To people who think we didn't evolve-how do you explain...

[-themask-]

The vast number of other hominid species that have been found?

Such as:

Australopithecus
Ardipithecus ramidus
Homo erectus
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis

etc etc

Like come on, we lived along side neanderthals. What more evidence could you possibly want? Clearly we were not made individually by some god(s) and extremely distinct from all other animals.

If you think one day god just went *poof* and there we were how do you explain this set of facts? How do you explain us living side by side neanderthals? They were EXTREMELY similar to us.

If you want to read more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Here's a neanderthal skeleton vs human:










I just can't contemplate how people can know these facts and still not accept that SOME sort of evolution has occured, and reject the notion that we arose spontaneously, instantly, and distinctly from other animals.

[BetterBehaved]

Obviously planted by the devil. Anyone who knows anything knows that God created Adam and Eve... not these silly homo erectus neaderthal things.

[georgiadsm]

how do you explain that we evolved?

[-themask-]

Obviously planted by the devil. Anyone who knows anything knows that God created Adam and Eve... not these silly homo erectus neaderthal things.

It's frightening to think that some people actually think like this. I'm sure a lot of other people think scientists "faked" all these fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

There have been more than 100 of such fossils found, guys open your eyes, there isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists and intellectuals to try to fake this.

[-themask-]

how do you explain that we evolved?

Natural and sexual selection.

It doesn't matter how I think we evolved. The problem I've posed is that IF you think a god or gods made us unique and spontaneously, separate from other animals, how do you explain all these facts?

It CLEARLY shows your biblical stories to be complete BS.

[BetterBehaved]

how do you explain that we evolved?

[georgiadsm]

The pics you posted show humans. You may call them neanderthals but theyre very similar to humans. Human skeletons arent all the same. I want to know how you explain monkeys to humans. (srs)

[-themask-]

The pics you posted show humans. You may call them neanderthals but theyre very similar to humans. Human skeletons arent all the same. I want to know how you explain monkeys to humans. (srs)

They're completely different species. Neanderthals didn't have the capacity that we do for language, they had massive occipital lobes-but extremely small frontal lobes. Meaning they probably saw much better and had much better hand-eye coordination than us, but were quite a bit dumber.

And that's only one of which I posted, check out pics of the others, some are quite a bit different.

Here's what Homo habilis probably looked like:







Homo erectus:




And quite a bit back:

Ardipithecus ramadis:



Homo ergaster:




I could go on and on.

[-themask-]

Cmon creationists, how do you reconcile these facts?

[Muscle Mania Matt]

The pics you posted show humans. You may call them neanderthals but theyre very similar to humans. Human skeletons arent all the same. I want to know how you explain monkeys to humans. (srs)

you must be retarded or something. go get a book. there are lots of them. I would recommend "The Ancestors Tale", tracking every monkey, ape (including us, because we are apes) back to our common ancestors.

[Barbarian440]

Cmon creationists, how do you reconcile these facts?

God planted the skeletons as puzzles for us to solve.

[stubhub]

1) neanderthals had the ability to talk, the cartilage found in our throats has been found in neanderthals.
2) Their flint work has been shown to prove that they were actually intellectually superior to us, some of the techniques that they used cannot be duplicated today.
3) although they had smaller brains then us, it appears that they possibly used a larger portion of their brain, therefore actually making them smarter than us.

I'm sorry for lack of sources, this was all covered in my World History and Anthropology classes, in which i did not buy the textbook.

[Tamandua]

1) neanderthals had the ability to talk, the cartilage found in our throats has been found in neanderthals.
2) Their flint work has been shown to prove that they were actually intellectually superior to us, some of the techniques that they used cannot be duplicated today.
3) although they had smaller brains then us, it appears that they possibly used a larger portion of their brain, therefore actually making them smarter than us.

I'm sorry for lack of sources, this was all covered in my World History and Anthropology classes, in which i did not buy the textbook.

I heard something like this too in discovery channel, also about they co-existing with homo sapiens. Interesting stuff.

[Dertygen]

Not wholly relevant but... funny to throw into this topic.

A new study by paleontologists from the University of California, Berkeley and the Museum of the Rockies suggests that a sizeable chunk of dinosaur species that have been identified as unique may just be fossils of the same dinosaur during different stages of life.

http://paleontology.suite101.com/art...rs_and_fossils

[GeorgeCarlinJr]

No chance any religious person is going to touch this topic. BRB FINGERS IN EARS EYES CLOSED LALALALALLALALALALALAL

[stubhub]

I'm religious, I'm a creationist. I think sometimes, we forget we've gotten much taller than we used to be, how much taller, i don't know, average size of a person was 5'5" in medieval times. Maybe we've just continued to grow, I've never heard this side explored, possibly because people think it's completely irrational to think that we were that small at one point.

This is strawman, I understand that, I have very little evidence to back it up. I do want to see the original Time Magazine article on Lucy and some of these other things. i have been told that Lucy was created from very few bones and that this was published in the original article (please no flame, i've looked for it, and haven't found it.)

I also understand how illogical it may seem, but i did find something very interesting in my biology book that i would like an answer on.

"The five-kingdom system of classification suggests that fungi, plants and animals share the same ancestor, presumably an extinct protists, known only from the fossil record." Inquiry into Life Sylvia S. Mader

This is something that really bugs me, unless I'm completely misinterpreting this, by this logic, which is accepted I believe, that means we evolved from the same ancestor plants did. That means one protist (the book says the originals were protists originally) pretty much stopped through natural selection and absorbed energy naturally from the sun. Another protists ate the other protist that became a plant for food,.
In my mind, if this is true, why didn't both protists remain motile and absorb energy from the sun, or grow roots because there were no predators and just absorb energy from the sun? Why does one get planted and eaten while the other is motile and is a predator? (serious, i really want to know how this is justified, because i try to have an open mind, but this does not make sense to me)

[jackal337]

The pics you posted show humans. You may call them neanderthals but theyre very similar to humans. Human skeletons arent all the same. I want to know how you explain monkeys to humans. (srs)

You are 23 years old so presumably you have at least a high school education. How can you possibly be this ignorant?

[GrokTheCube]

I ant to know how they explain human 2 vs chimp 2p 2q, the share retroviral DNA, identical sex chromosomes (let alone the ****tic ones), and gametes with compatible chemical markers (human sperm can penetrate chimp ovum and vice versa).

Never seen anything. Probably because there isn't.

[IAMRED]

All of the information used in this topic to discredit creationism is predicated upon empiricism. Reject that, and the entire line of argumentation is undercut.

[Tiffany Wantsmore]

The pics you posted show humans. You may call them neanderthals but theyre very similar to humans. Human skeletons arent all the same. I want to know how you explain monkeys to humans. (srs)

Neanderthals were human, that's the point ... just a different type of human.

[TheCurator]

I'm religious, I'm a creationist. I think sometimes, we forget we've gotten much taller than we used to be, how much taller, i don't know, average size of a person was 5'5" in medieval times. Maybe we've just continued to grow, I've never heard this side explored, possibly because people think it's completely irrational to think that we were that small at one point.

This is strawman, I understand that, I have very little evidence to back it up. I do want to see the original Time Magazine article on Lucy and some of these other things. i have been told that Lucy was created from very few bones and that this was published in the original article (please no flame, i've looked for it, and haven't found it.)

I also understand how illogical it may seem, but i did find something very interesting in my biology book that i would like an answer on.

"The five-kingdom system of classification suggests that fungi, plants and animals share the same ancestor, presumably an extinct protists, known only from the fossil record." Inquiry into Life Sylvia S. Mader

This is something that really bugs me, unless I'm completely misinterpreting this, by this logic, which is accepted I believe, that means we evolved from the same ancestor plants did. That means one protist (the book says the originals were protists originally) pretty much stopped through natural selection and absorbed energy naturally from the sun. Another protists ate the other protist that became a plant for food,.
In my mind, if this is true, why didn't both protists remain motile and absorb energy from the sun, or grow roots because there were no predators and just absorb energy from the sun? Why does one get planted and eaten while the other is motile and is a predator? (serious, i really want to know how this is justified, because i try to have an open mind, but this does not make sense to me)

Because they occupy 2 different niches... neither form is 'superior' to other, they both found seperate methods of obtaining the same end goal of survival and reproduction.
The organism that becomes a predator no longer has to compete with the photosynthetic organisms for sunlight, because it has found an alternative way to obtain energy.

[Mr Beer]

I think sometimes, we forget we've gotten much taller than we used to be, how much taller, i don't know, average size of a person was 5'5" in medieval times. Maybe we've just continued to grow, I've never heard this side explored, possibly because people think it's completely irrational to think that we were that small at one point.

No evolutionist is uncomfortable with the well known fact that people used to be smaller in stature than we are. A lot of the difference is simply nutritional. Back in the day rich people were taller than poor ones because they could eat an adequate diet with plenty of protein. The fact that people continue to get taller can be also be explained by selection preference by women for taller men, another well known cultural phenemenon.

[Scoundrel]

They're completely different species. Neanderthals didn't have the capacity that we do for language, they had massive occipital lobes-but extremely small frontal lobes. Meaning they probably saw much better and had much better hand-eye coordination than us, but were quite a bit dumber.

im kinda confused. how do we know they didnt have the capacity for language?

[Weightaholic]

Dude, you are totally ignorant of how evolution works.

Let me put it in simple terms for you: if we didn't actually see it happening, it didn't happen!!! However, if you have a book written thousands of years ago that tells us how we came to be, complete with magic, and demons, and flying ponies, you're golden.

[IceDragon]

im kinda confused. how do we know they didnt have the capacity for language?

Their larynxes aren't as developed as ours were within the same time period so if they did have speech, it would have been quite guttural - think ape-like and enhance it a little.

The thing is, all we have to go on is the fossil record and DNA sequencing, so it's still a possibility they DID speak but not a probability. We don't know everything, but the advanced utilisation of tools and equipment points to a precise and functional language base.

[natethelegend]

You really wish that God was not real, but he is real. And he has the power to make anything he wishes to make. One more thing, just because two things look alike, doesn't mean they're related.

[Large_Emu]

You really wish that God was not real, but he is real. And he has the power to make anything he wishes to make. One more thing, just because two things look alike, doesn't mean they're related.

Have you had an education in any type of science?

By the way The Pope and most bishops believe in evolution.

[basement iron]

You really wish that God was not real, but he is real. And he has the power to make anything he wishes to make. One more thing, just because two things look alike, doesn't mean they're related.

Yeah that's totally what biologists are doing....they're matching up hominids based solely on how they look concluding that they are related.


lol Unbelievable. The **** I read here never ceases to amaze me.

[Likestolift]

All of the information used in this topic to discredit creationism is predicated upon empiricism. Reject that, and the entire line of argumentation is undercut.

/thread?

But really this argument has been countered by creationist long ago....Creationists maintain that the differences found in the fossil material between Neandertals and modern humans are the result of geography, not evolution. Evolutionists must create species, whether they are legitimate or not, in an attempt to show the stages or steps that they believe we passed through in our evolution from lower primates. Hence, most evolutionists today place the Neandertals in a species separate from modern humans. Some evolutionists believe that the Neandertals evolved into (some) modern humans. Others believe that the Neandertals were a failed evolutionary experiment that did not quite make it to full humanity and became extinct. In either case, most evolutionists do not believe that the Neandertals themselves were fully human, at least in a behavioral sense. The fossil evidence suggests otherwise. The full range of genetic and behavioral variation within the human family encompasses the Neandertals.

The only “tool” by which to determine species relationships is fertility. Obviously, with fossil individuals, this determination is impossible. Although most paleoanthropologists also believe that there was at least some degree of cross-fertilization between Neandertals and modern humans.

tldr they are not a different species = no evolution. All that we could reasonably expect from the fossil and archaeological records supports the full humanity of the Neandertals, our ancestors.

[TheCurator]

/thread?

But really this argument has been countered by creationist long ago....Creationists maintain that the differences found in the fossil material between Neandertals and modern humans are the result of geography, not evolution. Evolutionists must create species, whether they are legitimate or not, in an attempt to show the stages or steps that they believe we passed through in our evolution from lower primates. Hence, most evolutionists today place the Neandertals in a species separate from modern humans. Some evolutionists believe that the Neandertals evolved into (some) modern humans. Others believe that the Neandertals were a failed evolutionary experiment that did not quite make it to full humanity and became extinct. In either case, most evolutionists do not believe that the Neandertals themselves were fully human, at least in a behavioral sense. The fossil evidence suggests otherwise. The full range of genetic and behavioral variation within the human family encompasses the Neandertals.

The only “tool” by which to determine species relationships is fertility. Obviously, with fossil individuals, this determination is impossible. Although most paleoanthropologists also believe that there was at least some degree of cross-fertilization between Neandertals and modern humans.

tldr they are not a different species = no evolution. All that we could reasonably expect from the fossil and archaeological records supports the full humanity of the Neandertals, our ancestors.

We have sequenced the mitochondrial and genomic DNA of H. neanderthalensis, they shared an immediate (or relatively immediate) common ancestor with H. sapiens, but have no direct lineage. They are two different species and they are not our ancestors.