change people's mind or is it another part of religious propaganda?

This is mentioned from an evolutionist:

Australopithecus (‘southern ape’) is the name given to a number of fossils found in Africa. These are claimed by evolutionists to be the closest to the alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. However, Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls. These show that their semi-circular canals, which determine balance and ability to walk upright, ‘resemble those of the extant great apes’.

Also:

Casts of Lucy’s bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas. Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University):

‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … .’

This shows clearly that Lucy shouldn't be represented as a transitional species and evolutionists would say so themselves.

reply to post by novastrike81


Care to post a link to your source and name the evolutionist? Whoever that evolutionist is I'm sure they have their reasons to argue against Lucy and that's fine but one opinion does not over turn scientific consensus.

As for the "imaginative display" of Lucy as an ape woman. If scientific consensus supports that Lucy is an early hominid, an ape, than why would the display be false? And even if the display is imaginative at least it isn't absurdly so. Of course the reconstruction of the skeleton has plaster in it, they don't have a full skeleton of one full individual, as I stated above finding a full skeleton would be almost unheard of. So what if the display is a bit imaginative, its not as if they given her tentacles or claimed she came from a man's rib stolen from him in his sleep.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81

 

Who knows if they are complete human or a mixture of something else.

Scientists, people who go to college for years and years and years and study countless other fossils in order to be able to figure that kind of stuff out. And what's more is that their decisions are checked by other people in peer review, so we're not getting a biased opinion but a scientific consensus based upon evidence.

Edit to Add: By the way it is exceptionally rare to find a complete skeleton, almost unheard of. In fact even out in the wild its far more common to come upon scattered bones than it would be to find an entire skeleton even if the animal has died recently.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

lucy is a mixed bag of bones. another claim based on no evidence and wild speculation.

It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

www.forerunner.com...

why was the knee added to lucy, being found a year earlier and much farther away? because evolutionists want evolution to be true.

anatomical similarity? the logic used is simple, but backwards. "i believe lucy is a pre-human that could walk, therefore, this must be her knee". it seems like he went digging through the fossils they had found looking for something that would make it a pre-human.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Don't you know any other points of references, except christian websites..?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I cannot see how humans can evolve from chimps.

If humans are just chimps with more mutations in their DNA then where the heck is the survival advantage? If you tell me that greater height is a survival advantage for seeing further for food -I don't buy it! This is not a life or death situation.

If you tell me that humans accumulated gradual DNA mutations and then get selected by environmental/climatic factors, I don't buy that either.

How come most DNA mutations are harmful and even life threatening to humans, e.g. Thalassaemia, Motor Neurone Disease, Huntington's Disorder. The only incidence of a mutation that is advantageous seems to be sickle cell anaemia which still debilitates sufferers.

Heck if we consider that brain size or intelligence gave us a survival advantage then think of people like Einstein and others who are INCAPABLE of interacting with other human beings to give themselves a survival advantage.

Finally, if human adaptation gave us a selective advantage, why are there still chimps about nowadays?

You are 100% correct, human beings didn't evolve from chimps. Actually Humans and chimps both evolved from apes. Being as they are out closest relatives then we must have a commmon concestor. All species are in a state of evoloutionary flux, certain environments force evoloution to occur sooner than other places. And this ancestor would almost certainly appear to be more chimp than human if it were alive today.

Our concestor at best estimate lived 5-7 million years ago. At which point evoloutionary processes caused one population to evolve with more humanlike qualities and one line with more chimplike qualities. DNA tells us that the human and chimp lines split, then interbred then diverged one last time less than 5 million years ago. The X chromosome has a recent connection to the chimp genome. The hybrid males were infertile but the females were not. You can pull some of that up from the Broad Institute of technology.

But regardless of the human-chimpanzee hybrids, eventually the two lines did split for good. And gradually, our ancestors changed from being something that was willing to mate with a chimpanzee, into something that would rather hunt them for food, train them for entertainment, or sequence their DNA. What was the first step? The first step, as it seems, is literally a step. A bipedal step, to be precise- the first thing to distinguish our ancestors from chimpanzee ancestors is the ability to walk upright. But being able to walk upright doesn’t earn the scientific, phylogenetic designation of human- we designate all human species by the genus “Homo” as in our binomial, “Homo sapiens.” But these first human ancestors weren’t human enough to be considered part of our genus, and instead are called, “Australopithecus.” One species of this genus in particular is thought to have been ancestral to humans- Australopithecus afarensis, one specimen of which has been nicknamed, “Lucy.” Like most of the Australopithecines, Lucy lived in Africa.

Lucy, and the rest of her species, resembled chimpanzees in a lot of ways, but one difference is obvious- she walked upright, like a human. And not just sometimes, the bone structure of her pelvis indicates that she was upright most of the time.

The next big change in human evolution was the expansion of the brain. This was different than a lot of scientists had expected- they had assumed that a larger brain would have been the first change in the human-chimpanzee divergence, followed by other human traits such as bipedalism and tool use. This turned out not to be the case- walking upright evolved first. But the expanding brain followed soon after, and in fact it’s how we classify human species- that is, species that belong to the genus “Homo.” The first human, or at least the first recognizable human species to which we’re willing to give the designation, is the Handyman, Homo habilis. The Handyman lived between 1.5 and 2.5 million years ago, and he gets his name because rudimentary tools have been found with fossils of this species. These tools weren’t anything spectacular- just flakes of stone used as rudimentary knives, for the cutting of meat off dead animals. It’s unlikely that the Handyman was a hunter- more likely, he would have taken meat from already dead animals like a scavenger.

After Homo habilis, we find the next major step in human evolution. Homo erectus, or the Upright Man arose in Africa about 1.5 to 1.8 million years ago. Homo erectus had a larger brain than Homo habilis, and its anatomy was more similar to modern humans. But the most interesting thing about Homo erectus was its incredible success- it was the first human species to engage in actual hunting, and this had the effect of expanding its territory. Because its diet became more reliant on animals than plants, Homo erectus began to migrate- and thus spread out of Africa, and colonized southeast Asia, even going up farther north into Eurasia. There is also evidence that Homo erectus was able to control fire. There is some controversy about whether Homo erectus evolved into a separate species once it migrated out of Africa and into Asia, but even if this happened, the two species are so similar to make it almost impossible to tell today.

cont-

Homo erectus is the last major evolutionary transition before we get to modern humans, Homo sapiens. But how did this transition take place? There are a couple hypotheses- the “Out of Africa” hypothesis suggests that Homo sapiens evolved from the Homo erectus population back in Africa, and migrated out again, following the path that Homo erectus had taken earlier. The multiregional hypothesis suggests that Homo sapiens evolved in different geographical locations independently from different Homo erectus populations. This would suggest that European Homo sapiens evolved from a European population of Homo erectus, and the same is true of Asians, Africans, and Indonesians. This latter hypothesis is looking weaker and weaker as the genetic evidence piles up- any given human isn’t that significantly different from another, whatever the geographical origin. Richard Dawkins has come out in support of an “Out of Africa again and again” hypothesis, which suggests that Homo sapiens migrated out of and back into Africa several times before finally spreading out over all the continents. This hypothesis is backed up by genetic evidence tracing the genetic similarity of various genes among different human populations, and it looks the most promising. One of the major differences setting Homo sapiens aside from the other homonids is our use of language. This development is likely what allowed modern human society to expand and become as complex as it is now.

But what about the Neandethals? I haven’t forgotten them. Homo neandethalensis doesn’t figure in human ancestry- they aren’t direct ancestors. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA found in Neandethal fossils has confirmed this. What is most likely is that Neanderthals evolved from European populations of Homo erectus, and were either hunted or out-competed by the our ancestors, the Homo sapiens that had migrated into Europe from Africa. So you can think of them as our evolutionary cousins, if you like.

So that’s the basics of human evolution. The transitions aren’t really as simple as I’ve made them seem, and there are several subspecies that are transitional between the major species, but by and large, this is what you should know. After diverging with the other great apes, bipedalism evolved in the Australopithecines, but they weren’t human quite yet. Once a large enough brain evolved, rudimentary tools began to be used, as seen in Homo habilis, the Handyman. These then became migratory hunter/gatherers, as seen in Homo erectus. Modern humans evolved the use of language, and migrated out of Africa and all over the world, to where we are today.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I cannot see how humans can evolve from chimps.

If humans are just chimps with more mutations in their DNA then where the heck is the survival advantage? If you tell me that greater height is a survival advantage for seeing further for food -I don't buy it! This is not a life or death situation.

If you tell me that humans accumulated gradual DNA mutations and then get selected by environmental/climatic factors, I don't buy that either.

How come most DNA mutations are harmful and even life threatening to humans, e.g. Thalassaemia, Motor Neurone Disease, Huntington's Disorder. The only incidence of a mutation that is advantageous seems to be sickle cell anaemia which still debilitates sufferers.

Heck if we consider that brain size or intelligence gave us a survival advantage then think of people like Einstein and others who are INCAPABLE of interacting with other human beings to give themselves a survival advantage.

Finally, if human adaptation gave us a selective advantage, why are there still chimps about nowadays?

You lack even the most basic understanding of evolution (typical creationist) why should anyone waste time arguing with you?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
I'm dead serious, I know a lot of atheists out there are looking for a true purpose to life, and I pray they find it.

Let me ask you this Mel, what does the theory of evolution or the big bang do for my life?

How does it help enrich my day to day life?

Really, I could care less if the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa.

Knowing that does not help me in my everyday life.

Most people out there are just struggling to survive, they could care less if the earth revolves around the sun.

Case in point, your "scientific theories" of life's origins are pointless and are not needed.



[edit on 6-5-2007 by thehumbleone]

You need to see a psychiatrist immediately. I'm dead serious.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
I'm dead serious, I know a lot of atheists out there are looking for a true purpose to life, and I pray they find it.

Let me ask you this Mel, what does the theory of evolution or the big bang do for my life?

How does it help enrich my day to day life?

Really, I could care less if the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa.

Knowing that does not help me in my everyday life.

Most people out there are just struggling to survive, they could care less if the earth revolves around the sun.

Case in point, your "scientific theories" of life's origins are pointless and are not needed.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by thehumbleone]

Speak for yourself, how the world around me operates matters to me, just like to most people. Also, knowledge and curiosity do help me in my everyday life, for one, I don't sound a dummy.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Tetrarch42]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I cannot see how humans can evolve from chimps.

I am right there with you, I have a hard time accepting this faith... I knew something was wrong the first time I been to big-city museum when I was a kid even and had no inkling of scientific knowledge at all... lets just say closer to pure, but I always wondered why naturally I rejected this idea (like most children do to this day)

reply to post by Heronumber0


Firstly, humans did not evolve from chimps. That is a misnomer. We evolved more in parallel with current apes. We are a separate branch of the same family. Although somewhere in our past, we have a common relative from which we took slightly different paths of divergence.

If you can't understand that having even an incremental advantage will, over time, lead to more likelihood of successful reproduction and thus passing on your traits to new generations in ever greater frequency, I don't know what to say.

Brute logic will lead you to that realization. If you can't cut through it, there isn't much that can be done to change that.

In many cases peoples preconceived notions hinder their ability to process information. Especially if it is contrary to what they have been taught to believe from early in life.

It's not a big deal that many people can not or will not, apply the due diligence required to form a reasonable understanding of scientifically observable, natural processes. Education and understanding are very much like physical evolution. Each generation will have a more thorough scientific foundation on which to base their understandings and will derive from that foundation new discoveries. With each passing generation the quantity and quality of our understanding will grow and be refined. You don't need to understand it, your children will, or their children will.

No one is going to revolutionize human thinking in a year or even a decade. It's a process of development and those with a better grasp of the sciences will have the upper hand and will therefore pass on their intellectual "DNA" to the next generation.

See, just another branch of evolution.

Originally posted by Fiberx
reply to post by Heronumber0

 

Firstly, humans did not evolve from chimps. That is a misnomer. We evolved more in parallel with current apes. We are a separate branch of the same family.

no lets take it back further than that, all this is irrelevant without explaining where the first cell comes from not to mention human conscience...

did it come out of a singularity that was nothingness and just came into being then able to evolve ?

what is nothingness btw...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Abiogenesis is not under the purview of Evolution and is thus irrelevant to the discussion. For the second part, I don't know if you are referring to human consciousness or conscience, as in morality. If the former the leading theory is that it is an emergent property of emotion. Another theory states that it is an emergent property of language. Either way the frontal lobe is involved, which is larger in humans. I suggest you read some stuff by Joseph LeDoux and Antonio Damasio. You may also want to look into some AI research as this field has its own theories.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


There is no nothingness. We don't understand the process of becoming animate yet. We can reproduce the process to a degree, however. We can stimulate the formation of Amino acids and Ribonucleic acid from a collection of base elements.

Our understanding is incomplete, but that does not render our knowledge defunct. This is where the power of ignorance and denial becomes so dangerous. Many people will revert to a comfort zone of fantastical mythology in order to BELIEVE that they KNOW something. Despite the fact that what they know has no observable or measurable evidence, they will discard the more complex attempts to discover in favor of a simplistic, all encompassing perceived reality which is fed to them by some authority.

In the end, you need the comfort of believing that someone higher than you is in control and that whatever happens has a reason behind it that serves your interests in some way.

I need the comfort of believing that as individuals and as a species we can work our way to actually understanding the world around us, without blind faith.

As such, you seek to have everything answered for you, I seek the ability to find answers for myself.

In 56 AD it made sense to ask for answers because we had not yet developed the capacity to gather and analyze information in the sophisticated fashion that we do now. In 2010 it makes sense to use the tools and data and 2000 years of increasingly documented experience that has developed in the interim to discover a truth that you can show to others and demonstrate for yourself.

Not having all of the answers is not proof of divinity. It is however the excuse and it always has been.