Humans vs. Apes

Originally posted by Equinox99
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.

I agree.I have heard good arguments on all sides,esp.on the subject of consciousness.You cannot make a hard theory without all of the facts.I think constant study is still needed,and we may never find out the truth.The only thing we know is that we are here,and it is amazing what we can do and how all of the different parts of our existence(material and metaphysical)work together.

ERVs do not prove that evolution is true
www.youtube.com...

refuting ERVs endogenous retroviruses part 1
www.youtube.com...

refuting ERVs endogenous retroviruses part 2
www.youtube.com...


Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes, including humans, that got into their genome long before any of the apes of today or humans existed. Probably so far back that it was when they were all still more like monkeys, the so called "Old World" monkeys.

Well there is evidence disproving this and undermining it. The Retroviruses have been found in Chimpanzees, Old world monkeys, and African apes that are not found in Humans or Asian Apes

I would ask someone who believes that Apes and Humans share a common ancestor to name that ancestor and explain what it looked like.....

There is no evidence anywhere that one species comes out of another species. Viruses can be uncannily aquired independantly and arive in the same places of the genome depending on the virus. Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes.

You don't have viruses, plants, bugs, weasels, rats, monkeys, and apes n your DNA.

DNA is condensed forces and a manifestation of the I Ching and YHVH in the material plane.

www.sciencedaily.com...

If the virus invades a nonreproductive cell, infection may spread, but viral DNA will die with the host. A retrovirus is called endogenous when it invades the germline and gets passed on to offspring. Because endogenous retroviruses can alter gene function and genome structure, they can influence the evolution of their host species. Over 8% of our genome is made of these infectious remnants—infections that scientists believe occurred before Old World and New World monkeys diverged (25–35 million years ago).

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys—but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage

Viruses in Chimps and Gorrillas not in Humans
holysmoke.org...


More context

while gorilla and chimpanzee were infected by a single, though unknown, source.

Yet humans didn't diverge until after gorillas and chimps




Plus finding ones similar in chimps and mice, but not humans really screws things up

J Virol. 1999 Apr;73(4):3301-8. Links
ERV-L elements: a family of endogenous retrovirus-like elements active throughout the evolution of mammals.
Bénit L, Lallemand JB, Casella JF, Philippe H, Heidmann T.
Unité des Rétrovirus Endogènes et Eléments Rétroïdes des Eucaryotes Supérieurs, CNRS UMR 1573, Institut Gustave Roussy, 94805 Villejuif, France.

We have previously identified in the human genome a family of 200 endogenous retrovirus-like elements, the HERV-L elements, disclosing similarities with the foamy retroviruses and which might be the evolutionary intermediate between classical intracellular retrotransposons and infectious retroviruses. Southern blot analysis of a large series of mammalian genomic DNAs shows that HERV-L-related elements-so-called ERV-L-are present among all placental mammals, suggesting that ERV-L elements were already present at least 70 million years ago. Most species exhibit a low copy number of ERV-L elements (from 10 to 30), while simians (not prosimians) and mice (not rats) have been subjected to bursts resulting in increases in the number of copies up to 200. The burst of copy number in primates can be dated to shortly after the prosimian and simian branchpoint, 45 to 65 million years ago, whereas murine species have been subjected to two much more recent bursts (less than 10 million years ago), occurring after the Mus/Rattus split. We have amplified and sequenced 360-bp ERV-L internal fragments of the highly conserved pol gene from a series of 22 mammalian species. These sequences exhibit high percentages of identity (57 to 99%) with the murine fully coding MuERV-L element. Phylogenetic analyses allowed the establishment of a plausible evolutionary scheme for ERV-L elements, which accounts for the high level of sequence conservation and the widespread dispersion among mammals.

biology.plosjournals.org.../journal.pbio.0020234&ct=1
www.genetics.org...

The presence of a retrotransposon at a single locus in multiple taxa remains an extremely powerful phylogenetic marker, but caution is required before concluding that the existence of a particular SINE at a particular locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry.

the claim that humans share 99 or 98 percent of their genes with humans is wrong-
www.newscientist.com...

Many people have long believed humans and chimps share 99 of the same DNA, this however has been proven as false and fake. In just the last few years many completely unique sequences in both species have been found
www.sciencemag.org... esourcetype=HWCIT

also
www.arn.org...



[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

Right, let’s have a look at this creationist guff.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Some people would like you to believe that your great, great, great, great, grandfather was a monkey.

Who, I’m not, no other “evolutionist” will. Man didn’t come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

This is certainly not true and is disproven over and over.

Yea, because everyone knows that’s not what happened, this is an example of misrepresentation.

Some people and organizations obviously have too much at stake to ever admit the truth, ever.

Again, no one is saying this.

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

If you mean ‘primordial soup’ then you are right, that’s been ruled out for a long time. Have a look However, there are some who might suggest that great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather came from dirt. 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.

Uh huh. I’m surprised how much you don’t understand natural selection. “So natural selection is wrong” Your deduction and logic is very questionable.

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.

These strawman arguments are getting very old.

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

What article is this? I couldn’t find this source.

Nakedness

And this means what?

Bipedalism

Again, it happens. What’s your problem?

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.

Hmm, gaining new traits. Sounds like evolution.

Fat

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

Childbirth

Dramatic increase in cranium size is a prominent theme in human evolution, making childbirth difficult and dangerous.

Hmm, a once small headed organism now having trouble squeezing out a bigger head? Sound’s like vestigial evolution.

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.

Why are you quoting this stuff?

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.

You realise that our digestive systems are designed for vegetables. And anthropologists say that our earliest human ancestors in Africa started fishing, propelling brain development as supported in your quote.

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.

Tears flow from tear glands into your eyes through tiny tear ducts. The tear glands are located under your upper lids, and when stimulated, produce tears to form a thin film over your eyeballs. Every time you blink the film spreads over your eyes to keep them moist and free of dust and other irritants.

Emotional Tears--Extra tears that the tear glands produce in response to an emotional reaction.

[Source]

Since normal tears have a very good function and emotional tears are an emotional thing, they’re not exactly in the realm of evolutionary scientists, but rather neuro-psychologists. You might aswell ask why do we laugh? I’m thinking it’s just another communicative action.

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

Oh yes, because a religious apologetics website is going to be scientific.

by Giuseppe Sermonti

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.

I’m assuming that by “Ape” he means modern ape, in which case “ape-like” is not the same as actually being a modern ape. Since man and modern apes are both apes, of course it’s going to be “ape-like”. The skull cap was that of the Homo erectus.

It continued with the Piltdown skull in 1912, which was a combination of an ape’s lower jaw with a modern human skull-cap

Which was exposed in 1953. Way to be current.

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.

Well peking man was another Homo erectus of the pekinensis subspecies. I’m having trouble finding any documentation of this being a hoax. I’d like to see this claim backed up with some kind of evidence.

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.

Yes, well a hoax isn’t going to break down an entire theory when it’s not even disputed by the scientific community, and not a spread of evidence exists to point to the contrary.



[edit on 9/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

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

Well lets look at what wiki documents on this.

The fossil record seems to indicate that Australopithecus is the common ancestor of the distinct group of hominids, now called Paranthropus (the "robust australopithecines"), and most likely the genus Homo which includes modern humans.

So who exactly is saying that it’s a human ancestor? Also the role that brain size isn’t exactly as simple as you put it. Tool use and language in tandem spurred on brain development. Fatty acids of the marine supported this development. It’s not suggested that there is a slow gradual uniform increase in brain sizes through the family tree, so if a species doesn’t use tools, then don’t expect a large brain.

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).

Right, and… Do you not think that evolution would account for change over successive generations?

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.

It’s called scientific refinement. When you are wrong on some detail, fix it.

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.

No, good work. It is (or was) a sister species of homo erectus, which is our ancestor. There is no missing link.

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.

People are animals, tool.

1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Ape skulls are also elongated and warped and not perfectly shaped like a humans.

? Perfectly? What basis does that statement have?

Neanderthal skull clearly shows the oval shaped skull of an ape


Clearly shows the eye brow ridges of an ape-

Your morphology is terrible, just terrible.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
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.”

THERE IS NO MISSING LINK!

The theory of evolution is incapable of finding the link to prove how everything could evolve from nothing,

Not evolution.

how life could evolve from non-life,

Again, not evolution

or how one kind of creature could evolve into a completely different kind when it lacks the genetic coding to do so.

Firstly, I don’t know the scientific term “Kind”, if you don’t define this creationist term, you will forever shift the goal posts. Also “genetic coding to do so”. What the hell are you talking about? You don’t have a clue how this stuff works to you.

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

Scholars often refer to the "missing link". There has not been enough fossil evidence to positively link Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens.

Says you. The scientific community begs to differ.

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.

Who believes that? Anthropology has mapped out mans migration quite well, and no one suggests we appeared in three places at once.

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.

Yes, the Homo sapian sapian sub species, a production of natural selection.

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...

Cromagnon man was man.
Wiki:

Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʀomaɲɔ̃]) is one of the main types of Homo sapiens of the European Upper Paleolithic.

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

This is absolutely laughable, firstly you can’t substantiate that. Secondly man is ape, how many times do you need to hear that.

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

Agriculture was brought on in several places around the same time, because of global climate change. The Egyptian people came together after the Sahara dried up. Elsewise, the “little ice age” set in, and encouraged agriculture again.

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

You can’t see it for what it is, if you don’t understand it.

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.

I’d like to see you back that up!

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?

Cro Magon and modern man are the same species.

They're animals not people-

PEOPLE ARE 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.

You simply don’t have a clue.


[edit on 9/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Hollywood11
...(other mammals that sweat do it less profusely than us, ...) ...

Never seen a horse worked into a lather, I take it?

Genetics prove that human beings like us today have existed for exactly 200,000 years.

Cro Magnon ape fossils are only maybe 10,000 to 20,000 years old or so, so of course humans couldn't have evolved out of cro magnon apes since humans are older than cro-magnons.

And again, there is no evidence showing that humans "evolved" out of homo erectus. Sorry, you're great, great, great, great grandfather wasn't a homo erectus ape either. Neither was he a cro magnon nor a "lucy" australopithicus.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Hollywood11]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Right, let’s have a look at this creationist guff.

Who, I’m not, no other “evolutionist” will. Man didn’t come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

This is certainly not true and is disproven over and over.

Yea, because everyone knows that’s not what happened, this is an example of misrepresentation.

Except you are contradicting yourself.

Let's see.....now if you share a common ancestor with monkeys, what's that ancestor going to be? Well maybe a MONKEY or some monkey like animal creature!

Uh huh. I’m surprised how much you don’t understand natural selection. “So natural selection is wrong” Your deduction and logic is very questionable.

Natural selection is wrong as an explanation of how one animal species could change so dramatically to the point of having it's genes completely re-arranged, neither does it provide a genetic mechanism to allow for that kind of change.

Originally posted by Hollywood11

Uh huh. I’m surprised how much you don’t understand natural selection. “So natural selection is wrong” Your deduction and logic is very questionable.

Natural selection is wrong as an explanation of how one animal species could change so dramatically to the point of having it's genes completely re-arranged, neither does it provide a genetic mechanism to allow for that kind of change.

"to the point of having it's genes completely re-arranged"

That's not what evolution does. Mutations don't rearrange the genome, but makes a slight change to the code. To have genes completely rearranged is not permissible by evolution.

"neither does it provide a genetic mechanism to allow for that kind of change."

When applied to mutation, it does. Remember, macro and micro evolution are the same thing - natural selection, just on a different time scale. For instance, species 000001 is almost exactly the same as it's descendant species 000002. But it's going to be completely different to descendant species 634539. The cumulative change over such time frames does make one "kind" of animal into a completely different "kind" of animal.

Now, while the skull of homo erectus may have been different to modern man, in the time frame that has been, such a change is easily the result of evolution. The skulls aren't even that different, morphologically. Considering that they are related, they are actually very similar, I mean there are some species that vary far more yet can still reproduce over such variance (dogs).

The evidence of our descent from homo erectus is the morphology. As the subsequent changes in morphology in the descendant species of erectus is very apparent, and it's no use simply claiming to the contrary.

Now, I thought this was interesting.

Genetics prove that human beings like us today have existed for exactly 200,000 years.

Firstly, DNA isn't recoverable from that long ago (with some rare exceptions). At best we have only been able to recover DNA samples from Neanderthals 70,000 and that was outstanding exception.

Secondly, Cro Magnon man was the same thing as modern man genetically, so to date us back to 200,000 years significantly unchanged is exactly what we'd expect. Cro magnon man was simply man before civilisation and written language, a.k.a. hunter-gatherers, a.k.a. cave men.

Thirdly, I find it amusing that a creationist claims man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years contradicting the magic 6500 number.

Sorry, you're great, great, great, great grandfather wasn't a homo erectus ape either

Fond of misrepresentation, aren't we.

Neither was he a cro magnon nor a "lucy" australopithicus.

Putting aside this cro magnon silliness for a moment, I've already said that no one is saying we came from Australopithecus. They are to homo eretus what we are to neanderthals, a cousin species.

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Hollywood11


You said "We are the only mammal that expels salt when we sweat."
That's not true. Horses expell a LOT of salt in their sweat, and we have to keep salt blocks out at all times for them. Try scratching a sweaty horse sometime with a cut on your hand!! LOL

reply to post by Hollywood11


The genes are not completely rearranged. The genetic difference between different species can be absolutely minute, about 1% or so, possibly even less. Please, LEARN ABOUT GENETICS before you start spouting more of these incorrect assertions that even a cursory biology education would answer. It's making ATS look bad. Not to mention you.

Good job Good Wolf, I am impressed.

The OP has clearly found the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. I personally subscribe to this idea of the notion of not evolving on an African plain, because it's simply common sense.

Humans are very much adapted for water, and not life on the open, sun-baked plains. I don't know why it's hard for someone to accept, it seems self evident to me.

Great video btw, I do like the way that life was not unlikely, impossible or anything like that, it was inevitable.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

Originally posted by Good Wolf

"to the point of having it's genes completely re-arranged"

That's not what evolution does. Mutations don't rearrange the genome, but makes a slight change to the code. To have genes completely rearranged is not permissible by evolution.

Without such a mechanism evolution is impossible.

"neither does it provide a genetic mechanism to allow for that kind of change."

When applied to mutation, it does. Remember, macro and micro evolution are the same thing - natural selection, just on a different time scale. For instance, species 000001 is almost exactly the same as it's descendant species 000002. But it's going to be completely different to descendant species 634539. The cumulative change over such time frames does make one "kind" of animal into a completely different "kind" of animal.

This type of argument is basically just "making the goalposts so wide as to not be able to miss". It's like saying developing AIDS resistance can make a bacteria evolve into a man. It's like saying "hey, over a billion years anything is possible."

Now, while the skull of homo erectus may have been different to modern man, in the time frame that has been, such a change is easily the result of evolution. The skulls aren't even that different, morphologically. Considering that they are related, they are actually very similar, I mean there are some species that vary far more yet can still reproduce over such variance (dogs).

They are completely different when it comes to symmetry, balance, and perfection. As this thread demonstrates, a warped oval skull and ape brow ridges indicates homo erectus didn't possess a third eye chakra like human beings do. It has nothing to do with man and is simply an ape just like all the other apes. Just because you think it is more similar to man than other apes doesn't mean it's related to man.

The evidence of our descent from homo erectus is the morphology. As the subsequent changes in morphology in the descendant species of erectus is very apparent, and it's no use simply claiming to the contrary.

Nonsense, just because some Homo Erectuses look slightly more like humans than some other older Homo Erectuses doesn't mean humans came from homo erectus. It is very clear that Homo Erectus is an ape/animal and that humans are not. Homo Erectus still posseses the main criteria of what constitutes an ape(no thrid eye, oval skull, ape brow ridges, etc), the features may be less pronounced than some other apes, but it still has ape characteristics. Humans on the other hand have no brow ridges and no oval skull at all.....not less than other apes, but NONE at all. And they have a third eye chakra at the forehead where apes have ape brows.

Firstly, DNA isn't recoverable from that long ago (with some rare exceptions). At best we have only been able to recover DNA samples from Neanderthals 70,000 and that was outstanding exception.

No, mitochondrial DNA from people alive today is all that is needed, We don't need 70,000 year old remains to know this.

Secondly, Cro Magnon man was the same thing as modern man genetically, so to date us back to 200,000 years significantly unchanged is exactly what we'd expect. Cro magnon man was simply man before civilisation and written language, a.k.a. hunter-gatherers, a.k.a. cave men.

Oh yeah, same things totally, this is just like human beings.......yeah right

Thirdly, I find it amusing that a creationist claims man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years contradicting the magic 6500 number.

Who's a creationist? Obviously the earth is billions of years old and evolution is possible and happens. It's just scientists can't understand how it happens and also human beings never evolved from animals. Man is original, he was just modeled off of ape men slightly which existed before humans.

Putting aside this cro magnon silliness for a moment, I've already said that no one is saying we came from Australopithecus. They are to homo eretus what we are to neanderthals, a cousin species.

Humans aren't cousins of neandethals in the strictest sense, we are unrelated.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by Hollywood11]

That's it? All you do is say no it's wrong. No theory? No explanation of how?
Chakras? Perfection? Humans aren't animals?

You're living in a fantasy world buddy. You're views are more religious than scientific and I they would never stand in peer review.

The existence of Chakras is scientifically proven and published in medical journals-
spectrum.diabetesjournals.org...

Electromagnetic frequency measurements recorded at each chakra vary in oscillations from 100 to 1,600 cycles per second (each chakra functions within a certain frequency range) in a physically, mentally, and spiritually healthy person.10 In an extremely ill person, there may be little oscillation detected at one or more of the chakra sites. The third chakra should hold the most interest for people with diabetes because it includes the area in which the pancreas is found.

None of the previous apes you claim are related to humans had a clear open third eye area, they all had ape brow ridges, only humans have a clear smooth open theird eye cavity without brow ridges interfering with it's fundtioning.

OH MY GOD

This is pseudo-science. You need to do better than that.

reply to post by Hollywood11


You are spouting pure, unabashed horse-squeeze at this juncture. You have left the pages of science and are now flying round the universe on some demented magic carpet, whizzing past facts and making stuff up as you go along.

Now I understand why your grasp of evolution is so limited - you can't distinguish between facts and opinion, instead choosing to believe whatever you want, regardless of merit.

In defense of the the OP...................................


Wait.

There is no defense.

Hey I don't think we will ever know the full story of how we came to be. I DO know that we have evolved enough to be able determin that we weren't created six thousand years ago by an old guy int he sky who was bored.

But hey, whatever theory floats your boat - I gotta repect the fact that at least you believe in whatever it is you beleive in and try damn hard to prove it, so kudos to you.

There was nothing psuedo about the data i linked to or the medical journal it was published in.