Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and Adaptation

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00

JM

Member
We see a lot of 'so called' evidence for evolution being presented but note that none of it is evidence for evolution but simple adaptations. The lack of evidence in the fossil record for the supposed gradual process of evolution has caused great dismay among scientists.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEPPERED MOTH?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-124b.htm


I’m new to evolution apologetics so I’ll post notes taken from the net.


APEMEN

Have you heard of the "Missing Link"? A title like that makes it sound as though if we could just find one more link between apes and men we'd have it made. Not true. The truth is, they're all missing! Astounding as it may seem, these so-called ape men have been the product of an overactive imagination. Consider the following famous cases of mistaken identity and hoaxes...

1850 "Neanderthal Man"
Turns out to be Homo-Sapien (human) with calcium accumulation, lack of iodine, and a vitamin D deficiency due to the harsh inland environment.

1912 "Piltdown Man"
This one sparked over 500 doctoral dissertations before it was revealed as a deliberate hoax in 1950. It was a stained ape's jaw attached to a human skull. But for 40 years it was the leading evidence for evolution!

1925 "Nebraska Man"
Someone found a tooth. From that tooth they imagined a jaw. From the jaw they conjured up a skull. The skull led to fantasies about a skeleton. Flesh was superimposed onto the skeleton to make an ape-man (male and female!). It was this tooth that Darrow used to discredit Bryan at the Scopes trial. Only one problem...besides the lack of any resemblance to scientific processes... the tooth was actually from an extinct pig! Nice try though.

1940's "Peking Man"
A bunch of bashed-in monkey skulls led to this discovery. Ape-men? Not with tools! Nope, the humans ate the brains much like some do to this day! How many strikes is that now?

1980's "Java Man"
Formerly one of the "5 facts of Evolution", Java Man started off as a collection of unrelated bones (some human, some unknown). The human parts were thrown out, as they obviously did not belong there (millions of years too early of course). Well, Java "Man" turned out to be Java "giant gibbon". It's not even a surprise any more is it?

What about "Lucy"?

The latest find in the quest to substantiate this theory is Australopithecus. While it goes without saying that evolutionists are already 100% sure that this is "it", what does the evidence show? First of all, many other African animals have been found among the remains of "Lucy"...but no apes. Why? Perhaps it is because this is just another extinct animal previously undiscovered and mistaken for some sort of half man/ half ape. It is also interesting to note that human tools have been found under those remains, and under those tools... HUMANS! To the evolutionist who interprets the geologic column as forming over millions of years with the unevolved animals at the bottom and higher level organisms at the top (see "Fossils" below), this would seem to imply that humans are the missing link between apes and "Lucy"!. Only time will tell... again.

http://souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html
 
Scofield said:
We see a lot of 'so called' evidence for evolution being presented but note that none of it is evidence for evolution but simple adaptations. The lack of evidence in the fossil record for the supposed gradual process of evolution has caused great dismay among scientists.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEPPERED MOTH?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-124b.htm


I’m new to evolution apologetics so I’ll post notes taken from the net.


APEMEN

Have you heard of the "Missing Link"? A title like that makes it sound as though if we could just find one more link between apes and men we'd have it made. Not true. The truth is, they're all missing! Astounding as it may seem, these so-called ape men have been the product of an overactive imagination. Consider the following famous cases of mistaken identity and hoaxes...

1850 "Neanderthal Man"
Turns out to be Homo-Sapien (human) with calcium accumulation, lack of iodine, and a vitamin D deficiency due to the harsh inland environment.

1912 "Piltdown Man"
This one sparked over 500 doctoral dissertations before it was revealed as a deliberate hoax in 1950. It was a stained ape's jaw attached to a human skull. But for 40 years it was the leading evidence for evolution!

1925 "Nebraska Man"
Someone found a tooth. From that tooth they imagined a jaw. From the jaw they conjured up a skull. The skull led to fantasies about a skeleton. Flesh was superimposed onto the skeleton to make an ape-man (male and female!). It was this tooth that Darrow used to discredit Bryan at the Scopes trial. Only one problem...besides the lack of any resemblance to scientific processes... the tooth was actually from an extinct pig! Nice try though.

1940's "Peking Man"
A bunch of bashed-in monkey skulls led to this discovery. Ape-men? Not with tools! Nope, the humans ate the brains much like some do to this day! How many strikes is that now?

1980's "Java Man"
Formerly one of the "5 facts of Evolution", Java Man started off as a collection of unrelated bones (some human, some unknown). The human parts were thrown out, as they obviously did not belong there (millions of years too early of course). Well, Java "Man" turned out to be Java "giant gibbon". It's not even a surprise any more is it?

What about "Lucy"?

The latest find in the quest to substantiate this theory is Australopithecus. While it goes without saying that evolutionists are already 100% sure that this is "it", what does the evidence show? First of all, many other African animals have been found among the remains of "Lucy"...but no apes. Why? Perhaps it is because this is just another extinct animal previously undiscovered and mistaken for some sort of half man/ half ape. It is also interesting to note that human tools have been found under those remains, and under those tools... HUMANS! To the evolutionist who interprets the geologic column as forming over millions of years with the unevolved animals at the bottom and higher level organisms at the top (see "Fossils" below), this would seem to imply that humans are the missing link between apes and "Lucy"!. Only time will tell... again.

http://souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html
Okay, I only skimmed through this post, and I immediately found 2 minor errors. Piltdown Man had an Orangutan jaw attached to it. And Humans are not Homo sapiens, Humans are Homo sapiens sapiens. You should get your facts straight before trying to disprove something you know nothing about.

On a side note, Do you believe in the Caveman?
 
Scofield said:
On a side note, Do you believe in the Caveman?

Yes I believe man once lived in caves. Jesus was born in one. :wink: As CT said, 'refute me point by point...'
Okay. So do you also believe we came from the Caveman?
 
Scofield said:
We see a lot of 'so called' evidence for evolution being presented but note that none of it is evidence for evolution but simple adaptations. The lack of evidence in the fossil record for the supposed gradual process of evolution has caused great dismay among scientists.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEPPERED MOTH?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-124b.htm


I’m new to evolution apologetics so I’ll post notes taken from the net.

Gah, the peppered moth again. I had a feeling I’d see this again, it’s been beaten to death as an argument against evolution and adaptation

Kettlewell’s experiments weren’t perfect, but they did show the effect expected with moth melanism. A similar experiment on Heliconius cydno shows Mullerian mimicry adapting a trend like the Peppered Moth story.

APEMEN

Have you heard of the "Missing Link"? A title like that makes it sound as though if we could just find one more link between apes and men we'd have it made. Not true. The truth is, they're all missing! Astounding as it may seem, these so-called ape men have been the product of an overactive imagination. Consider the following famous cases of mistaken identity and hoaxes...

1850 "Neanderthal Man"
Turns out to be Homo-Sapien (human) with calcium accumulation, lack of iodine, and a vitamin D deficiency due to the harsh inland environment.

They are actually a sub-species of Homo sapiens due to certain frame differences. There are advocates of the specimen being a whole different species, but I’d say it was best to class it as a very close relative.

1912 "Piltdown Man"
This one sparked over 500 doctoral dissertations before it was revealed as a deliberate hoax in 1950. It was a stained ape's jaw attached to a human skull. But for 40 years it was the leading evidence for evolution!

Um, no. It was always regarded with scepticism due to the mixes of human and orang-utan fragments. It was not the sole crutch for evolution, though Creationists like to think so.

1925 "Nebraska Man"
Someone found a tooth. From that tooth they imagined a jaw. From the jaw they conjured up a skull. The skull led to fantasies about a skeleton. Flesh was superimposed onto the skeleton to make an ape-man (male and female!). It was this tooth that Darrow used to discredit Bryan at the Scopes trial. Only one problem...besides the lack of any resemblance to scientific processes... the tooth was actually from an extinct pig! Nice try though.
The drawings were for a popular British magazine, not a scientific journal.

The claim that this example was used as a scientific example in the Scopes trials is also false as NO evidence was presented during said trial about this specimen.

1940's "Peking Man"
A bunch of bashed-in monkey skulls led to this discovery. Ape-men? Not with tools! Nope, the humans ate the brains much like some do to this day! How many strikes is that now?

Weidenreich put together the fossils to form a very un-apelike form and given his recorded skills and meticulous nature, it is a very good bet this was a human relation as only a totally inept person could show otherwise. If there were a conspiracy about this example, it’s one of incredible size and has no evidence backing it. The fossils do not show the pieces of the skull most fragile which wouldn’t survive the test of time in preservation. There is also the fact that other predators could have attacked these people like hyenas who had ample evidence in the form of faeces and bones in the immediate vicinity.

1980's "Java Man"
Formerly one of the "5 facts of Evolution", Java Man started off as a collection of unrelated bones (some human, some unknown). The human parts were thrown out, as they obviously did not belong there (millions of years too early of course). Well, Java "Man" turned out to be Java "giant gibbon". It's not even a surprise any more is it?

The human remains were found at least 65 miles away from the Java Man remains and in a cave in a mountainous region compared to Java Man which were found in a river flood deposit.

Incidentally, you’re a bit behind the times if you still believe Java Man was an ape. This was discredited decades ago yet the Creationists still spout this argument

What about "Lucy"?

The latest find in the quest to substantiate this theory is Australopithecus. While it goes without saying that evolutionists are already 100% sure that this is "it", what does the evidence show? First of all, many other African animals have been found among the remains of "Lucy"...but no apes. Why? Perhaps it is because this is just another extinct animal previously undiscovered and mistaken for some sort of half man/ half ape. It is also interesting to note that human tools have been found under those remains, and under those tools... HUMANS! To the evolutionist who interprets the geologic column as forming over millions of years with the unevolved animals at the bottom and higher level organisms at the top (see "Fossils" below), this would seem to imply that humans are the missing link between apes and "Lucy"!. Only time will tell... again.

http://souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

And because I’m not typing this argument out again, here’s the low-down on the findings with “Lucyâ€Â.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
 
Scofield said:
Thanks, your proving all your links in Evolution are fake or false. :lol:

Yes, because all evolution stems from transitional fossils of humanoid species. :roll:
 
Scofield said:
Thanks, your proving all your links in Evolution are fake or false. :lol:

Mainly because science KNOWS that those ones are false(the the exception of lucy of course...) The only way a creationist can use human evolution as evidence agains tevolution, is to use the fossils that science no longer counts as valid in the sequence. They are not the only specimens you know.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html (I would suggest using the link, as it has happy visuals.

Hominid Species
The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a species name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity. Each species has a type specimen which was used to define it.


Sahelanthropus tchadensis
This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

Orrorin tugenensis
This species was named in July 2001 from fossils discovered in western Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). The fossils include fragmentary arm and thigh bones, lower jaws, and teeth and were discovered in deposits that are about 6 million years old. The limb bones are about 1.5 times larger than those of Lucy, and suggest that it was about the size of a female chimpanzee. Its finders have claimed that Orrorin was a human ancestor adapted to both bipedality and tree climbing, and that the australopithecines are an extinct offshoot. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, other scientists have been skeptical of these claims so far (Aiello and Collard 2001)

Ardipithecus ramidus
This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with ramidus is not as firm as the other fossils.


Australopithecus anamensis
This species was named in August 1995 (Leakey et al. 1995). The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.


Australopithecus afarensis
A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey 1994)). Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism. Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.


Kenyanthropus platyops
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.

Australopithecus africanus
A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.


Australopithecus garhi
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)
Australopithecus afarensis and africanus, and the other species above, are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in paleoanthropology is used as an antonym to "robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans.


Australopithecus aethiopicus
A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a few other minor specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at 410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei (Leakey and Lewin 1992). (A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles attach.)


Australopithecus robustus
A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more robust skull and teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw. Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse, tough food that needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530 cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging tools.


Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)
A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size is very similar to robustus, about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the same species.

Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built. They have never been serious candidates for being direct human ancestors. Many authorities now classify them in the genus Paranthropus.



Homo habilis
H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.

Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.

Homo georgicus
This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)

Homo erectus
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo ergaster
Some scientists classify some African erectus specimens as belonging to a separate species, Homo ergaster, which differs from the Asian H. erectus fossils in some details of the skull (e.g. the brow ridges differ in shape, and erectus would have a larger brain size). Under this scheme, H. ergaster would include fossils such as the Turkana boy and ER 3733.

Homo antecessor
Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed European hominids. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and browridges are much more primitive. Many scientists are doubtful about the validity of antecessor, partly because its definition is based on a juvenile specimen, and feel it may belong to another species. (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Kunzig 1997, Carbonell et al. 1995)

Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.


Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)
Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)


Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)

Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
 
1850 "Neanderthal Man"
Turns out to be Homo-Sapien (human) with calcium accumulation, lack of iodine, and a vitamin D deficiency due to the harsh inland environment.

Funny, how even the children have "calcium accumulation" (i.e. more robust skeletons). They also have much larger muscle insertions, showing that they were much more robust and powerful than modern humans. Contrary to the assertions of vitamin D and iodine deficiencies, the skeletons are much sturdier than those of anatomically modern humans. And now that DNA shows them to be very different from modern humans, it seems highly unlikely that they could be of our own species.

1912 "Piltdown Man"
This one sparked over 500 doctoral dissertations before it was revealed as a deliberate hoax in 1950. It was a stained ape's jaw attached to a human skull. But for 40 years it was the leading evidence for evolution!

No. And the "500 doctoral dissertations" seems to be made up out of nowhere. It wasn't even considered the best evidence for human evolution, much less evolution in general. It was sort of an embarassment, since it seemed contrary to the other evidence, which showed postcranial evolution preceded the evolution of modern skulls.

1925 "Nebraska Man"
Someone found a tooth. From that tooth they imagined a jaw. From the jaw they conjured up a skull. The skull led to fantasies about a skeleton. Flesh was superimposed onto the skeleton to make an ape-man (male and female!). It was this tooth that Darrow used to discredit Bryan at the Scopes trial. Only one problem...besides the lack of any resemblance to scientific processes... the tooth was actually from an extinct pig! Nice try though.

Actually, it never got farther than a newspaper article. Before anyone actually wrote it up in the literature, a paleontologist specializing in mammals was consulted, and he determined it to be the tooth of a javelina (not a pig) that happened to be worn so as to resemble a primate tooth. End of story.

1940's "Peking Man"
A bunch of bashed-in monkey skulls led to this discovery. Ape-men? Not with tools! Nope, the humans ate the brains much like some do to this day! How many strikes is that now?

It's hard to say if the writer thinks that "Peking man" was a monkey, or if he just thinks being found near monkey skulls disqualifies it as a hominid.

Either way, he's full of prunes. Incidentally, it was associated with evidence of fire.

1980's "Java Man"
Formerly one of the "5 facts of Evolution", Java Man started off as a collection of unrelated bones (some human, some unknown). The human parts were thrown out, as they obviously did not belong there (millions of years too early of course). Well, Java "Man" turned out to be Java "giant gibbon". It's not even a surprise any more is it?

Actually, it's not close to a gibbon. But it's one of the weirder stories about an eccentric scientist and dishonesty among some creationists. Read it in detail here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Notice that even the creationists at "Answers in Genesis" now regard your argument among those that "creationists should not use."

What about "Lucy"?

The latest find in the quest to substantiate this theory is Australopithecus. While it goes without saying that evolutionists are already 100% sure that this is "it", what does the evidence show? First of all, many other African animals have been found among the remains of "Lucy"...but no apes.

Keep in mind that all hominids are apes. A. afarensis, like us, was an ape.

Why? Perhaps it is because this is just another extinct animal previously undiscovered and mistaken for some sort of half man/ half ape. It is also interesting to note that human tools have been found under those remains, and under those tools... HUMANS!

Nope. You've been snockered on that one. There are no H. sapiens found below the level where Lucy was found. A checkable citation for your claim would, of course, save you. But you won't find one.
 
You guys still haven't proven your point. Evolution is called a theory because it can not be proven... :robot:
 
By the way, heliocentric theory is also a theory. The layman and scientific definitions of the word "theory" are very different. I suggest you get them straight.
 
Scofield said:
You guys still haven't proven your point. Evolution is called a theory because it can not be proven... :robot:

Obviously you don't know the scientific definition of theory.

By the way, the thing Sir. Newton came up with when he witnessed an apple fall is called the theory of gravity. Please don't tell me you don't believe in gravity.
 
Scofield said:
You guys still haven't proven your point. Evolution is called a theory because it can not be proven... :robot:
The Theory of Continental Drift, Theory of Special Relativety, General Theory of Relativity. These are all 'Theories' but they have been proven time and time again, just like the Theory of Evolution.
 
Science never proves anything. Science is inductive, going from evidence to a conclusion.

However, since macroevolution has been directly observed, it's at least as certain as continental drift. Like continental drift, it can be observed, but the major effects are far too slow to observe in a lifetime, or even several lifetimes.
 
Contrary to the assertions of vitamin D and iodine deficiencies, the skeletons are much sturdier than those of anatomically modern humans. And now that DNA shows them to be very different from modern humans, it seems highly unlikely that they could be of our own species.

Hey Barb, interesting comments. I'm curious if you know the specific differences (of course, only major) regarding the DNA found in neandertals and modern humans? This is a very intriguing subject and one that really has yet to be given a definitive answer by creationists (those who believe God created).

Keep in mind that all hominids are apes. A. afarensis, like us, was an ape.

Now I know that it is important to understand words for their scientific meanings when discussing evolution... but c'mon, you know what he was talking about ;) .

There are no H. sapiens found below the level where Lucy was found.

The correct response would be "There are no H. sapiens that have been found below the level where Lucy was found." Although I agree with your opinion that there won't be any found, it is important that we remember to be as accurate as we would wish for others to be. It is impossible to prove a non-existence.

The Theory of Continental Drift, Theory of Special Relativety, General Theory of Relativity.

Although highly regarded, you do know that the GToR has been throuroughly rebutted?

Science never proves anything.

Amen. Proof occurs on an individual level and is a subjective assignment to a otherwise meaningless item. Sometimes the subjective judgment is made correctly, and sometimes it is made incorrectly.

However, since macroevolution has been directly observed...

And this is where we get into the question of species and classification validity/authority. Perhaps we should start a topic about that in another thread?

BL


[/i]
 
Hmm, special relativity should've been a better example.
 
Barnbarian observes:
Contrary to the assertions of vitamin D and iodine deficiencies, the skeletons are much sturdier than those of anatomically modern humans. And now that DNA shows them to be very different from modern humans, it seems highly unlikely that they could be of our own species.

Hey Barb, interesting comments. I'm curious if you know the specific differences (of course, only major) regarding the DNA found in neandertals and modern humans? This is a very intriguing subject and one that really has yet to be given a definitive answer by creationists (those who believe God created).

Take a look here:
http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html

It's more than the degree of difference; it's where the differences are. Note that the degree of difference is almost identical for all modern human populations. This definitely puts Neandertals in an outgroup. There is one tiny opening left for those who think Neandertals are our own species; it has not be conclusively shown that anatomically modern humans living at the same time as Neandertals, had DNA closer to ours. It's unlikely, but possible that we evolved that much in the past 20,000 years or so. The fact that modern populations are so similar indicates that's probably not the case.

Barbarian observes:
Keep in mind that all hominids are apes. A. afarensis, like us, was an ape.

[quote:76c9e]Now I know that it is important to understand words for their scientific meanings when discussing evolution... but c'mon, you know what he was talking about .

It's important to understand. But it's also factually wrong. Apes have been found in strata older and younger than those in which Lucy was found.

Quote:
There are no H. sapiens found below the level where Lucy was found.

The correct response would be "There are no H. sapiens that have been found below the level where Lucy was found." Although I agree with your opinion that there won't be any found, it is important that we remember to be as accurate as we would wish for others to be. It is impossible to prove a non-existence.

It's why I said "no H. sapiens found below the level". I agree with you on that one.

Quote:
The Theory of Continental Drift, Theory of Special Relativety, General Theory of Relativity.

Although highly regarded, you do know that the GToR has been throuroughly rebutted?

I wasn't aware of that. I know of two times when it was tested;
Once during a solar eclipse, when the prediction that mass warps space was tested, and during the Apollo missions, when the prediction that velocity slows down time was tested. Each time, the prediction was confirmed.

Barbarian observes:
Science never proves anything.

Amen. Proof occurs on an individual level and is a subjective assignment to a otherwise meaningless item. Sometimes the subjective judgment is made correctly, and sometimes it is made incorrectly.

Logical certainty can be had only in systems where we get to define the rules, like math. Science isn't like that.

Barbarian observes:
However, since macroevolution has been directly observed...

And this is where we get into the question of species and classification validity/authority. Perhaps we should start a topic about that in another thread?
[/quote:76c9e]

Sounds good to me.
 
"The researchers are confident with their results, but they caution that they are derived from only one individual. They also warn that DNA may be difficult to extract from other specimens. "
-From the link provided

And I think the above statement shows a danger that requires some caution on our part. While I understand the criticality of the DNA differences in congruence with human/chimp differences and in relation to the differences of human/neandertal, I wonder how the DNA was different in neandertals. Unfortunately, it is not answered in this reference.

BTW, do you know if other DNA tests have ever been done on neandertal remains?


It's why I said "no H. sapiens found below the level". I agree with you on that one.

Oh, sorry about that! I thought you were making an unequivocal statement that H. sapiens are not found beyond that point. My bad :)

I wasn't aware of that. I know of two times when it was tested;

The theory of variant speed of light by Joäo Magueijo has basically rebutted the well-known theory. It has been furthered by John Webb, an astronomer at the University of New South Wales and has appeared in Physical Review D.

BL
 
Blue-Lightning said:
I wasn't aware of that. I know of two times when it was tested;

The theory of variant speed of light by Joäo Magueijo has basically rebutted the well-known theory. It has been furthered by John Webb, an astronomer at the University of New South Wales and has appeared in Physical Review D.

BL
I hope you realize that Joäo's variant theory requires the universe to be a lot smaller than a golf ball.
Either way GToR does allow for certain instances of c+ speeds in very odd cases.
It's special relativity that doesn't.

The speed of light cannot change and leave a universe that can have life existing in it, or matter even. It must remain at that constant rate.
Physics rocks
*Begins pelting lightning with rocks at 3/5c
How wide are the little rocks?
 
I hope you realize that Joäo's variant theory requires the universe to be a lot smaller than a golf ball.

I hope you know that you'll have to substantiate. :)

The speed of light cannot change and leave a universe that can have life existing in it, or matter even. It must remain at that constant rate.

See above comment. :)

BL
 
Back
Top