reply to post by SLAYER69
You bring up some interesting points. As far as the business of how each side treats the so-called "early man" forms, well, I have a theory on
I grew up going to public schools, and learned all the usual stuff, including the evolution of man. As a young adult, I was reading in a National
Geographic my dad had, looking at a really well done piece on that very topic. They had it all in there; nice color pictures, all the little details
on every form discovered, the works. While reading it, though, and looking at the pictures and charts, I noticed something. Most of the forms
seemed, well, simian. Totally simian. As in, monkeys and apes. Nothing human at all about any of them, from the stats. Only the last few, like
2-3, seemed at all human. In fact, other than being drawn with more body hair, they seemed totally human. Different relative sizes, maybe, but heck,
we have groups around NOW that are pretty different. Compare, just in Africa, someone of the Mandingo tribes with a Pygmy. Looking at old bones, you
might think those were not the same species at all. The Neanderthals? What makes them anything other than human? A different race, sure, but
non-human? There is clear evidence of interbreeding, and even clear evidence of genetic material from Neanderthals in "modern" humans. Meaning
viable offspring, meaning we are, or were, the same, save some minor characteristics. I don't think that generational changes within a species
indicate that there are bigger changes from one species to an entirely different one. A race wiped out, or mostly wiped out, isn't hard to imagine.
Competition for shelter, hunting grounds, and water supplies could have been enough incentive. Heck, looking different could have been enough.
From a Biblical standpoint, we are told that people were scattered, shorty after the flood, because of their disobedience at Babel. We know that
regional differences can cause, over time, some changes in people, so there is no reason to think this could not have happened then as well.
Scattered far and wide, with variations as a result of climate, diet, etc., and you could get some different-looking people. Coming from something
like a monkey, though? Doesn't even make sense scientifically.
Besides, I have personally seen a human footprint in the same layer of rock as some verified dino prints. Not the Paluxy River ones, either. Little
place, not well known for that print, but I have seen it. A few mammals in the layer, too. The owners don't even state that's what it is. They
simply show it, and ask what people think. It's more shallow than the dino ones, of course, since most of theirs are from larger ones, but it's
human. Not much different in size from my own foot; just a little smaller. I know how this sounds, and I would have a hard time believing it if I
hadn't been there, but it's real.