Humans vs. Apes

Cool Video program about evolution
www.youtube.com...

Some people would like you to believe that your great, great, great, great, grandfather was a monkey. This is certainly not true and is disproven over and over. Some people and organizations obviously have too much at stake to ever admit the truth, ever.

Some will try to take it farther, and claim your great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather was soup. Yeah right.

DNA is universal, however, the same gene that regulates the tail in one species regulates legs in another, this was the case since the beginning of life, so natural selection is wrong.

Humans aren't just simply the mutated result of 5 monkeys having butt sex plus survivial of the fittest and disease resistance over a million years, sorry.

evolution of apes in africa? yeah right! From the Wikipedia....

Nakedness

Over most of the body, hair is so fine and sparse as to reveal the skin under it. Environments known to give rise to naked mammals are tropical (in some larger-sized mammals such as elephants — which are themselves descended from aquatic ancestors — and some rhinoceros species), aquatic (whales, dolphins, walrus, dugongs, and manatees), semi-aquatic or littoral (hippopotamus, babirusas (Babyrousa celebensis)), and subterranean (naked mole rat).

Bipedalism

There exist very few bipedal mammals, and humans are the only ones which adopt a full-time, fully-upright posture with a vertical vertebral column. Gorillas, chimpanzees and bears are able to walk on two legs when they have a particular reason, but always revert to quadrupedalism as their basic means of locomotion. Some prosimians such as indris skip sideways on two legs when on the ground, because their adaptations to leaping through trees make ground-based quadrupedalism difficult. Kangaroos and hopping rodent species use a bipedal form of locomotion with bent knees and bent hips in rest. Even birds, with exceptions such as (semi-aquatic) penguins which have vertical vertebral columns, walk bipedally but with a horizontal vertebral column. Creatures such as squirrels and meerkats often adopt an upright posture when stationary, but do not walk or run bipedally. It is hard to see how bipedalism could have evolved on the savannah: the mass of the torso makes it inherently unstable and inefficient for locomotion.

Breathing

Most land mammals have no conscious control over their breathing. The voluntary control humans have over their respiratory system can be compared to that of (semi)aquatic mammals which inhale as much air as they need for a dive, then return to the surface for air. Morgan argued that this voluntary breathing capacity was one of the preadaptations to human voluntary speech.

Fat

Humans have ten times as many fat cells under the skin as would be expected in a non-aquatic animal the same size, and have many adipose cells even when considered slim. Mammals which hibernate have localised seasonal fat humps; but aquatic mammals retain fat (blubber) throughout the year. Human infants are especially fat compared to apes and most other fully terrestrial mammals. The human fatty layer (panniculus adiposus) is also attached to the skin of the central body parts as is the case with most medium- or larger-sized (semi)aquatic mammals, rather than to the muscle as in almost all land mammals. Humans also lack the layer of cutaneous muscle (panniculus carnosus) possessed by land mammals including non-human primates, which allows many land animals to twitch their skin, and which is not present in aquatic mammals.

Childbirth

Dramatic increase in cranium size is a prominent theme in human evolution, making childbirth difficult and dangerous. Water birthing is believed to facilitate childbirth and to reduce risks to mother and infant. Human infants are born covered in vernix caseosa, a waterproof coating also seen in newborn common seals, and continue to draw oxygen through the umbilical cord while underwater. Human infants naturally hold their breath and can swim from birth.

Nutrition

Human brain tissue requires comparatively large amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, which are uncommon in the land food chain but prevalent in the marine food chain. Indeed, most animals which move to plains life tend to develop smaller brains, while aquatic animals tend to evolve larger ones, quite possibly because of access to omega-3. Additionally, these omega-3 fatty acids promote (good) HDL cholesterol and cardiovascular health in humans, while saturated fats in pork, beef and other land-based meats do the opposite. Yet for land-based carnivores the opposite is true and they have special digestive enzymes to neutralize the deleterious effects of dietary cholesterol. It is noteworthy that many nutritionists find seafood to be the most healthful protein sources for humans whereas the meat of land-based mammals such as from beef or pork are the most harmful.

Tears and excessive sweating

Sweating and tears are prevalent in humans but not in other primates

The concept of sweating as a cooling device is ridiculous. This system, which is unique to humans (other mammals that sweat do it less profusely than us, and use a different type of gland) is flawed.. We are the only mammal that expels salt when we sweat.

Humans cry, and it's function has baffled evolutionary scientists. It is also for the purpose of expelling salt.


[edit on 27-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

Not from Apes-
www.answersingenesis.org...

by Giuseppe Sermonti

Many schools proclaim as a matter without any doubt that man has derived from the African apes. Many textbooks in primary schools in my country, Italy, have on the cover page the illustration of an ape (usually a chimpanzee) gradually rising from its bent posture, to assume the elegant figure of man.

This is a falsehood which any honest scientist should protest against. It is not balanced teaching. That which science has never demonstrated (and therefore which no serious scientist in the world would ever assert) should be erased from any textbook and from our minds and remembered only as a joke in bad taste.

One should also teach people how many hoaxes have been plotted to support the theory of the simian (ape) origins of man.1 This began with Java ‘man’ in 1891 which was nothing but a giant ape-like skull-cap and a human leg-bone found 15 metres and one year apart.

It continued with the Piltdown skull in 1912, which was a combination of an ape’s lower jaw with a modern human skull-cap (probably planned and executed within the British Natural History museum), and the last was Peking man in 1923, whose controversial interpretation was solved with the ‘disappearance’ of 10 skeletons in 1925 and the ‘loss’ of the whole collection of fossils in transit to America in 1941.

Surely these events (among others) justify the sad statement of Professor W. R. Thompson, FRS, that ‘The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.’ Professor Thompson also said, ‘A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation’.

And even, I would add, to disproved hypotheses.

Australopithecus is not a human ancestor, and the claim that it is a human ancestor is a joke. It is a monkey. It's brainsize is very similar to a Chimps, and nothing like a man's

Brain size of a Chimpanzee- 390 cc

Brain size of Australopithecus- 420 cc

This is not "Evolution" of one species to another, these are a bunch of unrelated species, and to accept that faulty evolution lineage requires massive genetic leaps between the species that natural selection cannot acount for. Lucy for example resembles a gorrilla so it can't be related to humans if humans are allegendly more related to Chimps than Gorillas.
www.scienceagainstevolution.org...

They also discovered Little Lucy had a shoulder blade that looks more like a gorilla’s than a human’s.

The shape of the scapula [shoulder blade] resembles the scapulae of juvenile and adult gorillas (Fig. 5, Supplementary Note S6). In contrast, modern humans at a similar age have a wider infraspinous fossa [part of the shoulder blade] and a more laterally facing glenoid fossa [another part of the shoulder blade], with a correspondingly horizontal spine orientation, whereas chimpanzees tend to have a narrower infraspinous fossa and a more superiorly facing glenoid fossa with a corresponding spine orientation. Nevertheless, comparing supraspinous and infraspinous fossa breadths still groups DIK-1-1 more closely with gorilla than with modern humans (Supplementary Note S6e, h). These affinities are also shown in a principal components analysis of 11 linear morphometric measurements (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Note S6i).




www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
… in order to assign the appellation Homo to the new fossil, Louis [Leakey] had to modify the accepted definition of the genus. Until that time, the standard definition, proposed by the British anthropologist Sir Arthur Kent, stated that the brain capacity of the genus Homo should equal or exceed 750 cubic centimeters, a figure intermediate between that of modern humans and apes; it had become known as the cerebral Rubicon. Despite the fact that the newly discovered fossil from Olduvai Gorge had a brain capacity of only 650 cubic centimeters, Louis judged it to be Homo because of its more humanlike (that is, less robust) cranium. He proposed shifting the cerebral Rubicon to 600 cubic centimeters, thereby admitting the new Olduvai hominid [Homo habilis] to the genus Homo. 6

Apparently, if the rules are in your favor, then rules are important. But, if the rules are against you (and your name is Leakey), you can change them.

news.bbc.co.uk...

There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape.

This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the "Lucy" species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees.

But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just "evolutionary baggage".

The Dikika girl had an estimated brain size of 330 cubic centimetres when she died, which is not very different from that of a similarly aged chimpanzee. However, when compared to the adult afarensis values, it forms 63 - 88% of the adult brain size.

So if humans are allegedly closer to Chimps than Gorillas, and Australopithicus resembles a Gorilla, it cannot be a missing link to humans.



Now, Humans vs. Monkeys-

This website is in especially bad taste, can you find the one that doesn't belong kids?
www.bbc.co.uk...

The Elongated skull, animal mouth, and ape eyebrow lines are strong evidence apes are animals not related to people. Ape skulls are also elongated and warped and not perfectly shaped like a humans.


Neanderthal skull clearly shows the oval shaped skull of an ape


Clearly shows the eye brow ridges of an ape-

But let's take a look at what evolutionists would claim is "The Missing link", Homo erectus. It's still an ape. Not related to humans at all. Not even related, absolutely unrelated





People then will say, oh but Cro-Magnon! Aha! "Cro-Magnon" caveman from 9,500 years ago. Non-human

If the “missing link” that allegedly proves that humans and apes have evolved from the same animal has been found, why continue the search? News reports regularly feature evolutionary “missing link” stories, as evidence of either human or animal evolution. Piltdown man, Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon man, Java man, “Lucy,” Ramapithecus, Nebraska man, the Tourmai fossil … have all been touted as “missing links” at some time. Nebraska man was a pig's tooth, Piltdown man was a fraud, and the others are either human or ape — not “missing links.”

The theory of evolution is incapable of finding the link to prove how everything could evolve from nothing, how life could evolve from non-life, or how one kind of creature could evolve into a completely different kind when it lacks the genetic coding to do so.

Scholars often refer to the "missing link". There has not been enough fossil evidence to positively link Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. Some schools believe that Homo Erectus was an evolutionary dead end, and that Homo Sapiens evolved independantly in a number of geographically separate areas from other sources. What we do have today is a wide range of human "races" - Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasian, with skin colours varying from white, to yellow, olive, reddish, brown and black, varying eye colour, hair colour, blood types, etc. All humans on the planet are able to inter-breed.

Cro Magnon Man can be found to have lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch. The Cro Magnon man is named after its first findings, they were discovered by Louis Lartet and Henry Christy in March of 1868 in the Cro Magnon cave at Dordogne, France. The remains were those of 3 adult males, 1 adult female, and one infant. Cro Magnon probably developed in asia, migrated to europe, and co-existed with Neanderthal man for a time (eventually they drove the Neandertals into exctinction) and flourished in southern Europe during the last glacial age. In Europe, by convention, Cro-Magnon times (the Upper Paleolithic) ended together with Pleistocene 11,000 years ago.

Bonus-
www.ljmu.ac.uk...

Oh, and evolutionists think cromagnon ape-men created this
photo.minghui.org...
photo.minghui.org...


It should be clear that Neanderthals and Cro Magnons were apes, and animals. Not related to humans.

You know, when it comes down to it evolutionists really do believe we were a bunch of cro-magnon man-apes until 12,000 years ago when we developed culture and agriculture all around the world at the same time suddenly

Ok, as we go on here, I'm starting to really see evolution for what it really is.

You people really do claim that people were cro-magnon man-apes, many different kinds of apes too, until 12,000 years ago and have only now developed civilization,

Gentic data reveals however that humans are 200,000 years old in their current form.

So you decide to move the goalposts and call 5 different apes along with humans as homo sapiens

How the 5 races were formed? No way you can explain it if Cro Magnon is related to man, since why then did all 5 races evolve away from Cro Magnon and into the same modern human?

They're animals not people-




Perfeclty round vs. warped oval


Third Eye




Asian female



Primordial Soup-




Now, the ridiculous "Reptile to Bird theory" is still convoluted even if it's not as bad of a hoax and sham as to claim Humans came out of apes and animals.

Evolution possible? Maybe, if you mean as in the word "Change" over many years. If you mean Darwinism then, no I don't really think so.

There used to be some cool # online about Giants in the past,

Well honestly since we don't know how we came to be I think everyone is wrong until proven otherwise. You indicating that every single one of those theories is wrong would mean you have indisputable evidence which would contradict their theories, and which you don't. Some people see that we came from Homo Erectus, some think we came from God and some think we came from aliens, but until we actually have all the facts and knowledge about our past we will not know.

How much more "Indisputable" can it be than looking at and analyzing the actual skulls?

There are three races of Man; Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid
There are three species of Ape; Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Orangutan
There are many similarities between each race of Man and its ape counterpart.
The missing link is the serpentine, blond-haired, blue-eyed, royal, reptilian shape shifter that introduced the R-complex brain into each race.

Hollywood knows this, which is why Satan is always portrayed with a British accent.

For the record my great, great, great, great, grandfather was not a missing link or monkey he was a Human Soldier fighting the French forces of Napoleon who might have been Monkeys if you are a follower of the the Monkey Hanging Legend Of Hartlepool, which my family is not.

As to what the Missing link is, I thought it was an Unknown thus why it is called the Missing Link rather then the Found or Known Link. But then again designating transitional forms as Missing links is wrong or was wrong last I knew regardless who (Creationist or Evolutionist) used it in that context.

But then I guess I shouldn't care since I don't think any side will have the definitive answers any time soon since it is more then likely that we are well off still since humans are fallible after all.

I almost find this thread offensive.. It's a well known fact that every memeber of the RAF Regiment is an Ape...

In the past the nickname 'Rock Ape' has been attributed to their traditional role guarding areas of Gibraltar, but this is not so. The term came into use after an accident in the Western Aden Protectorate in November 1952. Two Regiment officers serving with the APL at Dhala decided to amuse themselves by going out to shoot some of the baboons (locally referred to as "rock apes"). The officers drew rifles and split up to hunt the apes yet in the semi-darkness one of the officers fired at a moving object in the distance. When he reached the target he discovered he had shot the other officer. After emergency treatment Flight Lieutenant Mason survived to return to service a few months later. When asked why he had fired at his friend by a board of inquiry the officer replied that his target had 'looked just like a rock ape' in the half light. The remark soon reverberated around the RAF and it was not long before the term was in general use.

THE RAF REGIMENT


Peace...

reply to post by Hollywood11


Thanks for showing us, once again, just how ignorant of evolution and biology you are.

Humans are apes, and no evolutionist has ever said humans evolved from monkeys.

Did you make it through school? I thought this was basic stuff even 10-year-olds could understand.

reply to post by Alxandro


I hope that was a joke. Seriously.

reply to post by dave420


Semi joke.

Not all blonde people are royal reptilian baby blood suckers

Sigh....

If you believe that humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, then the HIGHEST possible animal that ancestor could be is...hmmm....well, A MONKEY! If it's not a monkey, then it has to be something even LOWER than a monkey

I mean, you can claim we came from Lemurs or extinct animals similar to Lemurs, but that's even MORE ridiculous than claiming we came from monkeys. When evolutionsists are accused of claiming humans came from monkeys, the accusers are actually being very generous.

Humans are definitely not Apes, as analysis of their skulls right here on this thread proves there is a big difference

There have been many, many, apes on this planet, but only ONE human race.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

I'm absolutely sure...

That all of you descended from me...

The thought of any evolutionary improvements is ludicrous.

Pater Monkeys, not just for being the Alpha and the Omega anymore...

There is a difference between monkeys and apes, basically one does not sport a tail.
No one really knows if we came from apes, but if .
we did, maybe we came from the same species that modern apes come from as well.

Only difference is at some point in history some satanic blondie took the ape dna, mixed it with theirs and ouilla, hello modern evolutionary man.

Or maybe the three wise men are someone partly responsible, again, one from each race.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Alxandro]

I don't know if the 3 wise men represented different races, I hadn't heard of that idea before.

Alxandro please explain what you're talking about. Was blondie a human or reptile or ape or alien or what? The devil? Just go into more detail with this please and explain completely I'm very interested. I'm also blond and enjoy the taste of human baby ribs from time to time so I'd love to hear more.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Zealott]

Well haven't you ever noticed the similarities between the 3 races of Man and thr 3 species of apes?
Negroid/Goriila/Blacks - Bigger, darker more powerful.
Mongoloid/Orangutan/Asian - Almond shaped eyes, reddish hair like the Mongols.
Caucasoid/Chimpanzee/non blonde White - dark haired Semetic.
"Let us make man in our image" - "us" could mean the blonde haired, blue eyed Nordics.
Satan was there from the beginning as well which means he's probably Nordic too. Then he fell out of favor with God and perhaps now sides with the Grays. Since that time he has been trying to ruin God's plan, or probably more likely an experiment, for Man.

Which is why he, Satan, introduced Man to the Tree of Knowledge, aka Science, so that Man can be just like God.
This is the reason why Man has evolved so rapidly.

If it wasn't for the catalyst introduced by the Nordic blondes, we'd all be looking like the modern day apes.

Noah's three sons are the fathers of the 3 races of Man. Each race also represented in Bethlehem during the birth of Jesus, the 3 Wise Men.


[edit on 31-5-2008 by Alxandro]

There are 5 original races of mankind

7a. Humans did not evolve from chimps, monkeys,
Gibbons, orangutans, gorillas or any other still-living
ape species.

We share a common ancestor with all the modern primates, we did not come from them.

I don't care what you think the word 'ape' means, humans are apes. Ape is an old word that became redundant with modern taxonomy and genetics. In scientific terms ape is replaced with Hominoidea, which is a superfamily. In the superfamily, we find:

Superfamily Hominoidea:
..........Family Hominidae: great apes
..............+ Genus Homo: humans
......................# Human, Homo sapiens

[Source]


7b. ERVs demonstrate evolution.

In the same hominidae family, we find chimpanzees. These are considered to be our closest related species still alive. If you google 'chimpanzees and humans', you'll see how much study is going on about our relation proximity. That aside there is a consensus that we are around 96% the same. One of the things that prove this is the retrovirus of the Retroviridae family. The long and the short of it is that the special part of this virus is that it takes it's +mRNA and, once attached to a cell, transcribes that +mRNA into DNA which is then edited into the organism's DNA.

The important part of this is that if the retrovirus infects a Germ cell then there is a good chance that the retrovirus DNA will enter the gene pool of the species. It's important to know that the DNA will be neutral so will not act as a circumstantial pressure for Natural Selection to act on. Given sufficient time, after the species evolves into daughter species, all of those species might also have inherited the retrovirus DNA (though it will by now be non functional due to mutation). These are called endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs.

Wiki lists the lengths of a few virus genomes which average out to very approximately 4500 base pairs. So the odds of the chimp and the human having the same 4500 stretch of DNA by chance is incredibly low, having five- infinitesimally small -wouldn't happen in a billion years, imagine 10 stretches, what about ERVs in the order of 90,000?! This would produce a probability so infinitesimally small that you or I cannot wrap our brains around the concept of the kind of scale.

But with evolution, these probabilities become 1.

Here is a more elaborate explanation from CDK007.

I particularly like the bit on reverse shipwrecks.

[Read]

reply to post by Hollywood11


Huamns and apes are actually fairly similar.
Aside from sharing specific gene factors, there's a good probability, thouh not one I'd care to test, that humans and certain ape groups could interbreed, with a possibility of evidence of the sort already having occured.