We dont come from Apes! Here is how to prove it

reply to post by DeathShield


Your post is well intentioned.
But evolution doesn't follow a timeline. Sometimes it takes millions of years, others, only days.

I will kill two birds with one stone, because invariably, a creationist asks for evolution in action.

So what is a quick and dirty form of evolution that we can see?

The flu.

Changes all the time, even stealing genetic material from each other.

Originally posted by mainidh
No one says WE evolved from APES... We had a COMMON ancestor that we both evolved from.

Why do people like the OP always have to bring this falsehood up and get people asking the same questions every time?

It's so frustrating...

It's funny, I don't believe in the fairytales of evolution, but this annoys the hell out of me as well. I always see people say that "humans evolved from apes" and I have to facepalm myself. It's like, yea we're both against evolution, but build your case on facts not on misunderstandings..

reply to post by Turkenstein


My favorite is the whale. Originally decended from a crazy land mammal that was the size of a deer.

The closest relative to the whale? The hippo.

reply to post by liejunkie01


re:
Why are you obsessed with Darwins skulls.

they where sanded but no one has tested them just taken his word, not very scientific is it?

re:
Are you totally ignoring all of the other skulls and skeletons that modern scientists have found?

what the ape skulls they claim are human?
you sidestep my point, test Darwins skulls

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

re:
Why are you obsessed with Darwins skulls.

they where sanded but no one has tested them just taken his word, not very scientific is it?

re:
Are you totally ignoring all of the other skulls and skeletons that modern scientists have found?

what the ape skulls they claim are human?
you sidestep my point, test Darwins skulls

....and to repeat slowly.

WHAT...makes....you....think....these....were...sanded....down?

YOU...have....shown...NO...evidence....to....back.....up....this....claim.

Got it?

I feel the need to point out something, we're not descendants of apes but rather us and apes share a common ancestor. Keep this in mind.

I don't think any scientist, or any person, believes really that humans came from apes. This is a misconception because we are genetically similar, but of course not the same. Human evolved seperately. From seperate species. Similar sure, but ultimately seperate.

It is the similarities with us and apes that lead to the misconception that people say we are evolved from them, when this is not the theory at all.

It's not that we directly evolved from apes, how can we be if they still exist?
No, present day apes are more of a reminder to us of where we would be if the missing element, aka the missing link, had not gotten involved and forced human evolution into high speed fast forward.
There are three species of apes just like they are three races of man and the missing element was introduced into each species of ape at the same time.
Caucasiods come from chimps, Negroids come from gorillas and Mongoloids (Asian) come fron the orangutans.
The missing element that was introduced was the reptian R complex and this caused the new subjects, aka modern man, (Noah's symbolic three sons) to advance and evolve much faster than their catalystic base models.
The reptilian missing link is the Nordic blonde haired, blue eyed gene.

Wait? you telling me you have never seen this documentary.

reply to post by canyouhandletruth

Originally posted by theduke269
While I don't agree with the OP, I do have one question for those that do believe we evolved from monkeys/apes. If we evolved from them as a dominate species, why are they still here? Wouldn't they have died out during this process being inferior and such?

1/ AFAIK no one actually says we evolved from monkeys or apes do they?? The theory is that all the branches of primates evolved from a common ancestor - so we are cousins, not descendants

2/ because they fit in a different niche in the environment

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by DeathShield

 

Your post is well intentioned.

But evolution doesn't follow a timeline. Sometimes it takes millions of years, others, only days.

Thank you for the respectful reply. I wish more believers and non-believers would follow our example. Maybe then we can get some real science done. If you take a look at my other posts in this thread you will find my questions. I'll give you a simplified version of what i was getting at in my other posts.

You may have misunderstood me.

I believe in both macro and micro evolution . The best example of macro evolution i can think of is an animal gaining or losing something like an organ or a limb. This variation could be chalked up to environmental factors or internal factors not limited to but including Genetic drift, or evolution via natural selection. We can argue for hours over whether or not it is true, but that will get us nowhere. For a believer it is more reasonable to assume that if we evolved (as opposed to spontaneous creation) then it would probably follow the order of creation in the bible. Plants, animals and then humans. Science more or less agrees with this order of creation/evolution.


From what i understand, in order for species to species evolution to occur it requires the animal to be set on a course of mutations correct? The mutation can occur via multiple methods, External radiation, inbreeding,interbreeding with genetically compatible species, correct? So while a monkey will not give birth to a human per se, it will lay down the genetic framework for a human to grow out of the evolution of that monkeys generational offspring correct? So over the course of generations we would see monkeys that are similar yet different until eventually they wouldn't resemble the original monkey at all but would be an entirely new Species, like Australopithecus to Homo Sapien Sapiens right? That would be an example of evolution within the class.


So how does evolution between Classes occur? How was it that a Reptile evolved into an Ave? In order for that to occur it would rely on evolution. Like you said this wouldn't be limitted so much limited by time as it is by the viability of the mutated Animal within its enviroment. It needs to overcome natural disasters, cosmic events and it must generate enough numbers so that it's predators or disease do not render it extinct. Correct? So then with that in mind we should be finding examples of transitional classes and species correct? Supposedly primates evolved from creatures like tree-shrews, shouldn't we have multiple examples of these creatures? In order for them to survive they must multiply correct? And this multiplication should be evident in our fossil record.

Genetics can partially explain similarities in modern creatures but unfortunately not all fossils leave genetic material. From there we have to rely on its' physical appearance and what we can determine from the skeletons chemical structure, yes? But at the same time we know that just because one creature looks like another that does not mean it is related. The best example i can think of is the Dimetradon, which while looking every bit like a Dinosaur is NOT classified as one. It is a Pelcyosaur which evolved into Therapsids which would give way to the Synapsids that eventually branched off to evolve into modern day mammiliaforms. We use Teeth and Skull size and other various physical descriptors to show similarities between classes, which we consider to be the result of evolution. In the absence of DNA evidence how can we be sure that it wasn't just mere coincidence that these animals share similar traits with other animals of a different class? Even then could not genetic coincidence occur as well? We are speaking of system that is dependent on the laws of Chemistry and physics which by default would create similarities in systems yet render completely different results. Why should we assume that the coincidences are related to eachother? Correlation is not causation, etc, you know the drill i am sure.

It makes sense, and yes it does work, but it leaves so many unanswered question and then when you take human error into account and ones willingness to be proven "right" well...it requires a degree of faith.

That is why i consider the Theory of Evolution to be as much fact as it is belief. Does it mean that it is wrong and that god definitely exists? No, that would be silly and dishonest...But it doesn't mean the obverse is valid. From a scientific standpoint it is merely unanswered.

Also, i still demand a modern day pet t-rex.

No one said we come from apes, genius.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by canyouhandletruth

 

Lol What was the name of these two guys, again?

I do NOT mean the following in a insulting way, but as a mere observation; those guys, could truly be used as a very convincing example that the Human Species is indeed, athough distantly, genetically related to Apes.

Some individuals actually have a very Ape-like facial apparence, and I find it just as fascinating and thought provoking each time I see a person with such features, although it happens quite rarely.

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
you have been lied too

Test Darwins skulls with modern equipment to see if he sanded the skulls that is science not belief


all that needs to be done is:
take the skulls out of hiding and let a few people have a peek with modern microscope

edit on 9-7-2012 by canyouhandletruth because: (no reason given)

I want to know how you came to this startling conclusion.

Or is it a fact that you have secretly searched your mind for ANYTHING that could be questioned in order to create this thread?

Even if said skulls where the start of the theory of evolution (which they weren't) huge masses of other evidence has been amassed since Darwin and Linneus. Point is that we DON'T need to look at the skull fragments. We can study (and have extensively studied) all the other evidence.

Your feeble attempts at questioning the theory of evolution is just another way of proving that sometimes evolution doesn't move towards an improvement.
Or are you claiming that a great creator made you? In which case I'd sue him if I were you on grounds of delivering sub par products.

I apologize to many fellow ATS'ers about the rant, but sometimes we have to call a spade a spade.

Originally posted by theduke269
While I don't agree with the OP, I do have one question for those that do believe we evolved from monkeys/apes. If we evolved from them as a dominate species, why are they still here? Wouldn't they have died out during this process being inferior and such?

They are dying out. We're pushing them in to extinction all over the world. Given time we will do them all in.

If it wasn't for concentrated conservation efforts more would already be gone.

I think this guy:


... evolved from this ape:

Originally posted by Turkenstein
Seriously, do you have evidence that proves him wrong. He is just saying study the evidence a little closer and the truth may be different than what has been sold to us, I mean you.

Pick up a science book mate, turn to the chapter on Evolution.

Perhaps take a stroll to your local museum and have a looksie yourself. No sanding marks.

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

re:
Why are you obsessed with Darwins skulls.

they where sanded but no one has tested them just taken his word, not very scientific is it?

Let make this even simpler for you.

1. You state that Darwins Skull was sanded.
2. You provide no evidence to this statement.
3. When questioned about your evidence, you say that we need to test the skulls because they are sanded.

This is looking rather circular to me.

Darwins Skull was sanded --------> No evidence -------> Need to test skulls to find evidence of sanding because... -------> Darwins Skull was sanded --------> No evidence -------> Need to test skulls to find evidence of sanding because... -------> Darwins Skull was sanded --------> No evidence -------> Need to test skulls to find evidence of sanding -------> Darwins Skull was sanded --------> No evidence -------> Need to test skulls to find evidence of sanding because... -------> Darwins Skull was sanded --------> No evidence -------> Need to test skulls to find evidence of sanding because... ------> and so on and so forth.......

Do you see the issue? You claim we need to test skulls to find evidence of sanded skulls yet you provide nothing that even remotely suggests that we should be suspicious of said skulls for being sanded?

I think I'm going to have an aneurism....

re:
Are you totally ignoring all of the other skulls and skeletons that modern scientists have found?

what the ape skulls they claim are human?
you sidestep my point, test Darwins skulls

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh...........

That's it, I think I have completely lost the plot. Good planets to you all, I shall glance you all tomorday.

Goodhello!

reply to post by canyouhandletruth


I'm surprised your eyes aren't enough.

Ears, eyes, arms, hands...Yeah, we're definitely related.